None of the Eurocanards are anywhere near obsolete- EF with AMSAR AESA & later TVC(?) and will only lose their edge to the Su-35 when they shoe-horn an AESArray onto the ‘Irbis’- it’s not all about kW, you know!!

Whose is the AL-31FM-3, Salyut’s? bench tests already- are you sure?
I never heard of the all-composite wing either, considering the fatigue headaches encountered by the S-37’s wings- I’d doubt it very much.

My 2 Yen: (operational today)

#1 LM F-22 Raptor (Not Even The Same Planet!!)
#2 Su-30MKI/MKM
#3 EF Typhoon
#4 Boeing F-18E/F Super Hornet
#5 LM F-16E/F blk 60

I have serious doubt on AESA radar for small nose fighters. forget increase thrust & TVC for EF. It will increase the cost. Su-35 has over 11 tons of internal fuel. so generous use of Afterburner fo first shot ability.
S-37 was built in different time. Now sukhoi is implementing composites for Pak-fa and civillian projects.

Despite the fact that the Russian economy is growing, money for their military is still limited. They can’t afford to upgrade all of their aircraft and to afford too many new designs.

I havent seen problem with money. it is the trained workers along with supply chain of parts which is slowing down the implemenation.

Current strike aircraft like the Su-24 & Su-25 are upgraded to bridge the time until enough Su-34 will be available.

MIG-29SMT upgrade will be much more efficient than Su-24/Su-25 combined. Su-24 does not reach capabiility of Su-27SM let alone 5th generation theatre bomber like Su-34. Su-34 has alot more range than any flanker. But it is faster to upgrade Su-24 as workers are trained along with pilots than building Su-34 untill now.

The fighter fleet is upgraded to a limited degree especially Su-27 being upgraded to Su-27SM and the MiG-31 being upgraded to the MiG-31BM standard. MiG-29SMT upgrade effort has been canceled as far as I know. Basically the RuAF plans to replace its MiG-29 and Su-27 fleet with the PAK FA, but as it will take quite some time until enough aircraft of this type are introduced, the RuAF plans to acquire some new built Su-27SM2 (customised version of the Su-35 tailored to the RuAF’s needs).

Putting 200KM BVR missile on MIG-31 is not limited upgrade. & certiainly Su-27SM which is new engines, FBW, double payload of Flanker along with all the avionics.. these are deep modernizations. Much more than any 4th generation fighter undertaken in West.

Only 6 Su-30s were built (excluding export variants & pre-production aircraft) all being the baseline models with air defence capabilities only. The upgrade program to bring them on the Su-30KN standard with multi-role capabilities, together with some Su-27UB was rejected in preference of the Su-27SM upgrade.

Su-27SM single seat flanker is lighter& less draggier so much better solutuion.

In total 15 Su-27M (old Su-35) were built. There were 6 prototypes and pre-production aircraft each and 3 production aircraft. 5 of them were evaluated by the 237th Regiment in Akthubinsk and finally handed over to the Russian Knights in 2003. The remaining airworthy airframes are used by Knaapo for testing purposes for example the pre-production examples no. 708 & 710 were used to test the FCS and engines of the new Su-35 aka Su-35BM. Sukhoi sealed any further development and marketing efforts of the Su-27M in 2003 and its export designation Su-35 become available again and is now used for Knaapo’s last ultimativ Flanker derivate (T-10BM).

If Sukhoi built so many prototypes so why insist that MIG use only one aircraft for all testing.

[QUOTE=Fedaykin;1231991]

I hate lists, I really do. Its all very petty

A total package that India isn’t going to buy…..look guys there is little chance that Viper or Super Hornet are going to win on this one. The P8 was one thing, whatever India India was going to buy was going to require logistical change (except the IL38 bid but that didn’t have a chance) that the Indian armed forces were happy to take on. I would agree the the Mig has got a reduced chance but more to do with the IAF trying to avoid a single supplier issue but frankly the American offerings however much sales noise they make have little chance. The IAF has never shown much interest in the F16 and the F/A18 Super Hornet it just not suitable for the MMRCA role (too big). Both types offer to much of a logistic burden and America is not going to offer the kind of technology transfer that India wants. If they did offer the technology transfer India wants alot of current US customers would cry foul of the unfairness of the situation.

Now I don’t preclude the idea but I highly doubt it so lets just stick to that.

Let see if this MIG-29 upgrade works out on time. they have separate contract for engine license. Can u imagine a country wants separate engine license for old aircraft upgrades.

http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2008/03/13/222185/india-inks-deal-to-upgrade-mig-29s.html
Only six MiG-29s will be upgraded in Russia, with the remainder to be retrofitted in India. This, according to a source close to the Indian defence ministry, will ensure that there are no delays in the programme
Thales is, meanwhile, waiting to conclude a major deal to upgrade the Indian air force’s Dassault Mirage 2000 fighters in collaboration with local industry, says chief executive Denis Ranque.

Bottom line is India expects customization, technology transfer in almost every contracts. Thales canot even conclude M2K upgrade let alone any thing to do Rafale. It will take generational effort to fit Rafale for IAF. I am not sure any one will do it on fixed price. Basically the whole aircraft has to be recertified with new systems. M-88 is too underpowerd.

As you say this is a pre-production aircraft. This MiG-29K compares very closly to the current Su-35 which is often called flying prototype, but is in fact a pre-production aircraft. The same can not be said for the current MiG-35 which is just a testbed for the avionics intended to equip a final MiG-35. A real prototype reassembling the configuration unveilled by RAC MiG on MAKS is under construction right now and should be first flown by late 2008/early 2009, of course only if no delays occur.

why it cannot be said about MIG-35? otherwise it wont be MIG-35.

You are comparing apples with oranges. See my statement above. You seem not to understand that there is ever a first time. I assume the Zhuk-MAE was for the first time installed onboard the MiG-35 as the radar itself wasn’t ready before. Back in 2005 Phazatron presented its Zhuk-A radar though only a mock-up. For sure they had built a working prototype, but it is known that this prototype was way to heavy to fit into the MiG-29. Therefore they had to stick with another solution to test an AESA radar onboard the MiG-29. Zhuk-MAE was the logical choice retaining most of the Zhuk-MEs components and just replacing the mechanical antenna with an AESA. This was also a cheap and low risk solution. The Zhuk-MAEs purpose was mainly to demonstrate that the AESA antenna works in the MiG-29 environment, especially cooling etc. Phazatron will now develope a final Zhuk-A/AE which will be lighter than the first prototype originally built, but heavier than the Zhuk-MAE due a larger antenna… It remains to see when and on which aircraft this final Zhuk-AE will be tested.

And in 2005 what IRBIS mockup than? They are builing 12 AESA radar sets for 2008 (According to Pibu)so i doubt it is one aircraft testing. Most likely on all MIG-29K/MIG-29SMT.

Just because an aircraft is presented on an airshow for marketing purposes, doesn’t mean it was built for such a presentation only. Common were is your so called logic?

Than it will be called MIG-29OVT experimental. No final name.

As mentioned 1000 times before the aircraft is supposed to be a first prototype though it only acts as a testbed for the final MiG-35s avionics which will be the most important difference over the MiG-29K. Previously it was planned to designate the MiG-29M-OVT as MiG-35 and use it as first prototype, but this has been abonedoned as TVC is not a definitive feature of the MiG-35, but an option available.

Again more supposition.
This what Pibu wrote in early 2007. And there is Flight International article from same period. Do u think 12 radar sets are for single aircraft? and why would they manufacture 12 radar sets if future radar is different? because they want to offer to exisitng users.

For 2008, manufacturing of an initial batch of 12 Zhuk-AE radars is scheduled. The so-called “first stage” Zhuk-AE radar (also designated FGA29) shown in Bangalore is a modernised version of the mechanically scanned Zhuk-ME radar fitted with a new AESA antenna. It retains the existing computing system with data processor, signal processor and software, as well as the clock generator.
The Zhuk-AE/FGA29 radar can be produced by retrofitting the present Zhuk-ME radar. Phazotron will probably offer such an option for Zhuk-ME users such as Yemen, Eritrea, Algeria and India

Its not totally off topic re weapons in Afghanistan, If the Typhoon is deployed there they are the threats it has to face, its not beyond impossible that one could slip through and cause an incident that cast the Typhoon in a bad light… and that could only help manufacturers of other competing aircraft!!.

Blimey I sound like a conspiracy nut..;-)

u mean this one. It has more to do with force protection but it is diffuclt in case of mountains overlooking airbase as they can see from the top where aircrafts are parked.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2005/10/16/nafg16.xml&sSheet=/news/2005/10/16/ixhome.html
An RAF Harrier was destroyed and another has been damaged in a rocket attack in Afghanistan, it emerged yesterday.

I prefer EF compared to slow moving Harriers/A-10/Apache

1. EF has more range so it can practically support the troops at far greater ranges from a single airbase instead of spreading aircraft on multiple airbases.
2. It acceleartes faster so respond on demand it is quicker. No need to loiter all the time.
3. quick vertical climb during take off allow it to escape most of fire around airbase.
4. Simply put alot of rockets like 100 to 200 . and it should be enough for CAS role.
It can still fail in its role if down the road more sophisticated SAM or AA guns are introduced.

That’s what you interpreted form my post. What I mean is that any radar is designed with specific performance characteristics in mind. These are often published before the radar is actually built and has demonstrated these performance. A perfect example for this is the N-011 of the Su-27M which was claimed to be able to track 15 & attack 6 targets simultaneously. This was the aim, but the radar never achieved this specification. Independent of if the Zhuk now achieves this specification or not, I wouldn’t bet on its capabilities being (fully) demonstrated before these brochure data were published.

15 track/6 engage is not a big deal considering MIG-31 radar of late 70s achieved 10/4. Russians radar were falling in SAR & multifunctional modes not on air to air. and Su-27M was multifunctional fighter. There is big difference between full achievement of capaibilities and achive MTBO/Weight balance. Russian had problem with later.

For sure not, but it would be well in the known that ESA has existed before. That is not the case for the MiG-35. It might be that Zhuk-MAE was tested before in another MiG-29, but until now no source suggests that. What I want to try to make you understand is that the MiG-35 might be the first MiG-29 derivate ever equipped with an AESA and I assume that as no source shows the opposite. That’s not definitive but a reasonable guess.

I have clearly indicated that Russian dont bring fully functional fighter unless it is tested on another platform. They clearly said exprimental with OVT but not with MIG-35. so no second guessing.

It is not important what exact word they use, maybe avionics testbed or simply demonstrator is better suited. The fact remains that this aircraft a used for testing/demonstration purposes only.

& Su-35 at MAK-2007 was for what purpose?

BTW I rediscover/remembered a Phazatron document on my HD from Aero India 2007. Don’t know were to find it on the internet, but a link was posted somewhere in this forum.
An interesting title for one of the topics of the Zhuk-AE is:

There is booklet Phazatron right on this form. But no such claims. If u read between the lines.

You have, because you rely as much on these open sources for information about these aircraft as me.

I rely more on logic not just open source information.

The following quote from you just shows that you “interpret” and “assume” a lot of things:
“It means there must be one in some experimental form otherwise MIG would have claimed that it is First Russia aircraft with AESA but the cleary said that it is for international audience.” <— Clearly an intepretation/assumption not more nor less

It is not interpretation but explaination of what MIG cleary wrote on there website since u always assume otherwise.

That is true and somewhat contradicing as well. So do you really believe RAC MiG can afford such a comprehensive testing in the very same way as Sukhoi or not?

It is not contridicting Flanker AESA will either raise the price of aircraft or it is high performance radar not intended for export for now. u should know MIG sold about 145 Kopyo to IAF in 90s which is basically Zhuk-M and same phazotron radars are in ka-31 i think and MIG own Phazotron. so developing a new radar is not a big deal.

You shouldn’t interprete to much of your own in what I say…

U clearly said that Russian established Radar parameters based on Ground Tests with no verification whats so ever.

Then please just post the contense if possible maybe google translated before.

while i cannot find direct article of MIG-35 but this will give u clue about ZHUK-M3 for MIG-29K from 2004 and how things are done at MIG. There is version of OSA already on MIG-29UBT. So tommorrow if they show a MIG-29K with BARS it does not mean MIG-29K becomes the first MIG with electronic scanning antenna radar.

http://www.vpk-news.ru
On MRCA are used the engines “Klimov” RD -33M with the thrust on 8800 kg. On the ship aircraft it is intended to establish the same, but with the additional regime of extraordinary thrust (9300 kg) and the improved smokeless combustion chamber. If in the future India decides to stock up an additional quantity of MiGs, in particular, for equipping the light aircraft carriers Air Defense Ships, then, possibly, on them will find a use the new engines of “Klimov” with the thrust of 10-11 tons, equipped with the system of the thrust vector control (UVT). At present are conducted the tests of experimental MiG-2ШVT with the slanted nozzles. However, the use of new, not passed a sufficient checking in the flight tests of the solutions on the ship aircraft can lead to an increase in the technical risks and cause additional complexities in the operation with the flights from the deck of ship.

The policy OF RSK “MiG” along the maximum unification MRCA and “korabelki” applies to BREO with the reservation, that in the carrier-based aircraft will be other systems of communications, landing approach and the like in the different time above the complex of avionics MiG-29K they had time to work “electroautomatic”, “Russian avionics” and Ramenskoye PKB. Nikitin drew a line to the use of developments RPKB, but now in firm new leader. Is not excluded the possibility of the sequential “castling” of the firm- integrators of complexes BREO. Is possible the version of direct interaction RSK “MiG” with the French companies during the construction of the board of Indian aircraft.

To India was proposed only MiG-29K with BRLS “beetle -M3” of development JOINT STOCK COMPANY “corporation” synchro-cyclotron -NIIR “. It is development base N -010 with the use of a contemporary element base and the improved characteristics for the range of detection of purposes and permission with the survey of the earth’s surface. In this case “the beetle -M3” preserves the slot array (SHCHAR) with the mechanical scanning of ray. BRLS ensures detection and tracking to 10 aerial targets simultaneous firing with rockets “air-to-air” 2-4 of them, and also work in the regime of the survey of the earth’s surface. In its characteristics “beetle -M3” it is close to BRLS Captor of the newest European destroyer Eurofighter Typhoon.

On the promising versions MiG-29 is provided for the use BRLS with the phased antenna arrays (HEADLIGHTS) with the electronic scanning of ray. BRLS “wasp” of development NIIP im. V.V.Tikhomirova already fitted on MiG-29UBT. In the opinion of one of the high ranking managers OF RSK “MiG”, the “wasp” can find a use on the two-place versions of MiGs. More powerful N -011M “panther” on MiG-29 thus far did not place. This promising radar goes only to the multipurpose destroyers of Indian VVS Su-30MKI.

That usually says that the technologies in the experimental aircraft are still not fully developed and usually need more time before ending as a final product on an operational airframe.

they didnot use word experimental for MIG-35.

Well it is true that they say it was the first time such an aircraft has been presented to the international public. Nonetheless it tells pretty much nothing about if it is the first aircraft at all or not. I know no other russian fighter fitted with an AESA before the MiG-35. That doesn’t mean there don’t exist one, but it also don’t mean there must be one. As long as no official information are available we can only make assumptions. I see no need to further discuss this as neither you can prove there was another AESA before tested on another MiG-29 or flying testbed in general, nor my can directly prove the opposite. From the information available however the MiG-35 is recognised as the first russian fighter with an AESA installed onboard.

It means there must be one in some experimental form otherwise MIG would have claimed that it is First Russia aircraft with AESA but the cleary said that it is for international audience.

I can’t believe it, do we really come to a conclusion now where we both can agree? That’s actually what I was telling you all over the time. Maybe we were just talking at cross-purposes all the time…?

Its good that u come to that conclusion.

Basically yes. In the end we both rely on similar sources and due the lack of many details we are both limited to intepretations and assumptions for the areas were no specific details are known.

I haven not interpreted anything.

I basically agree though the difference between Zhuk-ME and Zhuk-A is more significant than between Bars and Irbis. I also agree on not all single steps of testing programms and technological achievments being disclosed to the public and that if such things are disclosed they are often (but not ever) recent.
I don’t exactly recall when I read about the Su-30MK2 acting as Irbis testbed for the first time, but it was mentioned that tests aboard this aircraft began in early 2007.
But to come back to what I’m refering to, my point is that the Zhuk-MAE is very much a demonstrator, an interim device before Zhuk-A is ready and suitable for the MiG-29 airframe. What you said sounded like “Zhuk-MAE is a complete radar ready for installation onboard operational aircraft”. I basically would say it could even be done but the benefits would be limited in comparison to what can be achieved with the Zhuk-A.

Just compare the resources of Sukhoi and MIG and come to conclusion which one will be the first with Russian AESA. Just to certifiy IRKUT plant for Airbus parts they spent $200M. They have another one NAPO for Su-34. Another one KNAPO spending $2B on regiional jet. There is huge gap in financial strength. so there would be more radar sets inside sukhoi.

Well ground tests have defintely conducted prior installation onboard the aircraft, that is a fact! What I meant with that is that ground tests are another way testing technologies. Nitpicking on the word possibilities doesn’t change that fact.

trying to find actual capabilities with Ground Tests. what next no need of flying.

Just prove it with a source which confirms that all the specifications published has defintely been demonstrated. Don’t dance around with your arguments just quote a source please.

There is big write up at http://www.vpk.ru. but u cant search archive. There goal is double the range of 130KM with 60 track.

Small confusion what radars do you exactly refer to now?

One is experimental aircraft and other is not. What does it say about stage of completion?

That should me say what?

MIG is not claiming that MIG-35 is first aircraft with AESA but saying first Aircraft with AESA presented to International Audience.

Oh so the MiG-35 model presented on MAKS is just a misintepretation of mine, that Zhuk-MAE is not the radar to be installed aboard the final MiG-35 is a misinterpretation of mine…:rolleyes:

This MIG-35 model has same relationship with current MIG-35 as MIG-29K of 1980s to current MIG-29K. same name different aircraft. Constantly improving with time.

There can easily be different approaches for this or that area, that doesn’t mean they are completely different. Yet you still haven’t understand my point. So answer me a question please: On which aircraft has the N-035E Irbis-E been tested before the Su-30MK2 (no.503)?

Again ur own interpretation.? BARS & IRBIS has similar relationship lik ZHUK-ME & ZHUK-A. IRKUT is very proporus it is not without possiblity that they are not testing it. It is just not presented to International Audience yet. Exactly when u came to know about IRBIS flying on Su-30MK2? Information is always lagging for media.