uss noviceThe problem is that , the f-16 is a 9 tons machine with 3 tons of fuel, and the mig-29m (which probably the 35 will be based on) is a 11-12 tons machine with 5-6 tons of fuel, the F-18 is better than the F-16 on that, since is a 13-14 tons machine with -5-6 tons of internal fuel
CFT’s are not a “plus”, are a need for the new F-16, people when see CFT get impressed by all the marketing crap, but actually CFTs are patch solutions , and reveal shortcomings rather than real advantages
EXACTLY!! Btw, the block 60 is 10 tons empty (the blk 52 comes close to 9 tons). Once you get the CFTs on, their weight along with the fuel increases the weight + wingloading substantially giving you a fat viper.
The F-18 is better off in this sense as it carries a lot more fuel internally and so does the MiG-35.
USS.
uss noviceLWS is not such a big deal – at the ranges at which a Laser ranger would be tactically used, the F-16 is in deep sh*t anyways if it hasnt detected whats been going on. It might be of some issue versus the RBS-70, but I doubt the RBS-70 is going to be able to down a fighter on the deck, at 0.5-06 M.
There could be some use in mountainous terrain, where a/c cant zoom around. As far as geolocating goes, didn’t the Pastel L150 detect/locate emitters? If not the south african system does i think. If not something else could be fitted in. Thats an advantage of the fulcrum (customization) not a disadvantage i would think.
Coming to aerodynamics & the like – again, I am more interested in the strike capabilities , not A2A. It does not have to be the uber A2A combatant – thats the MKIs job. And with AESA, JMHCS/AIM-9X, AMRAAM & a decent EW suite with towed decoys, it should do fine versus whatever the PAF and PLAAF can field.
But thats the whole point. The f-16 is hardly such an uber striker. Its good but not in the class of an F-18, rafale imo. Not to mention the single engine drawback. As far as jamming the s-300. I am amazed that this tiny thing can jam the Big Bird! Perhaps with a growler type backing. And anyways those were old SU batteries, nothing suggests they could do it to the HQ 9 types or newer variants. IIRC, even the israelis (despite their vaunted EW systems) circumvented syrian sam network as far as possible (and those are old soviet era sams).
This is where the russkis are a bit ahead in offering longer ranged missiles. Where is the us version for a Klub or long ranged ARM?
Lastly, radar range – you have specs on this very forum from AWST, but if you wish for something from the horse’s mouth (assuming the journo actually did get it from the pilot):
Seriously? you are going to believe a manupubby report? 200km for a 3sqm target? Its BS and you know it. The Bars would struggle here. In general, moving up to AESA from older tech realises in a 50% range increase. That would give the falcon a range of about 150km for an 3-5msq target since the V9 does it at 100 odd km.
Quite sufficient for me, thanks very much and = to what the MiG-35 “claims” it will achieve “one day”.
Aye but at least the fulcrum can “one day” achieve all the super duper avionic, sensor fusion. The fat viper simply can’t lose all the extra weight its gained. Airframe performance does matter and thats why the russkis emphasize that you can convert an air superiority bird to a striker and not vice versa. Case in point is MKI or even typhoon.
BTW, the russkis are not exactly sitting on their behinds on this one. The surprises they brought forth @ AI 07 on the fulcrum were eye opening, everything from an AESA, MAWS, jammers etc. Expect more when the real bird flies.
Still I ‘d agree that the Shornet has an edge in such parameters. the viper though? dunno.
USS.
uss noviceOne unique feature that the Rafale brings to the A2A scenario is the ability to attack completely passive. IIRC, no other a/c in the world can currently do that.
A lightly loaded Rafale (4 odd micas) using just the OSF and Spectra can fire off two IIR Micas at decent BVR distance and just run away. Simply awesome. in combo with an AWACS or massive AESA radar (Su-30 type) this is seriously deadly.
The Rafale (like the Mirage 2000) might appear a little subdued, but can sure kick ass. Its biggest problem is a pathetic PR dept and the terrible deals it offers :eek:JMT
But is it purely brute air superiority? No. I leave that to the Super Flanker types. But combined with its amazing payload variety, the rafale is just what they say it is (for once no exaggeration in advertising), OMNIROLE.
USS.
uss noviceMy money is on Mig-35 because logistics will win the day over any small technological edge 🙂
Austin, I agree that the MiG-35 looks like a good, solid investment esp. in terms of costs. Is it the best at strike? No. A2A? probly not (EF-2000 may have the edge). NW capability? probly not. But it does offer an acceptable level of all these capabilities? Certainly, since its main opponents are going to be J-17, J-10 types.
In manouverability, the bird is the best without much doubt. Not that it is not competitive in the other arenas, my bet is that it will give all the eurocanards a run for their money in A2A for sure. Esp. in an Awacs backed scenario. In strike to it has certain advantages – the A2G IRST for example or the Klub missile.
I am not still not convinced about the over reliance on russia issue myself (since I am not particularly well versed about how TOT works and how much freedom it gives from OEM reliance), but it does make one wonder a bit.
However, Teer has a point, I think the mig has little chance (perhaps a dark horse) – with the congress govt back, count on the US birds to win. IOWs, you would lose your money. 😀
Teer,
You mentioned that the F-16 blk 60 has a superior defensive aid suite to the MiG-35. In what way? Can you elaborate. The newer systems on the 35 seem pretty up to the mark (EL-568 Active Jammer, LWS, MAWS, Tarang MkX). Last I checked, the viper does not have an LWS. The fulcrum otoh, seems to have a pretty decent 360 deg coverage via all these new gizmos. I’d like to see a towed decoy though, but only the tiffy is supposed to offer it – or does the shornet have one as well? Btw, i’d wager the fulcrum does have a2a datalinks (dunno the transfer rate) since the K is getting ’em. If you remember the Y.Gordon article via Pit:
The MiG-29K/KUB will feature a secure data link system enabling concerted action by a group of fighters. Due to the importance and complexity of the missions which the fighter will have to fulfil, the data link system will have set channels with a high data transmission rate making use of the latest type of interface – a new feature for a Russian aircraft.
The f-16 seems to suffer from some ancient problems that they simply have not rectified:
low internal fuel considering the increase in all up weight
poor wingloading
poor twr (what with CFTs)
little room for further upgrades
tiny nose cone – small radar aperture.
Naah, this viper would have to be the worst bird in the race. I’d prefer the Gripen NG.
USS.
uss noviceA $64,000 question indeed.:)
As for the flying per hour costs are concerned, Gripen IN puts it at <$3000/hr (though I personally was not sure if this included fuel costs???). We have also seen a (somewhat older) figure of $6000-7000/hr for F-16. I remember seeing a brochure (I think it was) for Gripen (probably Aero India 2007?) stating that the flying/hr costs for Gripen were 50% lower than its closest competitor (most likely), and if so these figures for Gripen and US sound about right…but then we could only extrapolate considering the difference in the total number of units Sweden & US operates. OTOH, Mig-35 flying/hr costs are meant to be approximately 2.5 times lower than earlier model Mig-29, and F-18 is meant to be around 40% cheaper than F-14, though I have no idea of the relevant costs of Mig-29 and F-14s (must be in tens of thousands of $). Having said I think there is only one thing relatively safe to assume here; flying per hour costs would be cheapest for the Gripen. Next in line would most likely be F-16 (single engine) and following that would probably (guestimating now) eurocanards and then Mig-35/F-18???
IIRC, there was an article in Flug Revue (2001?) that had the MiG-29SMT or M cpfh estimated @ $ 5500. Of course, these planes have never been in operational service so we can take that with a pinch of salt. Still it is an estimate.
USS.
uss noviceAs mentioned earlier, if the MiG-29 K’s MTOW is 24,500 kgs then it’s empty weight comes to 14.5 tons. This is equal to F-15C and decisively brings it in the medium class.
huh? isn’t the race all about “medium” class. And no, the empty weight of K is nowhere close to 14.5 tons. Just cause the MTOW increases and fuel capacity increases doesn’t mean empty weight increases proportionally. You should know considering how much you support the LCA.
Hint1: The original russian birds such as the mig-29 used v.little composites. The latest K uses 15% composites for a good reason. The fuel weight increased by “more than” 16% over the 9.31 (original K, 4500kg+) to around 5500 kg, if the empty weight also had increased decisively over the original K (14500kg vs. 12500kg),would the range have increased by a good 200km on internal fuel?. for current specs see migavia.ru
Check the link below , it gives mig’s earlier spec sheet on their website for the K (9.31) and also somewhat corroborates Scorpions figures above. Another difference is in the engines, the original specs were for rd-33 ser.3 engines, the new fulcrums will have the latest mk version with 500kgf more thrust.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/russia/mig-29k.htm
MTOW ~ 22400 (it is currently up to 24500).
max payload shows 4500kgs (it is now at least 5500kgs as per Y>Gordon).
So the additional 2 tons come mainly from fuel + weapons increase by 1 ton each over the 9.31. The empty should be same/close to original (12500kgs). The 35 being about 800kgs lighter should be less than 12tons empty.
This link given by you earlier now no longer works. I also recall referring to the very link long time back to argue how the F-15 Strike Eagle is much superior to the Su-30 MKI, in that despite weighing a “good” 3 tons lesser, it carried 3 tons more external payload. It is surprising that af.mil now says F-15 SE weighs 17 tons in empty.
dunno what you are talking about boss but the strike eagle was always a pretty heavy bird.
USS.
uss noviceIn my view, MiG-35 is of the weight class of F-15C and has nearly the same dimensions to a Su-30 MKI. But despite this, it does not have commensurate specs as these 2 fighters. It’s specs are inferior to the F-16 in some respects, like payload.
Yes of course,
MiG-29 (11000kg) = F-15 (14500kg) = Su-30MKI (18000kgs).
Dimensions: wingspan/length
MIG-29: 11.5/17m
F-15C: 13m/19m
Su-30MKI: 14/22m
Look like the same to you?
Thus, it is NOT a cost-effective option at all. Besides, given Russia’s past record of cheating on contracts, hiking prices, “arm-twisting”, etc. the IAF must not choose MiG-35 as the MRCA.
Yes, yes we know – bad russkies always twisting arms and munitions. Twisted people should drink less vodka and more chai.
USS.
uss noviceIf India does have to go American – I’d prefer the F/A-18 E/F. More upgrade potential for one & two engines versus one, for survivability. Its like choosing a SUV versus a hotrod in some ways, but risk mitigation is critical & I’d think the F/A-18 E/F will face lesser attrition in Indian conditions, especially with our bird strike hazards.
Yes indeed. If it has to american, it ought to be the Shornet. At least we hear of a further 6gen upgrade (whatever that means). The 12.5 ton engine upgrade sounds enticing. Plus, the bird is known for esoteric electronic gear and topnotch NCW capabilities.
The Viper is definitely the worst of the lot. It simply is going nowhere in the next 30 odd years. If it has to be single engined, the Gripen would be a better choice.
The twin engined eurocanards are great, rafale being my fave. but I see little chance for these birds (no political leverage).
The Fulcrum doesn’t stand much of a chance 🙁 but could provide a decent route for the IN.
About composites, arent’ they supposed to reduce weight by about 20% compared to traditional metals? So if 100kgs of metal is used lets say in the fin and h-stabilizer area, 80kgs of composites would do the job?
USS.
uss noviceHmmm paranoia meter go ‘ping’.
Gents stop for a second and think this one through. China, as Distiller so deftly notes, hasn’t got naval power projection out of their front yard yet.
They have no experience building, crewing or deploying a vessel capable of operating fixed wing aircraft. They have never so much as operated a vessel that can operational deploy a rotary-wing airgroup in squadron strength.
They need to learn everything from scratch, they need to make the natural mistakes everyone does when developing a new capability. They need to start rough and polish up their act in aviation ops, battlegroup ops, battlegroup logistics and so many other skill areas its tiring to even think it through all the way.
They are not going to be in a position to ‘take responsibility’ for ‘their side’ of the Pacific for best part of a generation. Know what else…….they know it!!!.
The ‘unamed Chinese officer’ was having a joke with his USN contact and, quite obviously, the USN Admiral saw the funny side and related the story!.
Sensible points as usual.
BUT – I expect some surprises from the Chinese. Rest assured, IF there is an objective they have in mind, they’ll push hard for it, recent history shows costs (human or otherwise) don’t exactly deter the dragon. I’d not be surprised if they field a carrier long before the Indian Navy gets the Gorky.
One thing is for sure, it clearly points out where they think india, australia or japan lie in the food chain. No threat at all.
Interesting also that the U.S admiral chose to share this funny – perhaps I am being a bit sensitive, but the crack seems loaded with implications. Not just in terms of the chinese threat, but also a reminder that the indians are still small fry in the great game. IOW, join up the 1000 ship navy or you could easily sink!
JMT.
USS.
uss noviceThe same government is coming to power and now without much support of left or small parties. That should mean speedy MRCA decision and procurement. 😎
Aah, at last a somewhat sensible post. Yes, scooty its time to celebrate – Shornet it is!
USS.
uss noviceWhat would you do to improve Eurocanards exports?
Ans: Make ’em cheaper 😀
USS.
uss novicehttp://forum.keypublishing.co.uk/showpost.php?p=1149301&postcount=214
Tmor Good find about the Joust sim. So, the tiffy was all configured with the meteor while the other birds were sort of stuck with R77, mica, amraam types. No wonder, that explains quite a bit.
And that was for the original su-35, somewhat comparable to a modern MKI, but to a lesser degree. What about a the newer Su-35 with newer missiiles such as the R-77 (izd-180)? I mean surely in 1996, Joust wasn’t simulating an Irbis or AESA equipped flanker type. Hell, the Bars NO11M was hardly developed to the current capacity in those days. What about an F-15S/K with AESA and Amraam D versions?
Interesting indeed.
FWIW, here is another twist to the MRCA/Rafale saga in india:
http://www.hindu.com/2009/05/15/stories/2009051560051000.htm
USS.
uss novicePlease note that the above factsheet is for F-15E Strike Eagle and NOT F-15C, which is older. F-15C weighs around 12.8-13 tons in empty.
Yes the above links points to 17000kgs for the Strike Eagle, and a little link beside it points to a 14500kg empty weight for the F-15C. Your estimate of 12-13 tons is off by a good 1.5 tons.
http://www.af.mil/factsheets/factsheet.asp?fsID=101.
Besides, if as you said above MiG-29 K has MTOW of 24,500 kgs then it’s empty weight is in fact greater than F-15C, as per the calculations done earlier (earlier we assumed MTOW of 22,500 kgs which equalized it’s weight to F-15C).
Based on the link above, your estimation is again off.
I agree with the above. In other threads, we have discussed how the Superhornet, Rafale and Typhhon would be redundant additions in the IAF vis-a-vis the Su-30 MKI. Thus, these 3 fighters would be totally useless additions in the IAF, if selected for the MRCA.
What about the Gripen or the F-16? Btw, the F-16IN (based on the block 60) is just about the same empty weight (or more) than the twin engined Rafale. Only the Rafale trumps it in every area.
In my view, the upcoming Tejas Mk.2 (empty weight : ~ 6,700 kgs, MTOW : ~ 14,000 kgs ) that shall be ready in 2014 would be the ideal MRCA.
I can’t see the need for the MRCA either, esp. with the MCA being given thought. If they need numbers desperately fast (which they don’t seem to be in much of a hurry). A couple of squadrons of MiG-29M (new builds) for about $ 1.5 billion would do it. Considering the commonality with existing fulcrums induction should be pretty quick.
USS.
uss noviceIndia is quoted in the 2nd paragraph (and Switzerland too) :
Oh well, thanks for the insight, I can be happy again :D:o
USS.
uss noviceThe above is likely to be inaccurate. It is known that the MTOW of MiG-29 K is 22,500 kgs.
Actually that is amongst the most confusing issues and is hardly “known” for e.g. the MTOW published by mig for the K is 24500kgs! Go figure.
Since fighters do not takeoff at MTOW with full internal fuel (they refuel mid-air to make it full; else they won’t be able to takeoff), and assuming full external payload of 5,500 kgs, then at 22,500 kgs the MiG-29 K shall weigh 22,500 – 5,500 = 17,000 kgs with only internal fuel.
I thought (could be wrong) that the MKI can take off with a full load @ 38000kgs. Further, iirc, under NTOW conditions, the MiG-29 flies with full internal fuel.
From this 17,000 kgs we cannot subtract the max. internal fuel of 5,500 kgs but only around 4,500 kgs. This gives the empty weight as 12,500 kgs, which is nearly equal to the F-15C’s weight of 12,700 kgs.
Again I don’t follow you here, but even so the 35, is at least 800kgs lighter, which would make it close to 11700kgs, the F-15C is approximately 14500kgs according to http://www.af.mil/factsheets/factsheet.asp?fsID=102
I agree your calculations are correct, but so are the above. Hence, we do not have a clear idea about the exact ToW and MTOW of MiG-29 K.
However, it can reasonably be said that the MiG-29 K is of the empty-weight class of F-15C and is NOT in the medium class. This brings it in the “heavy” category.
Incorrect as you would say, the F-15 weighs about 15000kg as per above cite.
There are too many holes in this comparison:
1) The MiG-29K is a carrier based bird, and suffers from heavier weight, less payload etc that is inherent to ship based fighters. The F-15C does not.
2) The F-15C is better compared to the MiG-35, which is certainly lighter at least by over 2-3 tons (even by your calculations). And in this comparison, the 35 does well enough for its size/weight.
3) If you feel the MiG-35 is too heavy to be in the MRCA race, then what about the Superhornet? It is clearly heavier
4) Also, your classification is a little dated imo because, the F-15 being offered to Korea, Singapore are strike eagle variants much heavier, arent they? 17000kg as per above cite.
Sens,
Just a single point for a second thougt. The “misclaimed” P. Butowski did made a paper claim about the intended 9-41 in 2006. The real thing was not even built and the prototype was none real 9-41 either. You are aware about that. Is that just a careless behavior from your side or do you try to cheat the less informed readers?!
Whats misclaimed? the article was written only about 6 months before the first flight. P. Butowski’s reporting is pretty decent imho. So where is the problem? Don’t try to throw dirt for the heck of it.
More importantly, it is pretty obvious that landbased fighter versions will be lighter than the carrier based ones. For ex. Rafale C (9500kg)/ Rafale M (10000kg). Or is this also my attempt to “mislead” readers?
USS.
Sign In
