Compare the two images

Some observations:

1) Does the nose cone for the 35 @ Aero India 09 look ridiculously small or what? I guess, the production variant of the Zhuk-AE on the final 35 would be closer to the cockpit and therefore distinctly bigger – more TRMs? Based on one particular visitor at AI09, the mig guys categorically stated that the radar could be moved further up to accomodate bigger antenna and range.

2) Is the crank in the 35 model posted by MM11 in another thread the same as the appearance of the crank in the naval fulcrum, thanks to the flaperons? or is it something different. One thing is for sure the production version of the K has lot bigger wing area than the 35 (old M airframe).

Or are my eyes just playing games?

USS.

With the increase in wing area, I wonder if there is an even greater increase in internal fuel. The MiG-29K/M carries about 5500kg internally? Can the 35 do more on fuel as well as payload? If they can keep the internal weight below 12000kg, it would seem possible.

A super fulcrum with 6000kg fuel internal capacity and 7000kg payload would be around 26 tons – in the realm of possibility. The thrust would still remain better than the original fulcrum with similar loads albeit marginally. Definitely multirole though.

Yup supercruise seems unlikely. Perhaps for an MLU with the VK (10 ton) engines?

USS.

otherwise they’d just stick an AESA on the ’29K, right?

I thought that was precisely the idea, what with the mig goons touting the K, M and 35 as a “unified family” with tremendous commonality. The only difference between the M and the 35 were supposed to be avionics related (ols, aesa etc); and the M/35 vs K was the extra carrier op related stuff, hook, strengthening etc.

Still the Maks 07 photo of the 35 with the cranked wing and 11 hps is intriguing. Eagerly look forward to May and then August.

USS.

Err, the figures on that image seem ridiculous. MTOW 29000kgs? :eek:empty weight ~ 11000kg 😮 If they achieved this, you are looking at payload (fuel + armament) of about 17000kgs! Unbelievable. incredible, impossible? Again, wing area was to be more iirc. Anyone notice payload increase to “upto 7000kgs”? This bird is coming along, if these specs are true, the MRCA bid could be in the bag.

Is this just uneducated media garbage or is the source worthwhile? Anybody find anything at Aero India to corroborate the same?

USS.

Though OT, you mention the engines here, is there anything “new” about the AL-31FP? Or what are you talking about here?

All I’ll say is that things are not what they seem. It is said that the airframe of the MKI “necessitated” extra power for the engines and that the older Ks simply could not be upgraded to MKI standards. Similar to what GeorgeJ used to say ages ago, dunno if he is still around.

Remember that, I think I have saved the contends of that website somewhere on my HD.Empty weights weren’t given if I recall right. The old MiG-29Ms empty weight was given with 11.5 t, that of the MiG-29K with 12.7 t. So ~12 t is not unrealistic for the MiG-35.

A report of Pibu puts the K’s weight at around 800kgs more than the 35’s. Btw, what makes you think the newer M/K/35 are heavier than the older ones? If anything they ought to be lighter thanks to the extra composite usage (15% iirc). Personally, I belive that the weight of the 35 may be around 11500, certainly no more than ~ 12 tons.

USS.

Ok, stupid question, but here it is: Why is the 35 so much hevier than the original Fulcrum? (And the F-16A/B vs Block 60 etc)? Surely it cant only be due to those conformal fuel cells, or?

I dunno if you misunderstood my previous post, but the 35 is hardly that much heavier than the original. 10.9 tons versus 11.5-12 tons empty is hardly much of an increase for a twin engined beast. Compare the Shornet for example. Or even the blk 60 vs the F-16 A. Empty, you will find the fulcrum has added the least weight.

MTOW, is another story – the fulcrum adds a solid 5.5-6 tons to the original 18 ton mtow. Why? because they were able to squeeze in 50% extra fuel (5500kg) and increase the payload by another 50% – 6500kg. A super job really. At the same time marginally increasing the TWR (20% more engine thrust) and wing area.

Imho, no other aircraft has had such an effective upgrade so far with the possible exception of the su-35.

USS.

They are as per comparisons from widely read internet sites like Army Technology, FAS.org, wikipedia, etc. You may run a comparison yourself.

I have done waay too much research on this and believe me your sources are ridiculously generic or old to have anything worthwhile. Fas.org! for heavens sake man. That section of the site has not been updated for eons. Just remember this (as per the ACM Krishnaswami the MKI flew with loads of up to 39000kg!) Empty weight ~ 18400 (including TVC). Now do the math. Also engines are not what is available on open source, phil camp/simon watson’s latest book on the MKI is a good read to pick up on this.

The above is inaccurate. 11,500 kg is F-18’s empty weight. MiG-35’s “clean” weight i.e. with internal fuel is 17,700 kgs (per wikipedia). Thus, empty weight must be of the order of 12,500-13,000 kgs. This is the empty weight of F-15 Eagle.

Boss, wrong again! And wikipedia! The 17ton figure is empty equipped (i.e. is with fuel). PUrely empty the mig-29A weighed at 10.9 tons with mtow of 18tons. The latest version is 30% heavier mtow. Again, do the math. MTOW of 35 comes to 23500-24000kg. Now deduct the 50% additional fuel (5500kg), now deduct the payload (6500kg). These were the same figures given for the MiG-29M (on which the 35 is based) during the austrian competition, remember that one anybody?

Despite this, it carries only excess of 6 tons on just 9 hardpoints — only 1 more than Tejas. We may assume 6.5 tons, as CommanderJB suggested. Yet, this is only 0.5 tons more than the single-engined Gripen.

Thus, MiG-35 is likely to be an inefficient, costly, addition to the IAF, besides being totally needless.

[/QUOTE]

Needless to say, your conclusions on both the flanker (MKI) and fulcrum (35) are wrong.

USS.