weasel1962
New Member
Re:
Deleted
Deleted
Last edited:
RMAF Future; need opinions
- Thread starter Ding
- Start date
Thanks rock45 for the info on the Mig29BM modification. I think its just a modification to give the Mig29 strike capability. Surely it will be close to the standard of SMT, but not better i believe. Mig29 M2 modification should be way better then the BM.
Anyways regarding the engines, if they were pulled out from the iraq batch, then thats not good, coz Iraq ones are known to be downrated engines IIRC.
I belive much good service can come of the Mig29N if its brought to the standard of te Mig29M2 standard without the dual pilot. They could start with the radar n engines first. Btw can Mig29 be mated with a western engine?
Reading too much into the Mig29's performance from the Iraq/balkan war is pointless. An F18/16 would not have fared better, considering the enemy it had to face in those environment.
Regarding the Shornets, i think its the Politicians who makes the decisions, not the Military.If the Military had its way, we would have had 2-3 squadrons of Su30mkm n 2 sqn of SHornets by now plus 3 AWACS as well.
Anyways, i'm still unsure if RMAF should go with the Shornet, considering we wont be getting all the goodies that comes with it. Considering its price, i dont think the Gov can afford to form even 1 full squadron of them. Buying more SU30mkm is the better way, considering the growth of the flanker series has still not ended yet. The developments of the SU35BM series will surely get into upgrade potentials for the Su30 series.
ALso i dont believe US will be selling the Global Hawk anytime soon.
Anyways regarding the engines, if they were pulled out from the iraq batch, then thats not good, coz Iraq ones are known to be downrated engines IIRC.
I belive much good service can come of the Mig29N if its brought to the standard of te Mig29M2 standard without the dual pilot. They could start with the radar n engines first. Btw can Mig29 be mated with a western engine?
Reading too much into the Mig29's performance from the Iraq/balkan war is pointless. An F18/16 would not have fared better, considering the enemy it had to face in those environment.
Regarding the Shornets, i think its the Politicians who makes the decisions, not the Military.If the Military had its way, we would have had 2-3 squadrons of Su30mkm n 2 sqn of SHornets by now plus 3 AWACS as well.
Anyways, i'm still unsure if RMAF should go with the Shornet, considering we wont be getting all the goodies that comes with it. Considering its price, i dont think the Gov can afford to form even 1 full squadron of them. Buying more SU30mkm is the better way, considering the growth of the flanker series has still not ended yet. The developments of the SU35BM series will surely get into upgrade potentials for the Su30 series.
ALso i dont believe US will be selling the Global Hawk anytime soon.
Western gear on Migs
On paper there seems to be a few options for the RMAF to work with there Mig-29N. New cockpit, modern radar, and slightly better engines and I agree that the RMAF and get another 7 to 10 years out of them. There's just enough Fulcrums to make it worth while another 4 to 6, would really make it better.
It might be more cost effective going with a second Flanker squadron but still can't info comparing Fulcrums vs Flankers maintenance wise. Bring the Fulcrums up to a higher standards so they may share some weapons or other sub systems with the Flankers maybe a route to go if the decision is to keep them. Money and the will is the key and since I read in one of these post's that Fulcrums pilots were pulled for Flankers, I think an answer has been found.
Wish I knew how Fulcrums compare to Flankers maintenance wise? I think some Indian posters maybe able to help since there country has both types, operational. http://www.defencetalk.com/forums/images/icons/icon12.gif
Wink
Radar's I assume yes teamed with missiles wiring/software, I can't remember but some Eastern Block country had Magic II missile on a Mig-21 or Mig-23, somebody would know. I'm sure it could be flipped the over way. Now engines is very different beast because of weight, balance, and air flow. I always wondered how two F-16/15 engines would do in a super Fulcrum? I think Russia designed the newer D-33 III/K or what ever there called to fit in older Fulcrums so I think there are better engines out right now. How much live flight testing has been done or cost I don't know. Looking at that Mig-29M test bed Fulcrum flying around as Mig-35 compared to an older version you can see an improvement for sure, smoke wise. Claims are made about more hours between overhaul and lower maintenance period.
On paper there seems to be a few options for the RMAF to work with there Mig-29N. New cockpit, modern radar, and slightly better engines and I agree that the RMAF and get another 7 to 10 years out of them. There's just enough Fulcrums to make it worth while another 4 to 6, would really make it better.
It might be more cost effective going with a second Flanker squadron but still can't info comparing Fulcrums vs Flankers maintenance wise. Bring the Fulcrums up to a higher standards so they may share some weapons or other sub systems with the Flankers maybe a route to go if the decision is to keep them. Money and the will is the key and since I read in one of these post's that Fulcrums pilots were pulled for Flankers, I think an answer has been found.
Wish I knew how Fulcrums compare to Flankers maintenance wise? I think some Indian posters maybe able to help since there country has both types, operational. http://www.defencetalk.com/forums/images/icons/icon12.gif
Wink
Last edited:
ARV is not capable to accomplish the task.
Well, time had changed. Our American buy is not as hard as it was.
Also, the M standard is a new build aircraft while the SMT is an upgrade package offered to older models for a M standard upgrade.
IMO, M model is not worth to buy as a new aircraft, 35 is the value buy if were to go for MiGs.
weasel1962
New Member
Re:
Deleted
Deleted
Last edited:
im seriously impressed with the way the belarusian airforce modified their fulcrums..definitely something new for me there and thanks for the article..will the ATSC bring our fulcrums to that level in the future?i sure hope so..id hate to see the fulcrums go into storage..
and by the way,has the purchase of the erieye AEWC system confirmed?i just read an article about the australian wedgetails and if they are cheaper then why not?
and by the way,has the purchase of the erieye AEWC system confirmed?i just read an article about the australian wedgetails and if they are cheaper then why not?
Last edited:
Mig-35
I don't think the Mig-35 is a real aircraft yet it's more vaporware then anything. The model shown around is a prototype Mig-29M some late model like 9.47 or something like that. Sadly there isn't a operational production line open nor any real buyers if Russia had a production model ready it would be in India being shown off. Mig choices are few either upgrade the N models basic level late 3rd generation or early 4th generation levels or sell them. I think the Hornet's and Flankers have a future and the Fulcrums as much I like them have less of a future.
I don't think the Mig-35 is a real aircraft yet it's more vaporware then anything. The model shown around is a prototype Mig-29M some late model like 9.47 or something like that. Sadly there isn't a operational production line open nor any real buyers if Russia had a production model ready it would be in India being shown off. Mig choices are few either upgrade the N models basic level late 3rd generation or early 4th generation levels or sell them. I think the Hornet's and Flankers have a future and the Fulcrums as much I like them have less of a future.
Well, RF-5 is super sonic, which is an important feature as a spy plane, thats recon. Such a low speed aircraft like the ARV will not be able to fulfill the requirement for recon mission. If the requirement is just for a long duration battlefield surveillance, an up sized ALUDRA has far more potential in terms of aerodynamic revise, endurance enhance, and logistic management.
Whats so "fake" about the MiG-35？Any aircraft has to go through the process from a prototype >> production model >> enter service. Su-30 was stuck in "production model" for few years, and now we are proud to have a sqd of these wonderful warbirds. Dont draw conclusion on the Russian with the old knowledge. Puytin is an extraordinar energetic man. He with his energy blazed the giant machine with a strong momentum. If only the Russian are crazy enough to field their AF with on Su-35 until the PAK-FA, or Yakovlev comes up with a huge miracle, MiG-35 will eventually enter service, although with a number i could not predict.
weasel1962
New Member
Re:
Deleted
Deleted
Last edited:
BTW, does the Mig29N able to share data with the SU30mkm? If it doesnt, upgrading the Mig29N to receive targetting data will also enhance its operability. It will reduce the risk on the flankers if it can receive targetting data from the flankers n take them out silently. I think RMAF should upgrade and make use of what it has, instead of just looking into future procurements.
Also 1 thing i'm soo curious is, why do every RMAF jetfighter types have different camouflage? The migs have green-grey, the hornets dark grey, n now the flankers light grey. Why cant they fix on to 1 type of cammo?
Also 1 thing i'm soo curious is, why do every RMAF jetfighter types have different camouflage? The migs have green-grey, the hornets dark grey, n now the flankers light grey. Why cant they fix on to 1 type of cammo?
Mig-29/35
Hi qwerty223
I've been following the Mig-29 for a number of years and have seen many offers of new upgraded models and versions for years. Fake isn't the word I would chose there not trying to fool anybody it's just that the Mig-35 that's being shown isn't a Mig-35. A fancy show off prototype that needs a major buyer for example like India to order it because it lacks funding directly by Russia. Once ordered then it basically begins then, the real final process of production. Remember the fancy missile warning devices, laser designator, and even the ASEA radar needs to be finished. If the ASEA radar was finished it would be in there Flanker models and rushed to India so fast it would break speed records. You may feel " Putin is an extraordinary energetic man" and he might be I don't know I don't live in Russia, but unless he's building these things I mention it's vaporware. Because if it was real and produced the Mig-35 would be in India trying to head off the Americans, French, English, and others now wouldn't? I stated before I'm a Fulcrum supporter and wish there was such a thing as a produced Mig-35 ready for production.
Wink
Hi qwerty223
I've been following the Mig-29 for a number of years and have seen many offers of new upgraded models and versions for years. Fake isn't the word I would chose there not trying to fool anybody it's just that the Mig-35 that's being shown isn't a Mig-35. A fancy show off prototype that needs a major buyer for example like India to order it because it lacks funding directly by Russia. Once ordered then it basically begins then, the real final process of production. Remember the fancy missile warning devices, laser designator, and even the ASEA radar needs to be finished. If the ASEA radar was finished it would be in there Flanker models and rushed to India so fast it would break speed records. You may feel " Putin is an extraordinary energetic man" and he might be I don't know I don't live in Russia, but unless he's building these things I mention it's vaporware. Because if it was real and produced the Mig-35 would be in India trying to head off the Americans, French, English, and others now wouldn't? I stated before I'm a Fulcrum supporter and wish there was such a thing as a produced Mig-35 ready for production.
Wink
I am sorry if i used any harsh language. English is not my native language and i am for sure not a professional writer.
Anyways back to the topic. I actually take account of what you concerned. My point is that, if it is not in a status very close to actual outcome, the MAPO MiG would had their K model to compete the India's 126 MRCA bit. I am sure that all the tender machine is open for Indian professions to have a detail evaluation. If not, the Aero India 07 is a complete waste of money. Also the AESA is indeed a new thing for the Russians. But for near to 10 years of struggling, i believe they had finally achieved something. While for the OLS, Russian FLIR is proven to be a good design especially the one mounted on the Fulcrum. Now as a revised model, i see no reason if it is not better than it was. The one on the belly may bring concern about its utility as a ground strike designator, but it could be easy replaced by any other pod upon request. Same goes to the incoming missile warning system. The MAPO MiG had since the latest M model claimed to have an open architecture. And guess what? The warning system is an Italian product.
Mig-35
MIG INC, Mig corporation, RSG MIG, what ever it's real name frustrates me a lot and has ever since I began following them. They never seem to do a lot and there was never that big jump in tech like the Block-40 Viper was. I guess I'm a little harsh on them because I've been waiting for so long for upgrade "model" or "best version ever built" to really be produced. After a while you tired of hearing it and it becomes just talk, with little backing it up. It's been close to what two years now and very little changed concerning the Mig-35. Sadly it seems no closer then the pre-2007 India show. On paper the Mig-35 seem different like you mention open architecture which is big and shows there wiliness to work with others but again not to sound like a downer but what has really become of such offers? The warning system is an Italian product like you also mention and your right ground strike designator could be replaced with any pod marking system. If the K model Fulcrum was built in higher numbers and MIG really had a modern working production line operational, I and many others would think differently that's for sure. To me and I may be wrong since it is a carrier type fighter if the K model Fulcrum was really good wouldn't have India ordered more? Even if it were to copy ideas or use as a test bed for there own older Mig-29s down the road. The K model should have been order in the 40 to 60 aircraft range, not the high teens or low 20's, like it was. India could have easily use the extra aircraft keep one squadron to stay sharp on a land base ready for there next deployment and keep the other squadron the carrier, plus a few aircraft for spares. A rotation system would or should have been setup from the get go. Currently all it takes now is a few training accidents and few down aircraft for repairs and you don't have a operational squadron then. The fighters are the heart and soul of your carriers protection from the get go how do you not have enough aircraft? I think India knew they had time MIG production is slow and they wanted to be sure the K was worth it. The ship going to very late now and even read a story that India sending workers to Russia to help the process along. Should be a nice and cheery shipyard to work in.
http://www.defencetalk.com/forums/images/icons/icon12.gif
Wink
MIG INC, Mig corporation, RSG MIG, what ever it's real name frustrates me a lot and has ever since I began following them. They never seem to do a lot and there was never that big jump in tech like the Block-40 Viper was. I guess I'm a little harsh on them because I've been waiting for so long for upgrade "model" or "best version ever built" to really be produced. After a while you tired of hearing it and it becomes just talk, with little backing it up. It's been close to what two years now and very little changed concerning the Mig-35. Sadly it seems no closer then the pre-2007 India show. On paper the Mig-35 seem different like you mention open architecture which is big and shows there wiliness to work with others but again not to sound like a downer but what has really become of such offers? The warning system is an Italian product like you also mention and your right ground strike designator could be replaced with any pod marking system. If the K model Fulcrum was built in higher numbers and MIG really had a modern working production line operational, I and many others would think differently that's for sure. To me and I may be wrong since it is a carrier type fighter if the K model Fulcrum was really good wouldn't have India ordered more? Even if it were to copy ideas or use as a test bed for there own older Mig-29s down the road. The K model should have been order in the 40 to 60 aircraft range, not the high teens or low 20's, like it was. India could have easily use the extra aircraft keep one squadron to stay sharp on a land base ready for there next deployment and keep the other squadron the carrier, plus a few aircraft for spares. A rotation system would or should have been setup from the get go. Currently all it takes now is a few training accidents and few down aircraft for repairs and you don't have a operational squadron then. The fighters are the heart and soul of your carriers protection from the get go how do you not have enough aircraft? I think India knew they had time MIG production is slow and they wanted to be sure the K was worth it. The ship going to very late now and even read a story that India sending workers to Russia to help the process along. Should be a nice and cheery shipyard to work in.
http://www.defencetalk.com/forums/images/icons/icon12.gif
Wink
Well indeed their old M model or the twin seat MRCA model showed they are lost of direction and fall way behind of the rest of the world. But when they came into the 2003, some funding came for them and situation changed quite a lot. For a business strategy, the M/MRCA were being minor upgraded to keep them within the sight of the customers. Behind the scene they are rushing their 35. From what they reveal in the Aero India,35 offered strong challenge in every aspect of all the other tender machines. If only you think it was a fraud, they had achieve what you described as "big jump in tech like the Block-40 Viper was". As of the "open architecture", if you notice, the K model comes with French GPS sys & HMD, Indian communication sys and Iserael ECM. The concept had been practiced and materialized. Also you can see, other than to compromise to an adverse (STOBAR) enviroment and a time frame issue to prevent an AESA, K model can actually set a challenge to the Hornet E. While the procurement of the K model, the carrier itself is very limited to a capacity of a maximum of 16 fix wing fighters (equals to the # of procurement) and not to mention the carrier is yet not completed. Indian had since included an optional of 14 in the MoU. IMO, nothing is better than practically operates on the carrier. A total of 60 carrier aircraft with 2/3 of them to be trained on a land base is a waste of money.
Actually i dont understand what your gtting at here. Your saying the Mig35 isnt a big jump in capability? It has AESA, OLS, new smokeless engines, Multirole, 3d TVC, etc n thats not a package completing the Mig29 airfame?
Also the Mig 29K is a big jump in naval aviation capability for India. The capabalities it pocess far outstrippes the Harriers they were operating, n considering that they have already ordered a squadron to equip the Goshkov, n some more optional is proove enough that it is a good aircraft n India ordered them to meet thier needs, not more. Indian plans are for the gorshkov n a future smaller in house built carriers. And i believe those Mig's will be an overkill in size for those smaller carriers, hence the lesser optional orders.
If maybe you are suggesting a leap in comparision to the design change of the Superhornets, probably it will not happen, coz its Mikoyan's plan not to pour more money into building newer versions based on the Mig29. This upgrades provides them the opportunity to upgrade cliet states that operates earlier models of the Mig29.
Mig-35
Hello nevidimka
In a nut shell what I'm saying I'm basically disappointed in Mig Corporation in there failure to produce the Mig-35.
nevidimka
It has AESA,
Not yet it doesn't this what I mean and drives me crazy there isn't a finished radar. There plans for one but there's no funding for this internally from Russia's government or external buyers. So basically it's turn into vaporware because the Mig-35 project is slowly going nowhere.
The 3d TVC - on a few prototypes and it doesn't mean there are factories that can run off hundreds of them.
Multirole - I can't find one article written about a multrole Fulcrum in real operations. Yemen and almost Algeria are the only two SMT users and can't find a single thing.
OLS,-don't know enough about it
new smokeless engines - they still smoke a little on the Mig-29M there showing as Mig-35 but it have improved. Is there any proof that Russia can produce this newer D-33 III/K type engine in numbers?
Hope that a little clearer
Hello nevidimka
In a nut shell what I'm saying I'm basically disappointed in Mig Corporation in there failure to produce the Mig-35.
nevidimka
It has AESA,
Not yet it doesn't this what I mean and drives me crazy there isn't a finished radar. There plans for one but there's no funding for this internally from Russia's government or external buyers. So basically it's turn into vaporware because the Mig-35 project is slowly going nowhere.
The 3d TVC - on a few prototypes and it doesn't mean there are factories that can run off hundreds of them.
Multirole - I can't find one article written about a multrole Fulcrum in real operations. Yemen and almost Algeria are the only two SMT users and can't find a single thing.
OLS,-don't know enough about it
new smokeless engines - they still smoke a little on the Mig-29M there showing as Mig-35 but it have improved. Is there any proof that Russia can produce this newer D-33 III/K type engine in numbers?
Not even close to a real production ready Mig-29 never mind a Mig-35. There are a thousands of unanswered questions that don't seem to have a answers like when is production starting, what devices & equipment is produced and ready for production, etc
Only if it works and does the things Russia says it can do. Even the F-35 going to have to prove it works.
That's my oversight I didn't realize the carrier is smaller then American full size and can carry 16 or a little more aircraft. Then buying 60 aircraft like I mentioned in a earlier post would be a overkill.
No not really I wouldn't compare a Fulcrum to a C/D Hornet in design and tech, never mind a E/F Hornet. I rate the SuperHornet Block-II very high,it is a very advance platform: radar, cockpit, weapons, etc not much is in it's class besides a F-22 currently. Typhoon and maybe a Rafale in ways get a nod.
This part of my frustration stop building these want-to-be upgrades and build a really new Fulcrum from the ground up. What a "in" they had with India's fighter bid, and still 7, 8, years and nothing finished. Do you notice how Russia/MIG isn't saying we have the K model which can be converted from a carrier type and here it is? Sadly because I don't think they can do it. Besides Rafale saleman, maybe the worse MIG just can't seem to get it together.
Hope that a little clearer
In fact, they had. All the concern you are bringing up is: "it is not proven". Well, it need not to be proven to the internet fans, qualified for the Indian professionist to spend their time on it will do.
VT is not a new thing to the Russian nor the rest of the world.
You dont have the privilege to know doesn't mean it is a fraud.
Are you kidding? It has been certified by the Russian aviation department, and it is now fitted on the K model.
Well, no offense, but it seems you are spreading personal hatred towards the aircraft.
Not hatred
I'm coming across the wrong way I see and it's not my intentions. I'm really a Fulcrum fan and supporter but have little faith that the MIG Corporation can really make half the things it's says. Your more of a believing person I see when it concerns the Mig-29/35 and that's perfectly fine. We are allowed to think and believe differently and that's that makes these forums interesting. I mean you no disrespect and hopefully soon the Mig-35 will be produced and in large numbers, protecting the skies of many countries.
http://www.defencetalk.com/forums/images/smilies/icon_cool.gif
http://www.defencetalk.com/forums/images/smilies/a1.gif
http://www.defencetalk.com/forums/images/icons/icon14.gif
Thumbs up
I'm coming across the wrong way I see and it's not my intentions. I'm really a Fulcrum fan and supporter but have little faith that the MIG Corporation can really make half the things it's says. Your more of a believing person I see when it concerns the Mig-29/35 and that's perfectly fine. We are allowed to think and believe differently and that's that makes these forums interesting. I mean you no disrespect and hopefully soon the Mig-35 will be produced and in large numbers, protecting the skies of many countries.
http://www.defencetalk.com/forums/images/smilies/icon_cool.gif
http://www.defencetalk.com/forums/images/smilies/a1.gif
http://www.defencetalk.com/forums/images/icons/icon14.gifThumbs up
Probably i am an easy believe person, but i never did say the new fulcrum is "perfect". Different opinion live up a discussion but must be of true words and fact.I'm coming across the wrong way I see and it's not my intentions. I'm really a Fulcrum fan and supporter but have little faith that the MIG Corporation can really make half the things it's says. Your more of a believing person I see when it concerns the Mig-29/35 and that's perfectly fine. We are allowed to think and believe differently and that's that makes these forums interesting. I mean you no disrespect and hopefully soon the Mig-35 will be produced and in large numbers, protecting the skies of many countries.
http://www.defencetalk.com/forums/images/smilies/icon_cool.gif
http://www.defencetalk.com/forums/images/smilies/a1.gif
Thumbs up