MiG 35 : Not be underestimated

[Awesome]

rejected by the others. the administration so wanted it.

 

[joey]

Sukhoi checked this http://blog.360.yahoo.com/blog-f8FN_4owbKfGONIovBj2i8hUYkqWaQE-?cq=1&p=60 ??

 

[joey]

Asim There is no lobby here in huge IAF thing, our armed forces are not **** they will evaluate each inch and go for the one.

there is lobby but that doesnt really efefct the decision that much.

 

[MIG_ACE]

Its the same link u had given earlier joey.

 

[Contrarian]

why are you calling him sukhoi? when he's actually a small little MiG
lol...j/k dude!

Asim, i dont think you are getting it mate, it is not a question of IF we get the MiG, it is a question of WHEN and WHETHER it is MKI'zed or not. Which has been put to rest by Joey, rest assured if it doesnt get MKI'zed, i will have Joey's head.

Now, the order is definitely getting split into two. That is confirmed. So one of it is confirmed as MiG 35, the other is fairly certain, F/A-18E/F or maybe Rafale. But i think because of nuke deal, its certain to be F-18.

The administration can wish all it wants, but the order is still going to be split in two. One for Russia, other for America.
And i must say, we will again have the best fighter in the sub-continent with teh MiG 35 MKI. If its not MKI, then we'l have another sh*tty average joe plane in the continent.

 

[MIG_ACE]

Now tell me Malay how can u say that the "Split" is certain.There have been no indications from the IAFIf they were buying 200 aircraft they cud have split it.But recently they have steadfastly maintained that the deal is for 126 planes only.I dont think they will split.Which means the Mig-35 is 100% sure as we cant afford 126 F-18s.

 

[Awesome]

Asim There is no lobby here in huge IAF thing, our armed forces are not **** they will evaluate each inch and go for the one.

there is lobby but that doesnt really efefct the decision that much.

I'm pretty sure, as much as you know it too, that IAF wants the better plane, which is Mig-35.

 

[Contrarian]

Now tell me Malay how can u say that the "Split" is certain.There have been no indications from the IAFIf they were buying 200 aircraft they cud have split it.But recently they have steadfastly maintained that the deal is for 126 planes only.I dont think they will split.Which means the Mig-35 is 100% sure as we cant afford 126 F-18s.

Wait and watch mate, i am certain that it is going to be a split. There are many more reasons, but let me give a few:

A split means that both Russia and US wil be kept in good spirits.
Going for a single plane means that it would take a hell of a time to get all the 126 planes, going for 2 would shorten this time considerably.
Going with the US plane gives us access to a very very wide range of armamants like i mentioned above. Going with the Russian plane gives us a Superb air superiority fighter. The US plane is an EXCELLENT air to ground platform, it is arguably the best plane in that role. it is also very expensive, so we can get it in limited numbers which opens the doors to US weapons along with giving us a very good fighter. The bulk of the deal is undoubtably going to go with the MiG.

And There are many more reasons mate.


btw the link that Joey wanted to give was prolly this:
http://blog.360.yahoo.com/blog-f8FN_4owbKfGONIovBj2i8hUYkqWaQE-?cq=1&p=42

 

[Neo]

There is so much wrong informations in this forum and also in IDF sometimes, why dont you Neo invite some better guys from sinodefence/WAB/Keypub to increase the quality of discussion?

Go ahead, please do invite them on my behalf! :thumbsup:
The more the merrier!

 

[vnomad]

I'm pretty sure, as much as you know it too, that IAF wants the better plane, which is Mig-35.

The better aircraft (and more expensive too) IMHO is the F-18E/F. Comes with the the best munitions the US has to offer, an AESA and most importantly a vastly reduced RCS. Its less 'athletic' than the MiG-35 but most A2A engagements are going to be BVR. A2G it is obviously the better aircraft. It'll got more scope for upgrades than the MiG-35 thank to unkil.

Vnomad> your nuts lol, why the hell will we use RD33K engines here? we are already moving ahead with GE404 which is used in Gripen and SR71 - Blackbird, not only the engine has less smoke it has better MTBF as usual american/british/european engines do.
GE404 will give LCA a perfectly matched performance vis-a-vis Gripen provided there is AESA else it will LOSE.

I assumed 3D TVC would be a pretty nifty thing to have on the LCA. The RD-33K's power output is also significantly improved I've heard. Besides these engines will be produced indigenously, that's a +. But, I guess those in the higher echleons know what they are doing.
The SR-71 Blackbird used Pratt and Whitney J58-1. The Pratt & Whitney J58-1 engines used in the Blackbird were the only military engines ever designed to operate continuously on afterburner.

 

[joey]

oops sorry i mixed up they F117 used Ge404 plus there is no reason to go for RD33K, we have our very own kaveri and that have to see its day even if it is late.
It has better T/W ratio than GE404 and more thrust.

 

[vnomad]

How does the RD-33K compare with the GE-404 as far as thrust, cost, engine life and servicebility go? The RD-33K has the advantage of being 3D TVC. The Gripen is more maneuverable than the LCA thanks to its canards. The LCA can beat that advantage if it gets the RD-33K.

 

[blain2]

How does the RD-33K compare with the GE-404 as far as thrust, cost, engine life and servicebility go? The RD-33K has the advantage of being 3D TVC. The Gripen is more maneuverable than the LCA thanks to its canards. The LCA can beat that advantage if it gets the RD-33K.

Russian engines suck in terms of MTTR and MTBO in comparison to the US and Western engines. The more stuff like TVN you throw into the mix, the bigger the reliability problems.

As an example, the MKI's engine's require an overhaul after every 1K hours, in contrast, the MTBO for the F-16's PW and GE engines is in the neighborhood of 4000 hours. The downside is the cost of the US and western engines and their susceptibility to sanctions etc.

 

[niaz]

Russian engines suck in terms of MTTR and MTBO in comparison to the US and Western engines. The more stuff like TVN you throw into the mix, the bigger the reliability problems.

As an example, the MKI's engine's require an overhaul after every 1K hours, in contrast, the MTBO for the F-16's PW and GE engines is in the neighborhood of 4000 hours. The downside is the cost of the US and western engines and their susceptibility to sanctions etc.

May be a stupid question, I was under the impression that av. life of a US fighter aircframe is 20 years or 4000 hours requiring a complete overhaul evey 10 years. If engine life is 4000 hours, does that imply that F-16 engine (PW F100/101) doesnot need overhaul at all?

 

[Contrarian]

vnomad, if we do get the MiG 35, then it will be fitted with the Israeli AESA, which is better than the one on the F-18 E/F. The best AESA US has is put in JSF, etc. And the Elta 2052, is comparable to them. So there goes one MAJOR advantage of the F-18. Next as regards to BVR engagements, we will have an AESA on MiG 35, we will have Meteor most probably, or else even Russia is developing its own ramjet BVRAAM. So though it will still be less, if we get meteor, then we are better off. Next off is WVRAAM. Python 5 is undoubtably the best, and that too will be up on the MiG 35. You may say that we can setup the python 5 on F-18 also, but no US plane can be fitted with Israeli avionics, summat i read, its happened recently, not like the old F-16I's.

As you know MiG 35 also has a low RCS, though not comparable to F-18, but low still. And Russia has also developed its own anti radar coating, which reduces RCS further still. And the 3d TVC, allows MiG 35 to evade missiles and bullets, etc much much much more easily. It is simply weird for the IAF to buy F-18, buying it fo the navy makes sense as it is a good a2g plane, it sucks big time in a2a. Only the aewsa and bvraam's of US save it. It would be pathetic in dog fights or evasive manouvers.

In the India Pak context, there are still gonna be LOADS of dogfights, and very less BVR engagements compared to dogfights. So we would be foolish to get the F-18 for IAF, and very very wise to get F-18 for the Navy.