The Indian Navy is considering the possibility of replacing the carrier-based MiG-29K fighters with the French Rafale-M

The Indian Ministry of Defense reports that it plans to begin tests on the possibility of using Rafale fighters purchased from France as carrier-based aircraft for the Indian aircraft carrier. fleet... We are talking about a testing program, during which "Rafali" will be tested for possible subsequent use on the aircraft carrier "Vikrant". This aircraft carrier has been under construction in India since 2016. It was supposed to be commissioned by the Indian Navy in 2020, but plans had to be shifted for a number of reasons. To date, there are attempts to form an aircraft carrier's wing, and work is also underway to equip the Vikrant.

In the Indian press, with reference to representatives of the military department, they write that the aircraft carrier will begin to operate in August 2022. Until that time, it is planned to conduct a series of tests with Rafale fighters in the Rafale-Maritime (Rafale-M) modification. Moreover, these tests will be carried out at the ground test complex in the state of Goa. It is not reported when exactly the modifications of the Rafale-M fighters arrived in India.

The ground test complex is called Hansa and simulates the deck of an aircraft carrier with a length of 283 m. The tests are going to be carried out within 12 days.

In the Indian press:

The Rafale-M fighters are the backbone of the air wing of the French aircraft carrier Charles de Gaulle. The Indian Navy plans to clarify how effective the formation of an air wing consisting of such fighters can be for INS Vikrant. Previously, such modifications of the Raphale were tested for compatibility with American aircraft carriers.

_{Rafale-M French Navy}

At the moment, the Vikrant aircraft carrier continues to undergo sea trials in the Arabian Sea and the Indian Ocean.

The Indian press reminds that today the basis of the deck aviation are the Russian-made MiG-29K fighters:

They are part of the aircraft carrier Vikramaditya's wing. But every year the Navy, as the command says, is faced with new problems associated with the fact that it becomes more and more difficult to maintain such fighters. These are technical problems.

That is why the Indian Navy is considering the option of the final abandonment of the Russian MiG-29K in favor of the French Rafale-M. If the Rafaley tests are successful, the replacement could take place until 2026.

Comments

[SaLaR]

What can we offer them?

[Timon2155]

Alas, we cannot offer anything in this class yet. MiG-29/35, whatever one may say, the machine comes from the 70s. It is possible to modernize, but in principle it is a rather outdated design in the world of aviation.

[alexmach]

Obsolete design? What's wrong with the design then? MiG-29K definitely needs to be modernized, updated avionics and good luck. By the way, it would be worth doing this for ourselves.

[Sling of David]

Rather than trying to convert Rafale into a carrier-based fighter, it is wiser to take the F-35B or F-35C specially designed for this, besides, they are cheaper than Raphael at a price, and higher in capabilities. And in case the Americans refuse to sell the 5th generation to the Indians, then the fresh version of the F-18 Super Hornet as a carrier-based fighter is more interesting and cheaper than Rafal.

[Anzhey V.]

Than trying to convert Rafale into a carrier-based fighter

The deck modification of "Raphael" has existed for 21 years, has proven itself well and flew without restrictions, incl. from the decks of American aircraft carriers (which is very rare for non-American aircraft).

At the same time, it has almost identical performance characteristics with the versions for the Air Force - only the flight range.

[Insurrection]

Rafal will not ride, conceptually the Indian "Vikrant" is essentially the same "Kuznetsov"
no catapult.

[bayard]

Quote: Anjay V.

Deck modification of "Raphael" has existed for 21 years, has proven itself well

They have proven themselves well for CATAPULT aircraft carriers. But for the Indians it is a springboard. , and these are completely different conditions.
Let me remind you that just recently American Super Hornets were tested for suitability for a springboard launch. .
Do you know the result of such tests?
"It was decided to purchase MiG-29K in Russia for Vikrant."
Do not pull from the springboard F-18 traction equipment is not enough, and the wing is not optimal. He can take off, but he can lift the payload, but with full tanks ... alas.
Something similar will most likely happen with Rafal. Its engines are weaker on afterburner, although the dry weight is also lower - 10 kg. against 000 kg. from the MiG-14K. But we must remember that the MiG was conceived with a cockpit for 000 people.
Let's see the normal takeoff weight ... because there is no need to talk about the maximum takeoff weight - you will have to take off from the springboard.
And this is only 14 kg.
The MiG-29K has 18 kg.
It turns out that this is only 4,7 tons for fuel and payload.
So the capabilities of the aircraft during the takeoff of the springboard may be approximately the same ... but there is also the composition of the weapons ... and avionics. And the "Rafal" radar AFAR and avionics on top.
However, if you offer the Indians a MiG-29K with an AFAR radar and an avionics complex from the MiG-35, then the Indians' intention about the MiG-29K may remain in effect.
And yet a very serious feature of "Raphael" is an explosive rocket with a ramjet engine with a range of 200 km. To date, this is perhaps the best explosive rocket.
But the tests from the springboard will show everything. The Super Hornet has already failed them.
And the price ...

[this]

Where do they come from there these 200 km, if classmates have 100.

[bayard]

Look at the characteristics of the French Meteror explosive rocket with a ramjet propulsion engine. Today it is the best rocket in its class.
It is the fact that "Rafal" has AFAR and "Meteora" radars that make this fighter so attractive, despite the very high price for the 4 ++ generation.
So if it successfully takes off from the springboard and picks up a sufficient ammo, they will most likely buy Rafali. How sad it is for the Mikoyan Design Bureau.

[this]

Classmates of this rocket fly at 100, how will this rocket fly further? , the French invented a super progressive engine, which is ahead of the competitors of generations by 5, there the performance characteristics are the same. Rockets that fly at 200 are much larger than a meteor.

[bayard]

Meteor has a DIRECT rocket motor !! Which uses atmospheric oxygen as an oxidizing agent. Solid fuel in the form of small granules is fed into the combustion chamber and it is consumed several times less than conventional TT, which already contains an oxidant in a bound form.
As a result, a rocket with a ramjet engine flies not only further, but is also capable of actively maneuvering in the final section with the engine running, without losing energy and speed on turns.
You just read about this rocket, its description and features of work, it will be very interesting.
In the Russian Federation, at the turn of the 00s and 10s, similar developments were also underway, samples of such a rocket were repeatedly demonstrated at exhibitions. Its range was supposed to be 170 km. , and also with a ramjet engine. But then there was deathly silence, which is unknown with the project, it seemed to be too expensive ... Therefore, today almost all fighters, including the Su-35, Su-30 fly with the "Ukrainian" R-27. Even the P-77 is very rarely seen under the wings of our fighters.
And you can only dream of R-77M ... and even then in a pink dream.
But we could have had our own explosive rocket with a direct flow before the French one.

[this]

Why not write in advertising posters and only the French know how it really works, everyone would have had the same engines long ago if they were just super duper, like hypersound for example. But somehow they are not in a hurry, maybe the game is not worth the candle and there are a lot of pitfalls. Modern missiles go to the troops and a lot, as the old ones will serve, then they will be replaced.

[bayard]

"The world's best air-to-air missile in NATO." The newest rocket was developed in France, Germany and England will take over the armament in the coming years, applications have been submitted from other NATO countries. Will be integrated into the armament of the British
F-35B, German Eurofighter, French Raphale.
Hindus are also counting on Meteor.
Domestic analogue - K-77PD. R&D work was completed in 2012. A set of tests was carried out. The rocket showed high performance. GOS AFAR.
The production of the first pilot batch was being prepared, but later it was decided to abandon it due to the high final price of the product. Instead, the simpler K-77 (Product-180) was adopted.
Perhaps in the light of recent events, the decision to abandon such a promising development will be revised.

Quote: tohoto

only the French know how it really works

The British and Germans tested it on their own aircraft and are very pleased with it. In the United States, the question of the adoption of this missile by the Air Force and the Navy has been raised more than once.
The rocket is recognized as the best and most advanced rocket of this class in the world.

Quote: tohoto

But somehow they are not in a hurry, maybe the game is not worth the candle

They are still in a hurry.
For her sake, the Indians decided to buy "Rafali" at such a fantastic price, and now they are considering "Rafale" (of course with the "Meteor") and as a carrier-based aircraft.

Quote: tohoto

Modern missiles go to the troops and a lot, as the old ones will serve, then they will be replaced.

So no one does, because the direct path to defeat.
They tried to go to the Russian Federation and ... our 4+ and 4 ++ generation aircraft are armed mainly with R-27s from the 80s ...
And with such weapons, modern war cannot be won.
Fortunately, the K-77 is also in service, but they also fall short of the Meteor's performance.

[this]

They are very happy with everything there, but somehow a lot works through time. As I have already conducted research on the possibilities of the meteor, I really did not find anything, maybe you will find something real, and not advertising articles.

[bayard]

The new rocket is just entering service. Germany and England will take them into service in 2024. So for now, the information is limited.

[Osipov9391]

Why don't the Chinese produce their own version of the Su-33UB and Su-25UTG?
The Su-33UB was also made a version of electronic warfare, but they exist only for 1 machine.
What are their test results do not report. Only a single clone of the Su-33 is riveted so far.
And at one time they bought the Su-25UTG from Ukraine. But they did not reproduce it.

[bayard]

Apparently, they are still waiting for their full-fledged ktapultny AV. Which will already be quite multifunctional, they will be able to lift aircraft with strike weapons. And of course any UBS.
And two trampolines will be left as an air defense AB, for stopping air and missile strikes from sea areas.
They considered it apparently inexpedient to recreate the Su-25UTG for the sake of two AB.
And they stopped the production of Su-33 clones altogether and want to abandon them. They are not very happy with them. They want to finish the J-35 as a deck for ejection AB.

[nks]

Quote: bayard

the tests from the springboard will show everything. The Super Hornet has already failed them.

Where did you get this information from?

[bayard]

There was a whole series of publications, on various resources, with photographs and footage of the takeoff of the F-18 from the layout of the Vikromaditya springboard. But nothing came of it - the Super Hornet was designed for a catapult and did not go from the springboard ... It took off then took off, but could not take either fuel or payload.
But this is no offense to the Americans - the plane was created for something completely different.
But "Rafale" can take off.

[nks]

You, apparently, confused something (or the authors of those articles :). Indeed, Boeing in the 20th year, as part of the MRCBF tender, demonstrated a takeoff from a springboard at an American training range, while indicating that this was done with various load options, but there could be no talk of any failure there, especially given the fact that tests from a springboard on Indian training ground for SH scheduled for March this year and target platform is Vikrant, not Vikramaditya

[bayard]

There were publications about the tests of the F-18 from the springboard (those that I read) last year (for India's proposal for the Vikrant), after which there was a statement from the Indian side that it was decided to arm the Vikran with the MiG-29K \ KUB. Now a message about the upcoming tests for takeoff from the springboard "Raphael", also under the tender for the "Vikrant". Well, they also test their "Tejes" from the springboard.
A common Indian practice is to invite everyone to a tender, confuse everyone, bring down the price and choose.
I suppose that under all conditions being equal, if the Rafale shows itself as a deck boat, they will choose it.
If the Russian Federation offers the MiG-39K with avionics, AFAR radar and a complex of weapons from the MiG-35, they can choose the MiG, but only due to the favorable price.

[nks]

Did I understand correctly that there was nothing about the failure of SH tests in those publications? And this is nothing more than your guesses in connection with other publications of varying degrees of reliability?
I must say that IN is still planning to test the FA-18EF at their training ground from a springboard.
https://www.hindustantimes.com/india-news/india-set-to-conduct-trials-of-rafale-fighter-s-naval-version-101640980226180.html,

The Indian Navy is also planning to test US F-18 Hornet fighter at the same facility apparently in March as the alternative option to Rafale-M fighter

in general, the MRCBF tender is for fighters with the ability to take off both from a catapult (IN are still planning CATOBAR) and from a springboard. Yes, the moment-29k also formally participates in it, well, you can really expect anything from the Indians.

[bayard]

Quote: nks

I got it right

Correctly .
Let's see how these Indian dances end this time.

[Osipov9391]

Sadly, there is nothing to offer India now. As with PLO aircraft. It is already obvious that they have refocused on the purchase of Western technology.
As for the MiG-29K, it has not been produced for more than 5 years. The equipment is hopelessly outdated - it comes from the 80s and 90s.
Even the fire control system. There is no way to replace it.
One monopoly developer. Even on SUV.
And it is required to "shake up" all the equipment - billions will be spent on development and testing + 5 years, maybe a little less.
The same problem is on the Su-30SM, Su-35S and Su-34. The equipment is not even yesterday but the day before yesterday.

If we go back to the deck, then even the Su-75 will not do this role. We have absolutely no experience in operating such machines, and even on a ship.
If the thrust of one single engine drops during takeoff or landing, the car will be lost.
I also talked with the engineer of the Su-33 test brigade, who also helped Pugachev in landing on the Tbilisi. So he told me a lot about both the Su-33 and the MiG-29K.
In general, now India has nothing to offer.

[bayard]

Quote: Osipov9391

As for the MiG-29K, it has not been produced for more than 5 years. The equipment is hopelessly outdated - it comes from the 80s and 90s.

But what about the MiG-35? After all, it was created on the basis of the MiG-29K airframe - according to the airframe. But the avionics seem to have been seriously updated, and the AFAR radar was invented. Making a MiG-35K \ KUB out of it will not be a particular problem. Well, or at worst, the MiG-29K with avionics and weapons from the MiG-35.
Otherwise, it makes no sense to meddle in contests.
Su-75 in the deck version only from the catapult to start up - it will help, hedge.

Quote: Osipov9391

The same problem is on the Su-30SM, Su-35S and Su-34. The equipment is not even yesterday but the day before yesterday.

What is there to hear about the "Belka" and in general the Su-57 radar? Something last couple of years deathly silence about this, only about the "second stage engine", which for serial production is not critical at all ... if with avionics everything is a bunch.
But the information that slipped through a year ago about the proposal to install the Irbis radar on the Su-57 ... strained and amazed ...
True, it seemed to be about the export appearance of the Su-57E ... only after hearing this news, all potential buyers turned their noses 180 degrees.
It's just a shame of some kind.

[Osipov9391]

Nobody will essentially update anything on avionics on any of these machines. The military themselves do not want it. They think it's best as it is. This requires motivation, desire, time and a lot of money.
If the Indians give it, they will make new avionics for both the Su-30MKI and the MiG-29K.
In the meantime, the opposite can be stated.
From reality and history, I can give an example of how the fuel-measuring system of the Su-39 attack aircraft was made monoblock.
That is, one unit planted on a mounting frame from which the harnesses connect (SNTs23 connectors) it with sensors, a remote control and an indicator.
A number of other systems were then also made monoblock.

Now the reality of the Su-30MKI / Su-30SM. There, the fuel metering system already consists of four blocks sitting on a mounting frame.
It was developed in the early 90s. And it is being produced to this day.
And on the Su-34 there is such mischief! 4 blocks heavy and large on a mounting frame. Microcircuits with a low degree of integration from the 80s.
If you now use FPGAs, BMCs, DSP processors, you can make almost any system monoblock and even single-board!

Without these perverse blower fans, air conditioning ducts, electromagnetic relays and more.

As an example, I will give a photo and a brief description of the SUO-10PV product that controls the weapons of the Su-34.
Development 30-35 years ago.
A wild number of blocks and their mounting frames;
Countless connectors for multiplex / protocol underdeveloped;
He heats up and eats a lot of energy while thinking for a long time.
Now it is not even yesterday, but the day before yesterday.
And the French have ... well, 2-3 small blocks on one frame.
Therefore, I understand the choice of the Indians.
With a modern element base, the FCS of the same MiG-29K or Su-30MKI can easily be made for 2-3 blocks (single-board) on one frame.
But it is profitable for a monopoly developer (there are no competitors) to make this product of the Soviet era, since the budget pays well for it.
And very few people think about what the consequences will be in the troops and how this reduces the reliability of equipment.
But everyone has their own vision, their own budgets. native Army turns a blind eye to this, guided by the principles of giving take.
But foreign customers (apparently comparing modern Western avionics) quickly rejected this.

[bayard]

All this, of course, is very sad. But we are talking about export deliveries. For the sake of such a jackpot, one could move the loins ... if the brains do not move.
If we make Normal avionics for the MiG-35 (I don’t know how it has it), then with such a product it is possible to count on winning the Indian tender to replace the MiG-21, and for their carrier-based aviation a new look of the MiG-29K (or simply the MiG -35K) suggest.
And such an aircraft would be better suited for export.
And even in its own aerospace forces it will come in handy - at least for the rearmament of the regiments that fly on the MiG-29.

[Osipov9391]

I think we need competition within Russia for developers. That would have announced the Ministry of Defense or Rosoboronexport a competition for the development of fire control systems for the MiG-29K or Su-30MKI with such and such conditions, with such requirements and terms of reference.
And different enterprises would participate - both private and state. And they offered the customer different options.
Whoever has the best option wins.
And so when, according to tradition, everything is given to one monopolist, nothing will happen. And pensioners, as a rule, collect these systems from the era of great changes, because for 15-20 thousand rubles a specialist will not go there to work.
In terms of fire control systems, this is the Kursk Aviaavtomatika;
In terms of fuel, this is the St. Petersburg "Tekhpribor".
Here they are, in their classes, monopolists throughout the post-Soviet space. There are no other competitors.

[Anzhey V.]

Let me remind you that just recently American "Super Hornets" yes were tested for suitability for a springboard start.
Do you know the result of such tests?
"It was decided to purchase MiG-29K in Russia for Vikrant."
Do not pull from the springboard F-18

You are fundamentally wrong because the Indian Navy has not yet tested the SuperHornet. They have yet to take place, and this will happen only after the Rafale tests.

The SuperHornet's ability to take off from a springboard on its own initiative was tested by Boeing in 2020, and they, by the way, were successful.

So the F / A-18 did not "fail" anything, it only has to pass the tests.

[bayard]

This means that the publications I came across were not accurate. There, at first, it was about trials from the "Super Hornet" springboard, yes in the USA, but for a tender in India (apparently the very ones are preliminary). Then there was a story about what the Indian side had chosen for the Vikrant MiG-29K.

In any case, if the Rafale takes off normally from the springboard, they will choose it.

[Anzhey V.]

This means that the publications that I came across were not accurate.

This is not your fault - unfortunately, in Russia there are a lot of low-quality materials, including news, which are literally invented on the basis of rumors.

There, at first, it was about trials from the "Super Hornet" springboard, yes in the USA, but for a tender in India (apparently the same ones are preliminary)

That's right, only Boeing did not test it for India, but to make sure SuperHornet could take part in the tender. The plane was successfully tested, and the Indians agreed to test them directly on aircraft carriers.

In any case, if the "Rafale" takes off normally from the springboard, they will choose it

This is not a fact, because Boeing offers India very generous conditions, including those associated with partial technology transfer. Of course, from the point of view of unification, it is more logical to take Rafale, but India in this regard is an extremely specific country and they do not care much about such things.

[bayard]

Quote: Anjay V.

Of course, from the point of view of unification, it is more logical to take Rafale, but India in this regard is an extremely specific country and they do not care much about such things.

I think that the Indians will be interested not only in unification, but also in the armament of the Raphael. Namely, the Meteor explosive missile. Now this is the best thing in NATO, and perhaps in the world. England and Germany are going to adopt it, even from the United States voices were heard about the adoption of the Meteor and the purchase of a license ... but such a proposal is unlikely to pass.

[dreamshake]

There, people do not read forums but have real expert assessments.

[this]

The Hindus, perhaps they own, they own expert assessments in the area of ​​drank, they will not roll back as much dough on the modernization of the MiG as on the French.

[Seafood]

Rather than trying to convert the Rafale into a carrier-based fighter, it is wiser to take the F-35B or F-35C specially designed for this, besides, they are cheaper than Raphael at a price, and higher in capabilities.

The Americans will never sell the F-35 to the Indians, like any other new technology. They are not allies, plus India is actively buying weapons from Russia, so the presence of the same C400 (and the likelihood that Russian engineers will be able to "tune" them under American vehicles) already puts an end to the supply of decent aircraft to India from the Americans.

And in general, the whole idea is dubious - are the F-18 SH and Rafali generally adapted for aircraft carriers with springboards?

[voyaka uh]

"Are the F-18 SH and Rafali generally adapted for aircraft carriers with trampolines?" ///
---
With a partial load - take off.
Checked.
If you have to load a lot of bombs, pour a little kerosene and refuel in the air.

[AC130 Gunship]

The F18 requires a catapult. And there is a springboard

[lucul]

Obsolete design? What's wrong with the design then? MiG-29K definitely needs to be modernized, updated avionics and good luck.

It is simply unrealistically heavy for its class, as well as extremely voracious engines with a low motor life.
No, of course, if it is possible to introduce 29-20% (of dry weight) of modern composites into the design of the MiG-30 and it becomes 2-3 tons lighter, and if a modern economical engine is installed in it, then the MiG-29 will certainly gain a second wind. ...
But alas, the problem of overweight aircraft has been our curse since the Second World War.
We use materials that are too cheap, and even with a large margin of safety factor.

[SovAr238A]

Quote: lucul

Obsolete design? What's wrong with the design then? MiG-29K definitely needs to be modernized, updated avionics and good luck.

It is simply unrealistically heavy for its class, as well as extremely voracious engines with a low motor life.
No, of course, if it is possible to introduce 29-20% (of dry weight) of modern composites into the design of the MiG-30 and it becomes 2-3 tons lighter, and if a modern economical engine is installed in it, then the MiG-29 will certainly gain a second wind. ...
But alas, the problem of overweight aircraft has been our curse since the Second World War.
We use materials that are too cheap, and even with a large margin of safety factor.

Was this really Lucul writing? Or is the bot updated?

[alexmach]

Was this really Lucul writing? Or is the bot updated?

holidays all the same :)

[venik]

Quote: lucul

He's just unrealistically heavy for his class.

=======
"Unrealistically heavy"? Did you think well?
Now let's compare (we take the "empty weight" as a characteristic of the weight of the structure):
MiG-29 - 10.9 tons;
Rafal - 10.4 tons (land version);
Eurofighter - 11.0 t;
F-16 - 10.0 t;
From all this close, warm company fall out:
JAS-39 Grippen - 7.1 t
F-18 - 14.5 t;
Well, where is the "unrealistically heavy" here ???
Yes! The shipborne MiG-29K - (like any other shipborne version) - is heavier than the land prototype - as much as 12.7 tons, and the Rafal-M is also heavier than the land version! But all the same, both are much lighter than the Hornet!
So all these your theses like: "" ... the problem of overweight aircraft has been our curse since the Second World War..." or "...We use too cheap materials, and even with a large margin of safety factor...." - to put it mildly insolvent!

[nks]

You have incorrect data.
1.the weight of the empty MiG-29k ~ 14t
2. Rafale C (lightest land single) 9900kg Rafale B (land double) ~ 10400kg, rafale m ~ 10200kg

In other positions, you also have mistakes.

[venik]

Quote: nks

You have incorrect data.

======
Quite possible! I am not a pilot (unlike my father) and not even an aircraft designer! I take data from "open sources", where you know you need to trust "with an eye" .....
--------

Quote: nks

1.the weight of the empty MiG-29k ~ 14t

======
Are you sure ??? In "Wikipedia" (which I trust with a very BIG "look back" - this figure is really given ..... But! Let's figure it out.
So: source "wikipedia": the mass of the empty MiG-29K - 14.0 tons. The "Sky Corner" website (http://www.airwar.ru/enc/fighter/mig29k.html) - "dry weight" - 12.7 tons; In other sources, 12.7 tons are also flickering ...
Let's try to figure it out! It's no secret that the MiG-29K and MiG-29M are close "relatives", created at the same time!
But here's the bad luck: according to the same "Wikipedia" (and other sources) - the MiG-29M - "dry weight" - 11.6 tons, and the MiG-29K - 12.7 - 14 tons ...
What is the difference?
1. Engines? So they weigh almost the same .... For the "stock" we add - 200 kg ...
2. Radar? Well, well - even if the improved "Beetle" on "K" - weighs 100 kg more (a colossal "stock") ....
3.Fuel system? Well, so the land "M" - it is even more capacious ...
4. Brake hook? Well, let's add another 150 kg ... Although the absence of braking parachutes - this compensates ...
5. Reinforced landing gear struts? Well, let's add another 100 kg (for each rack - with a "margin");
6. Folding wings? Well, let's add another 100 kg per wing (with a "margin") .....
---------
AND WHAT comes out? And it turns out that, together with all these "reserves", the MiG-29K should be heavier than the MiG-29M by about 750 kg ... Well, let's round up to a ton ... It turns out: 11600 kg + 750 kg = 12350 kg (rounded to tons: 11600 kg + 100 kg = 12 600 kg) .....
WHERE do 1300 kg come from ???
So the question arises: did not Wikipedia confuse the MiG-29K with the MiG-29KUB ???
That is why I trust the figure of 12.7 tons much more than the figure of 14 tons!
PS If you serve / have served in the Naval Aviation, and you know exactly the "dry weight" of the MiG-29K - I will be glad to hear convincing arguments in my wrong!
PPS If possible - specify exactly which ones I was wrong with the weight of the "classmates" MiG-29!
And thanks again for the data on the deck "Rafal" - I didn't have it!

[nks]

Everything is very simple. I am used to trusting official sources, if possible, especially the manufacturer's data (if there is such data and there are no significant reasons not to trust them). Therefore, we take this data and look
https://www.uacrussia.ru/ru/aircraft/lineup/military/mig-29k-kub/#aircraft-specific
http://www.migavia.ru/index.php/ru/produktsiya/semejstvo-istrebitelej-mig-29/mig-29m-m2 (они в общем то одинаковые). Заодно можно поинтересоваться и обратить внимание, что миг-29к (по вашей ссылке на airwar) и миг-29к, который состоят сейчас на вооружении ВМФ РФ и ВМС Индии и данные которых приведены на сайте производителей -- это немного разные (9-31 и 9-41) МИГи, несмотря на одинаковое наименование . К сожалению, данных по массе пустого производитель не приводит, но мы обнаруживаем, что нормальная взлетная масса увеличилась почти на тонну (относительно 9-31), а макс -- аж на 2. Также любопытно, что миг-29м еще тяжелее, хотя это по сути сухопутная версия 9-41. Считать нормальную взлетную массу можно по-разному и по этому тут насчет точных цифр быть уверенным нельзя, но пустой 9-41 меньше 13500кг никак весить не может и полагаю ~14т это все-таки верная цифра из "источников".

Quote: venik

PS If you serve / have served in the Naval Aviation, and you know exactly the "dry weight" of the MiG-29K - I will be glad to hear convincing arguments in my wrong

did not serve :)

Quote: venik

PPS If possible - specify exactly which ones I was wrong with the weight of the "classmates" MiG-29!

Well, maybe not everything from your list, but about the F-16, it catches your eye.
https://www.lockheedmartin.com/content/dam/lockheed-martin/aero/documents/F-16/F-16_Block_70-72_Product_Card_August_2021.pdf

9200kg

This is the last block with KTB, where the empty weight has grown relative to the early
The rest is somehow yourself - excuse me!)

[venik]

Quote: nks

Everything is very simple. I am used to trusting official sources, if possible, especially the manufacturer's data (if there is such data and there is no significant reason not to trust them).

=======
The problem is, Alexey, we seem to have very DIFFERENT life experiences. For example, I do not trust the media too much! And there are reasons for that. Here is the manufacturer's data - yes! Much more! Although I also met with a situation when the manufacturer ... Well, let's just say a little "cheated" .....
In order not to "litter" the site - I suggest you go to "PM" .... Although it is possible to discuss here too (especially since the topic is very interesting to me!) ..

[nks]

Vladimir, that our life experiences are different, I have no doubt. As for trust, I have already outlined my vision - nothing is 100%, official data is still more reliable than data from an amateur site and journalists, if there is no substantial reason to think otherwise.
We are talking on the topic, so I don't understand why in a personal message - it may well be of interest to the public. I don’t have any confidential data, and if I did, I wouldn’t share them in a personal, excuse me)
In general, I just turned all the same insignificant errors in your original message, but from the point of view of the topic, it is still not a matter of weight. Projects 1143 * are designed for it and even for the greater weight of the Su-33. I believe that the Indians would even have taken the su-33, but they got the smallest 1143 and the su-33 no longer fit into it. The main problem of the mig-29k from the point of view of operating from an aircraft carrier at a too high landing speed is that it generally complicates the landing (by the way, the Raphael, by the way, has the lowest landing speed in its class without any OBT, which, in particular, gives him the shortest mileage when landing on land) and creates a load on the glider and units - you can see for yourself by watching the video of landings in comparison with the same su-33. HOW there the racks make their way to the end. Therefore, we are preferred by the Su-33, although initially the MiG-1143k was planned as the main ones for the 29 project. And this is what the Indians complain about in their official report, even if they exaggerate.

[venik]

Quote: nks

We are talking on the topic, so I don't understand why in a personal message - it may well be of interest to the public. I have no confidential data

========
Well, here, so here .... In principle, it makes no difference to me!
--------

Quote: nks

In general, I just turned all the same insignificant errors in your original message,

=======
Well, I took them not from the ceiling, but from the very first source that came up, namely: https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dassault_Rafale
Only the data on the MiG-29 and 29K were specified.
But other:

"Wikipedia", of course, is still a "source" .... But you did not disdain to take data on the "empty weight" of the MiG-29K from there? The question is - where did he come from in the "wiki"? And he took it from the infographic of the site "Sea Parade", and specifically from this slide:

How reliable the given figures are - you can see for yourself (especially by looking at the flight range of 6 thousand km !!!)
But WHERE they took the figure "empty weight - 14 tons) - I do not know, since I could not find other sources where such a figure appears! Neither on our websites, nor on foreign ones. Although the figures are 11.8 tons, 12 tons, 12.7 tons There are even figures of 10.8 tons, but they seem to me more than dubious!
Now let's try to figure out the figure of 12.7 tons. The primary source seems to be a rather voluminous monograph:
E. Gordon, A. Fomin, A. Mikheev "MiG-29" ed. "Polygon", 1998 (Reviewers: V. Novikov, chief designer of ANPK "MiG" and V. A. Mikoyan, deputy chief designer).
Moreover, I somehow traditionally trust more monographs!
Here is a snippet of the pivot table:

Here, attention is drawn to the fact that the given data on the normal and maximum weight of the MiG-29M and MiG-29-K are somewhat lower than those indicated on the MiG-a website (from where they migrated to the UAC website and then went for a walk around the world ). Why so - I do not know! I haven't figured it out yet! By the way - the "Rosoboronexport" website lists the "normal" take-off weight of the MiG-29M - more than 19 tons!
PS As for the carrier-based aircraft, let's move it to tomorrow (it's still hard for me to sit at the computer for a long time).

[-Dmitry-]

It is simply unrealistically heavy for its class, as well as extremely voracious engines with a low motor life.

What nonsense ...

[d1975]

Let me disagree with you, because sea planes are a separate diocese, how was it that I was carrying a supply? Yes, and many land aircraft were made from the calculation of takeoffs and landings. How can it be without amplification.

[Zaurbek]

We can't do it in the land version either ... ..

[Timon2155]

The design of the airframe and the power plant are outdated in the first place, the avionics can be upgraded at the very least, but everything else is hardly. Much time has passed since the development of the MiG-29, CAD systems have appeared, now it is possible to make aerodynamic calculations more accurately, design a more convenient and efficient airframe for maintenance, take into account the capabilities of stealth technology, and much more. I am generally silent about the power plant, there is no modern analogue of the RD-33. And, of course, 2 engines are very expensive today - there is a trend towards cost reduction and engine unification. Let me remind you that it is on the MiG-29 that two engines do not give a gain in reliability - they have one box of aircraft units common to both engines. 1 engine from the Su-57 would be advisable. All this should appear on the Su-75, and then we will offer it to the Indians! And yes, you can fly on the MiG-21)))) But who will buy it? And will he be one of the best today? And will aerial combat win against its newer opponents? Fighters are at the forefront of technological progress, aging very quickly. Obsolete = lost the battle.

[-Dmitry-]

The airframe design and propulsion system are outdated in the first place,

Since when is integral layout obsolete? What exactly is the outdated design of the MiG-29 airframe? Compared to which planes?

And, of course, 2 engines are very expensive today - there is a trend towards cost reduction and engine unification.

On the same Rafale 2 engines. The thrust-to-weight ratio is comparable to the RD-33.

Let me remind you that it is on the MiG-29 that two engines do not give a gain in reliability - they have one box of aircraft units common to both engines.

Many pilots speak for the reliability of the MiG-29, including test pilots, because of the 2 engines. And here you reveal such secrets ...

Let me remind you that it is on the MiG-29 that two engines do not give a gain in reliability - they have one box of aircraft units common to both engines

What is it like???

[Timon2155]

On the glider, take a look at the Su-57 and compare with the Su-27/35 - the difference of 40+ years is visible to the naked eye. As for the power plant, is it only the thrust that is important? But what about the efficiency, resource, specific weight indicators, dimensions? The reliability of the single-engine Su-17 and MiG-21/23/27 was no worse - the statistics are stubborn things. Extensive material about the use of single-engine Su and MiGs in Afghanistan in Markovsky's book "Hot Skies of Afghanistan". I have nothing to say about the KSA - it is alone on the MiG-29 (not duplicated, unlike, for example, the twin-engine Su), located between the engines, learn materiel. About test pilots: even on a single-engine Su-75, during tests, they will say what is required of them))) Statistics are important and there is no need for pilots to talk to the camera.

[-Dmitry-]

On the glider, take a look at the Su-57 and compare with the Su-27/35 - the difference of 40+ years is visible to the naked eye.

No one said that the glider of the MiG-29 and Su-27 is new, but Rafal is by no means a fifth-generation glider. The MiG-35 with OVT may well compete with Rafal, and in the BVB Rafal against the 35th, one can say there is nothing to catch. Although the glider of the MiG-35 is still the same.

I have nothing to say about the KSA - it is alone on the MiG-29 (not duplicated, unlike, for example, the twin-engine Su), located between the engines, learn materiel. About test pilots: even on a single-engine Su-75, during tests, they will say what is required of them))) Statistics are important and there is no need for pilots to talk to the camera.

And what are the statistics?

But what about the efficiency, resource, specific weight indicators, dimensions?

I doubt that operating Raphael will be cheaper than operating a MiG. Will Rafal be able to take off from unprepared or unpaved airfields? Unlikely. Mig has better thrust-to-weight ratio. I don’t know about the resource, for Migs it seems to have been raised to 700 hours.

Extensive material about the use of single-engine Su and MiGs in Afghanistan in Markovsky's book "Hot Skies of Afghanistan"

The experience of two propulsion Su-25s showed its excellent survivability.

[Timon2155]

And where does the generation? This division is very arbitrary. The glider of the MiG has a small resource, the proportion of composites is low, it glows like a Christmas tree on the radar, the fuel supply is limited with voracious engines. Continue? MiG with OVT no, do not confuse a serial product with a demonstrator. Judging by the communication with the pilots, the bvb is not very relevant today - the rockets are smart and very reliable, the percentage of hits is great, the chances of dodging are minimal. So, the BVB has a low probability today - there is no gun at all on the Su-75. About statistics, read the book: briefly, the author, a rather respected comrade in the world of aviation, believes that in the wildest conditions of high temperatures and dustiness, single-engine engines have proven their reliability! Of course, the Air Force will not give you or me the exact statistics, so a hundred book is at least some kind of reference point. I know for sure from the pilots: they were very upset when the fleet of single-engine MiG and Su in the early 90s was taken out of service. Think unreliable airplanes are so worried about? Experience the Su-25 do not adjoin here - it is an attack aircraft that flies low and receives from anti-aircraft guns to anti-aircraft missiles. And there the engines are spaced apart, armored. The defeat of one engine does not carry significant risks for the second. The MiG-29 has engines nearby, the KSA is one - if a missile hits a MANPADS, the probability of both failure is high. About taking off from unpaved airfields: and often MiG-29s took off from the ground in practice? You write nonsense. Why do you think our Air Force does not order the MiG-29/35? And another question: would ours make the Su-75, if the MiG-29/35 is so good? Nope, they wouldn't. Both our customers and our customers understand that we need a new MiG-29 class aircraft, but without its shortcomings and with one engine.

[-Dmitry-]

And where does the generation? This division is very arbitrary.

Conditionally or not, and Rafale has an equally "outdated" glider - well, it does not pull his glider to modern requirements.

Judging by the communication with the pilots, the bvb is not very relevant today - the rockets are smart and very reliable, the percentage of hits is great, the chances of dodging are minimal.

In the 70s, they thought the same way, which is why the MiG-21 lost its cannon, and the Phantom did not have it initially. However, the Vietnam War showed what was going on.
However, for some reason, super-maneuverability is one of the requirements for the 5th generation aircraft.

So, the BVB has a low probability today - there is no gun at all on the Su-75.

Are you seriously judging current trends by a concept that does not even have a flight prototype, but is made in a demonstration layout? As far as I know, the SU-75 is a proactive development by Sukhoi, and not a development according to TTZ.

About statistics, read the book: briefly, the author, a rather respected comrade in the world of aviation, believes that in the wildest conditions of high temperatures and dustiness, single-engine engines have proven their reliability! Of course, the Air Force will not give you or me the exact statistics, so a hundred book is at least some kind of reference point.

So what? Does he claim that one engine is better than two? Or is it just saying that one engine can be reliable too? Well, no one denies this - it just depends on the engine itself.

... About taking off from unpaved airfields: and often MiG-29s took off from the ground in practice? You write nonsense.

Am I writing nonsense? Actually, this was one of the military requirements when developing the MiG-29, because it is a front-line fighter. You want to say the USSR Ministry of Defense was talking nonsense?

The MiG-29 has engines nearby, the KSA is one - if a missile hits a MANPADS, the probability of both failure is high.

Is that what you think, or is there a statistic that you respect so much?

Why do you think our Air Force does not order the MiG-29/35?

New multifunctional fighters MiG-35S were delivered to the Russian troops as part of the state defense order. This is reported in the infographics published in the newspaper of the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation "Krasnaya Zvezda".

The RF Armed Forces thinks differently.

The glider of the MiG has a small resource, the proportion of composites is low, it glows like a Christmas tree on the radar, and the fuel supply is limited with voracious engines. Continue?

Composite materials are widely used in the design of the airframe and wings of the MiG-35, the expert added.

“There was no such diversity in the MiG-29. The new fighter was made using carbon and fiberglass. Due to this, the aircraft has become lighter than its predecessor and can now take more fuel on board or additional weapons. In this sense, the combat potential of the MiG-35 significantly exceeds the capabilities of a number of other light fighters, ”the expert said.
Thus, the glider is schematically the same, but structurally it is different.

MiG with OVT no, do not confuse a serial product with a demonstrator.

It all depends on the configuration with the engine. The same serial MiG-35 can be equipped with the RD-33OVT. The same Rafal, as far as I know, does not have such an opportunity.

[Timon2155]

Quote: -Dmitry-

Conditionally or not, and Rafale has an equally "outdated" glider - well, it does not pull his glider to modern requirements.

Who says Rafal is modern? Younger than the MiG, 14-15 years in terms of the airframe and engines, even more on avionics. The last series of RD-33 in terms of efficiency approached the SNECMA M.88-2 (3) model of 96 years)))). In terms of size, weight and resources, ours are still far behind, even after 25 years - compare yourself, the data is in the public domain.

Quote: -Dmitry-

In the 70s, they thought the same way, which is why the MiG-21 lost its cannon, and the Phantom did not have it initially. However, the Vietnam War showed what was going on.
However, for some reason, super-maneuverability is one of the requirements for the 5th generation aircraft.

Are you really trying to compare the level of rockets of the 70s and modern ones? This is either ignorance, or just laughing))) I will leave without comment the probability of missiles hitting the 70s and now, after 50 years)))

Quote: -Dmitry-

Are you seriously judging current trends by a concept that does not even have a flight prototype, but is made in a demonstration layout? As far as I know, the SU-75 is a proactive development by Sukhoi, and not a development according to TTZ.

Do you think Sukhoi's specialists are dumber than you and forgot to install the gun? Who needs to be offered a gondola, many will simply refuse. Many projects in the USSR began on an initiative basis and reached the series.

Quote: -Dmitry-

“There was no such diversity in the MiG-29. The new fighter was made using carbon and fiberglass. Due to this, the aircraft has become lighter than its predecessor and can now take more fuel on board or additional weapons. In this sense, the combat potential of the MiG-35 significantly exceeds the capabilities of a number of other light fighters, ”the expert said.

Where are the numbers? How much easier? The expert told about nothing: "wide", "much", "lighter", "a number of fighters" - with a pitchfork on the water. Apparently, nobody is impressed by these figures, since there are no orders.

Quote: -Dmitry-

So what? Does he claim that one engine is better than two? Or is it just saying that one engine can be reliable too? Well, no one denies this - it just depends on the engine itself.

So why put 2 when 1 provides the same reliability?

Quote: -Dmitry-

Is that what you think, or is there a statistic that you respect so much?

Unfortunately, I have no official statistics - I have opinions of pilots and authors of books I know. Do you have reliability statistics? Oh, not too? Marvelous!

Quote: -Dmitry-

Am I writing nonsense? Actually, this was one of the military requirements when developing the MiG-29, because it is a front-line fighter. You want to say the USSR Ministry of Defense was talking nonsense?

Yes, as history has shown, the takeoff function built into the MiG-29 was a mistake and was never used. Moreover, this mistake has already been admitted and, as a result, they abandoned the upper entrance and installed tanks there. Logical enough?

Quote: -Dmitry-

The RF Armed Forces thinks differently.

Do you really consider the delivery of 2 units to be the recognition of the aircraft? It's not even funny)))) But according to my information, there is no AFARA, a strange delivery)))

Quote: -Dmitry-

It all depends on the configuration with the engine. The same serial MiG-35 can be equipped with the RD-33OVT. The same Rafal, as far as I know, does not have such an opportunity.

May, in the future, if, etc. - no plane, no conversation. How is it with the resource RD-33 series 3M and MK? Just as tiny?)))) Opinions on OVT are generally different: is it still needed xs.

[nks]

Quote: Timon2155

Who says raphal is modern?

And what is he? In what way (in what way) is it not modern? This aircraft is the best in the world that meets the modern requirements for MFIs and has a large modernization potential.

[Timon2155]

The plane that made its first flight in 1991 (in 1986 the demonstrator flew not on native engines, with the wrong avionics, etc.) is hardly modern. Everything is relative, depending on what you compare with.

[nks]

Weak casuistry. Modern - related to modernity. An airplane that is widely operated right now and not 20 or 30 years ago (by the way, it is the most exported MFI in the world over the past 10 years), is the best responsible contemporary requirements and using the most modern technologies can not be modern.
And with your approach, in 2022 you can make a triplane project out of plywood and paper and consider it the most modern aircraft.
All modern fighters are in service at the latest from the 90s - this is the current development cycle. And the f-35 too - the program started back in the 90s, and its technologies are those of the F-22, the program of which started in the 80s.

[Timon2155]

You yourself wrote "the most modern of the exploited." It is unlikely that the Rafale fully meets modern requirements, otherwise they would not have modernized it, developed new aircraft. And developments are underway and they just take into account the requirements of the present. Rafal does not have the most modern technologies, they are, for example, in the Su-57 - what should you call it then? Here's a modern-day development plane. By your logic, the modern MiG-23 is also operated in some places.

[nks]

Quote: Timon2155

It is unlikely that the Rafale fully meets modern requirements, otherwise they would not have modernized, developed new aircraft

There is no contradiction here. Continuous update is one of the requirements for a modern aircraft. Requirements are updated, the aircraft is updated with them. rafale, like the f-35, are made in this concept. The fact of the matter is that the modern cycle of creating MFIs is very costly, both in terms of time and other resources - you cannot make a new aircraft every 5-10 years.

Quote: Timon2155

Rafala does not have the most modern technologies, for example, the Su-57 has them.

Let's be specific - what does the Su-57 have there?

Quote: Timon2155

By your logic, the modern MiG-23 is also operated in some places.

Do not confuse your "logic" with mine :) I was talking about modern requirements, and about exploitation, this is a thesis about real and proven capabilities, and not about imperial starships plowing through space from beautiful avenues about the future. In addition, as far as I know, the moment-23 is no longer used anywhere, and even less so widely. But here, by the way, the instant-21, as you know, still smokes, but thereby clearly demonstrates its inadequacy to modern requirements.

[Timon2155]

Wait, you write about modern rafal (exploited = modern), but you refuse the MiG-23)))) This is your logic, not mine. In my opinion, it turns out just the opposite: both are already outdated, the MiG-23 is more, the rafal is less. How is the Su-57 different? The presence of compartments, cruising supersonic with weapons, long-wave radar and in general, judging by the publications, perfect breeo. I am still silent about the second stage engine and flat nozzle, because there is no intelligible information. In Libya, North Korea, Vietnam, Ethiopia, Angola, Cuba, there are MiG-23s, xs fly or not.

[nks]

Quote: Timon2155

(operated = modern)

Don't make it up. I did not say this initially and specifically explained it in the last message. Read carefully and please respect the interlocutor in this way.

Quote: Timon2155

How is the Su-57 different?

No, not "what is the difference", but we talked about modern technologies.

Quote: Timon2155

Availability of compartments

Is this modern technology?))) It is more than half a century old :)

Quote: Timon2155

cruising supersonic with weapons,

Raphael has it, but the Su-57 is not that incomprehensible, but they say that it is not yet - but they promise.

Quote: Timon2155

longwave radar

Again, what exactly is there on the SU-57 is not very clear now, but test rafts have been flying with a distributed afar aperture for a long time, and on GaN PPM, with which NIIP is not very good. By the way, in the version for India, they just forced (in accordance with their requirements) made the L-band.

Quote: Timon2155

judging by the publications made by BREO.

These are common words. In general, the developers of the avionics su-57 said that they took the avionics rafal as the sample
https://uacrussia.livejournal.com/61632.html

[Timon2155]

Quote: nks

Weak casuistry. Modern - related to modernity. An airplane that is widely used now and not 20 or 30 years ago

And then what is this? Say, not yours?

Quote: nks

No, not "what is the difference", but we talked about modern technologies.

Just at this stage of development, they were able to cram the compartments, and retain the strength of the airframe, and there was still room for fuel!

Quote: nks

These are common words. In general, the developers of the avionics su-57 said that they took the avionics rafal as the sample

If you have first-hand data, voice it. In the meantime, your rumors are against mine))))

[nks]

Quote: Timon2155

And then what is this? Say, not yours?

Mine, of course. Only, firstly, you trimmed the quote, and secondly, even for this trimming, you do not see the difference from "exploited = modern"?

Quote: Timon2155

Just at this stage of development, they were able to cram the compartments, and retain the strength of the airframe, and there was still room for fuel!

Yes, it does not seem like something. Here, take the same light single-engine F-35 - it has its own not very large compartments (even a standard meteor does not fit into it - the Brit are planning an adapted version, and the aim-9x is provided only for external sling!) 40+ % heavier than raphal. It's even heavier than the F-15! And the Su-57 is generally even heavier and more, which is not very clear for the rest, but they say yes - the glider had to be redone in the middle of the development cycle, so they could not calculate the strength correctly. Again, requirements are primarily capabilities that can be implemented by various engineering solutions, taking into account other requirements. Rafal does not have internal compartments, also because it was originally made, among other things, according to the requirements of the French Navy (returning to the topic of deck ships :) - they gave strict requirements for mass dimensions for the ShdG under construction (see example F-35 above) ... It is simply the optimal solution based on the requirements.

Quote: Timon2155

If you have first-hand data, voice it. In the meantime, your rumors are against mine))))

So I gave you a link to the official material of the UAC.
Here's some more first-hand (this is the tweeter of the Dassault test pilot)
https://mobile.twitter.com/BOECKLERFred/status/817844090398240769
Do you have something?

[Timon2155]

Quote: nks

Mine, of course. Only, firstly, you trimmed the quote, and secondly, even for this trimming, you do not see the difference from "exploited = modern"?

Did you misunderstand the essence or what? Widely / not widely ... The MiG-23 is also widely used, there are still plenty of them.

Quote: nks

Rafal does not have internal compartments, also because it was originally made, among other things, according to the requirements of the French Navy (returning to the topic of deck ships :) - they gave strict requirements for mass dimensions for the ShdG under construction (see example F-35 above) ...

It would be possible to write in short, the rafal does not have internal compartments and stealth technology.

Quote: nks

So I gave you a link to the official material of the UAC.
Here's some more first-hand (this is the tweeter of the Dassault test pilot)

I re-read the article on the link again, there they only state the fact that Rafal was a pioneer in this regard, no more.

[nks]

Quote: Timon2155

It could have been written in a shorter way - the rafal does not have internal compartments

Raphael really does not have internal weapons bays, but we talked about "modern technology" :)

Quote: Timon2155

does not have ... stealth technology.

Why doesn't it? Possesses, not only stealth technologies, but stealth properties (stealth), which are implemented by a different set of technologies. Moreover, these properties of stealth in Raphael, as they say, combat proven, in contrast to competitors, and technologies seem to have greater potential for development.

Quote: Timon2155

I re-read the article by reference again, they only state the fact that Rafal was a pioneer in this regard, no more

The fact is that on the Su-57, avionics are implemented similarly to Rafal (they are not at a higher level) and to argue that they were able to technologically surpass in some way
Rafal, you need to confirm this with something else. In fact, we still see the opposite - the su-57s are not yet in operation and the quality of implementation cannot yet be assessed. By the way, in fact, in the su-57 in avionics they promise one interesting feature, which, if it works effectively in the near future, will really give it an advantage :), but competitors may well acquire such an opportunity during modernization

[Timon2155]

Quote: nks

Raphael really does not have internal weapons bays, but we talked about "modern technology" :)

Well, the Su-75 and F-35 have these compartments. The French could not squeeze them into the Rafale in their day. And now it cannot be fixed.

Quote: nks

The fact is that on the Su-57, avionics are implemented similarly to Rafal (they are not at a higher level) and to argue that they were able to technologically surpass in some way
Rafal, you need to confirm this with something else. In fact, we still see the opposite - the su-57s are not yet in operation and the quality of implementation cannot yet be assessed. By the way, in fact, in the su-57 in avionics they promise one interesting feature, which, if it works effectively in the near future, will really give it an advantage :), but competitors may well acquire such an opportunity during modernization

The fact is that you are claiming that the Su-57 avionics are no better than the Rafalev. On what basis?

[nks]

Quote: Timon2155

The fact is that you are claiming that the Su-57 avionics are no better than the Rafalev. On what basis?

Look, it’s sad that you’re in this discussion — it doesn’t help her in any way. I have argued that Rafal is the best fit for modernity. About avionics you argued

Quote: Timon2155

in general, judging by the publications made by brao

there should probably be "more perfect"? Or is it just so absolutely "perfect"? In any case, this statement about avionics should be supported by something factual yourself, because this is your statement. You did not give a single publication, I did it for you. And it turns out that I know about the potential strengths of the SU-57 avionics better than you do. The avionics of Raphael are _at the moment_ better because it works and is operated, including in combat conditions, as well as in opposition (albeit training ones) with fighters and other systems of other countries. So far, this cannot be said about the Su-57.

[Timon2155]

neither you nor I know. Those scraps of information "from the developers" are just chatter to the press: you bring them, I also bring the same chatter. Rafal is, in this you are right, the Su-75 is not yet serial. And who is better and how much time will tell.

[-Dmitry-]

Who says raphal is modern?

The article deals with the replacement of the MiG-29K with Rafals. In the comments to this article, you write that the MiG has an outdated glider for a long time. So you are saying that Rafal is modern.

Are you really trying to compare the level of rockets of the 70s and modern ones? This is either ignorance, or just laughing))) I will leave without comment the probability of missiles hitting the 70s and now, after 50 years)))

Who is talking about the level of missiles? It was about the need for BVB. And cannons as a means of fire for such a battle. Do you think BVB is not relevant now? Shoot down UAVs, for example, with expensive SVB or DVB missiles? Is it okay that such a rocket can cost as much as several UAVs? Not to mention the fact that there are a limited number of missiles on the plane.

Do you think Sukhoi's specialists are dumber than you and forgot to install the gun? Who needs to be offered a gondola, many will simply refuse. Many projects in the USSR began on an initiative basis and reached the series.

Do you seriously think that the existing prototype is it already a real flying plane? :))) The Su-27, for example, during testing, had to be altered almost from scratch. This is the first, but the second, the SU-75 will be what the customer requires. What you didn’t invent for yourself means absolutely nothing. Why else would the SU-75 have an OVT engine?

Where are the numbers? How much easier? The expert told about nothing: "wide", "much", "lighter", "a number of fighters" - with a pitchfork on the water. Apparently, nobody is impressed by these figures, since there are no orders.

Can you read? Apparently bad. MiG-35s were delivered as part of the State Defense Order. That is, they order it. So far only 6. But this does not mean that they will not be purchased further.

Do you really consider the delivery of 2 units to be the recognition of the aircraft? It's not even funny)))) But according to my information, there is no AFARA, a strange delivery)))

Well, firstly, not 2, but 6. Secondly, no one says that they will not be ordered anymore. And thirdly, where are the firewood from? Did one grandmother say?

So why put 2 when 1 provides the same reliability?

Why do you need a light fighter at all if you have a heavy one? A question from the same series.

[Timon2155]

Quote: -Dmitry-

The article deals with the replacement of the MiG-29K with Rafals. In the comments to this article, you write that the MiG has an outdated glider for a long time. So you are saying that Rafal is modern.

You have a very strange logic. Where did I say that raphal is modern? Are you delusional? Provide a link. Oh, there is no such link? Then you are a liar)) 14-15 years younger, yes, he said.

Quote: -Dmitry-

Who is talking about the level of missiles? It was about the need for BVB. And cannons as a means of fire for such a battle. Do you think BVB is not relevant now? Shoot down UAVs, for example, with expensive SVB or DVB missiles? Is it okay that such a rocket can cost as much as several UAVs? Not to mention the fact that there are a limited number of missiles on the plane.

Again, you only see what you want to see in my comments. Well, then you argue according to your own logic, not mine. I repeat once again: whoever needs it, they will buy a cannon gondola and a business. Drones will shoot down.

Quote: -Dmitry-

Can you read? Apparently bad. MiG-35s were delivered as part of the State Defense Order. That is, they order it. So far only 6. But this does not mean that they will not be purchased further.

Your whole problem is that you are operating with the future. 2 are set-point. There will be 6 more - tell us about them. In the meantime, such deliveries to chickens are a laughing matter. Foreign customers are no more stupid than you, they perfectly understand what's what. Our Su-35/30 of various modifications take hundreds, but MiGs do not want to take. Why? There has already been a question of maintaining competencies through "handouts" in the form of contracts for piece MiGs.

Quote: -Dmitry-

Why do you need a light fighter at all if you have a heavy one? A question from the same series.

Why do we need an F-16? And what was the Su-75 made for? Maybe they want to save money on unification and the number of engines? Your reasoning, of course, seems to you to be competent and so on, but in reality the consumer does not want to buy the MiG-29 and its modifications. Do you think they give bribes to Indians to buy raphal? Ok, let our people hurry up and give, no problem. The main thing is to sell, but sales are not visible. This means that the reason is different. You can argue for as long as you want - your reasoning will not affect the contracts. I'm tired of discussing with you about anything.

[-Dmitry-]

You have a very strange logic. Where did I say that raphal is modern? Are you delusional? Provide a link. Oh, there is no such link? Then you are a liar)) 14-15 years younger, yes, he said.

You have a strange logic. The article is about Rafal and Mige, about Mig you say that everything is outdated with him, and about Rafal you say that he is also outdated, but younger. The point then is to say that the MiG glider is outdated ??? One might then think that Raphael has it modern, but about him you also say that he is outdated, just a little "younger". How are you with the logic? :)

Again, you only see what you want to see in my comments. Well, then you argue according to your own logic, not mine. I repeat once again: whoever needs it, they will buy a cannon gondola and a business. Drones will shoot down.

To quote you verbatim? I see sophistry, you are fluent.
"Judging by the communication with the pilots, the bvb is not very relevant today, the rockets are smart and very reliable, the percentage of hits is great, the chances of dodging are minimal."
This is what you wrote verbatim. BVB is not relevant. But for some reason OVT is one of the main requirements of the 5th generation aircraft? And why then OVT, if BVB is not relevant, and you can't dodge missiles? :) Why spend money on the development of OVT engines ???? Put the usual engine and that's it! what problems?
Putting an outboard gondola on an airplane on which everything is sharpened for maximum stealth? It's all the same that you shoot ordinary cartridges from the PBS - the sense in the PBS simply disappears.

Your whole problem is that you are operating with the future. 2 are set-point. There will be 6 more - tell us about them.

You don't know how to read at all. Plus you take the numbers from nowhere. Again, one grandmother said? :)

New multifunctional fighters MiG-35S were delivered to the Russian troops as part of the state defense order. This is reported in the infographics published in the newspaper of the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation "Krasnaya Zvezda".

Recall that the presentation of the car took place in January 2017 in the presence of Russian President Vladimir Putin. In July of the same year, the aircraft was presented at the International Aviation and Space Salon in Zhukovsky (MAKS), and a month later, in August 2017, at the Army forum.

Contract for the supply of six The MiG-35 until 2023 was signed by the Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation and the MiG company at the Army-2018 forum in Kubinka near Moscow. According to the agreement, the military department will receive aircraft in single and double (combat training) modifications "C" and "UB".

According to the posted infographics, according to the state defense order, MiG-35S aircraft (serial) were delivered to the troops.
The materials do not indicate the number of fighters received.

Where did you get the number 2 from? Did you invent it yourself, did you believe it yourself?

Why do we need an F-16? And what was the Su-75 made for? Maybe they want to save money on unification and the number of engines?

You do not shift from a sore head to a healthy one. You asked, why 2 engines, if you can put 1. A question about light fighters, just from the same series.

You can argue for as long as you want - your reasoning will not affect the contracts.

Will yours be reflected? This is not about contracts - again they didn’t come up with it, and I’m to blame :)

[Timon2155]

Quote: -Dmitry-

You have a strange logic. The article is about Rafal and Mige, about Mig you say that everything is outdated with him, and about Rafal you say that he is also outdated, but younger. The point then is to say that the MiG glider is outdated ??? One might then think that Raphael has it modern, but about him you also say that he is outdated, just a little "younger". How are you with the logic? :)

I see that you have only black and white, there is no middle ground. Ok, I'll give an example on a car: they sell Lada of the 70s and Kia Rio 2000. The question is which car will the consumer prefer? It's the same with planes. Explained easily?

Quote: -Dmitry-

But for some reason, OVT is one of the main requirements of the 5th generation aircraft? And why then OVT, if BVB is not relevant, and you can't dodge missiles? :) Why spend money on the development of OVT engines ???? Put the usual engine and that's it! what problems?
Putting an outboard gondola on an airplane on which everything is sharpened for maximum stealth? It's all the same that you shoot ordinary cartridges from the PBS - the sense in the PBS simply disappears.

Are you sure that Su-75 consumers will order OVT? As regards OVT, it is not yet clear what is what, will it be in demand? The Indian Su-30MKI OVT has not yet come in handy. By the guns, you will already decide: then you are going to shoot down the UAV over your territory (a cannon gondola in this case is logical - stealth over your territory is not needed), then you are going to use stealth to fight the UAV (why over someone else's territory, where stealth is really needed, shoot down UAV cannon?). Stealth is needed, coupled with internal bays and shock configuration. You have no logic.

Quote: -Dmitry-

Where did you get the number 2 from? Did you invent it yourself, did you believe it yourself?

Okay, you don't like my 2 meals. How many MiG-35s are in the troops now? Physically, not in plans.

Quote: -Dmitry-

Will yours be reflected? This is not about contracts - again they didn’t come up with it, and I’m to blame :)

Does it bother you that the MiG-35 is not for sale? It hasn't been sold for years, for decades it's just a MiG-29M2, it was ready in the early 2000s.

[-Dmitry-]

I see that you have only black and white, there is no middle ground. Ok, I'll give an example on a car: they sell Lada of the 70s and Kia Rio 2000. The question is which car will the consumer prefer? It's the same with planes. Explained easily?

You did not ask such questions, you categorically stated that the MiG glider is outdated.

Are you sure that Su-75 consumers will order OVT?

What are the consumers of the Su-75go ???? What are you about?! It is not that it didn’t go out for testing, it doesn’t even have a flight prototype. It will be brought up for at least 8-10 years. This is the first thing. Second, the SU-75 is a 5th generation aircraft, which unambiguously implies OVT. Without Bae. Otherwise, it is not the 5th generation.

Okay, you don't like my 2 meals. How many MiG-35s are in the troops now? Physically, not in plans.

That is, you yourself, without even knowing how many in the troops, took the number 2 from the ceiling and build your conjectures around it? :)))

Does it bother you that the MiG-35 is not for sale? It hasn't been sold for years, for decades it's just a MiG-29M2, it was ready in the early 2000s.

No, it doesn’t bother, because firstly, it only recently passed all the tests, secondly, this is far from the MiG-29M2.

[Timon2155]

You are so categorical: either modern or not. Newer, older, more modern, less-for you this is an empty phrase)))
Requirements for the 5th generation? Are you delusional? Who voiced them and when? It's like international law: everyone has heard, but no one can show where it is written)) They came up with it themselves, and answered the question themselves.
Produced 6 items. MiG-35, the troops received 2, others should be included in the composition by the end of 2023. - I have such information. If there are links with photos of 6 finished aircraft, show it, we'll see.

[-Dmitry-]

You are so categorical: either modern or not. Newer, older, more modern, less-for you this is an empty phrase)))

Are you also a switchman? They categorically argued that the glider of the MiG-29 was outdated, not me, but you. For your information, the aerodynamic glider of the MiG-35 is the same as that of its progenitor, the MiG-29. That's constructively already different - at least not older than Raphael's.

Produced 6 items. MiG-35, the troops received 2, others should be included in the composition by the end of 2023. - I have such information.

And where does this information come from? Even the official newspaper of the RF Armed Forces did not provide figures for how many were delivered. Again, one grandmother said? I see your grandmother is very informed :))) Only now there are no proofs from your grandmother. Even links to funny media. Even on the wiki. Only your own speculations.

Requirements for the 5th generation? Are you delusional? Who voiced them and when?

For example, the PAK FA program.

Well, in general, I realized that you can't get specifics from you - the demagogy and sophistry is a sea, and in essence, the dispute is zero point fucking tenths. Draining is counted, in general.

[Timon2155]

Drainage in what? In a linking competition? Rzhu over you)))) Feels like you feed on information only from the media. Apparently, you have no other sources, therefore, your numbers are out of place, and the data are only those that you can read somewhere: you just need a link. I don't have it. Following your logic, I ask for a link to the Air Force about the delivery of 6 aircraft to the troops. Oh, she's not there? Contradict yourself? Well, okay, I don't care. As for the aerodynamics of the MiG-35, you are wrong - it is, how to say and not offend you, is different. The installation of the edsu left an imprint on it - take a closer look at the sharp edges of the sag. And this is not the only change - google, you are fluent in the search engine)))) Outdated, compared to the Su-75. Rafal is somewhere in between. According to the requirements for the 5th generation, they also laughed, as if the PAK FA program was a legislator in this area. Other countries have their own requirements - such a thought did not come?

[KIND LAVRENTIUS]

Quote: Timon2155

The airframe design and propulsion system are outdated in the first place,

I was not too lazy and compared:
rafal - thrust 2x50kN, afterburner 2x75Kn, max skr 1.8M, ceiling 15300m, scorpion 305m / s, thrust weapon 1.05, cost from 85mln.
MiG - thrust 2x53kN, afterburner 2x88Kn, max skr 2.25M, ceiling 17500m, scorpion 330m / s, thrust weapon 1.10, cost from 45 million dollars.
the MiG also has a deflected thrust vector and the MiG has a two-fin tail.
I absolutely do not understand why Rafal is better than a moment ???

[911sx]

You have outdated information. Rafal's thrust is 7500 and 9 is almost 500 at afterburner.

[nks]

nooo :))) They say that in the latest versions they have increased traction for some export customers, but not so much

[KIND LAVRENTIUS]

Quote: 911sx

You have outdated information. Rafal's thrust is 7500 and 9 is almost 500 at afterburner.

I have not found information to support your words ... give a link.

[911sx]

http://www.airwar.ru/enc/fighter/rafal.html

[911sx]

M88-3 engine. Thrust - 7230, afterburner 9290 Kg

[KIND LAVRENTIUS]

Quote: 911sx

M88-3 engine. Thrust - 7230, afterburner 9290 Kg

Timon2155 and I have already discussed both the article and the afterburner thrust ... read below.
spoiler
the M88-3 engine did not exist at the time of this writing (and even today). on Rafal and RafalM were installed ONLY M88-2 with the characteristics that I indicated ...

[Timon2155]

You are not comparing engines, but airplanes in general. There are also specific indicators of engines - just compare them. I am sure you will discover a lot of new things)) And compare the ranges to the heap (the MiG has a small internal volume of fuel with gluttonous engines), the possible ammunition load in this case is also surprised)))

[KIND LAVRENTIUS]

Quote: Timon2155

You are not comparing engines, but airplanes in general.

certainly! Hindus do not buy engines, but AIRCRAFT !!!!!!!

Quote: Timon2155

There are also specific indicators of engines - just compare them.

see above

Quote: Timon2155

And compare the distances to the heap

here you show us these numbers!
you must confirm your words YOURSELF, and not ask others to confirm yours ...

[Timon2155]

Quote: KIND LAVRENTIUS

here you show us these numbers!
you must confirm your words YOURSELF, and not ask others to confirm yours ...

Well I wrote to you above that they lied with the range on the link you provided))))
In terms of specific parameters: weight M88-2 - 880 kg, RD-33MK-1055 kg. Length - 3,5m / 4,23m, respectively. Diameter -0,78m / 1,04m. Thrust 9290 kgf / 8600 kgf. The MIGA engine has less thrust, larger dimensions and weight.
Ask you? About what? Already brought a link on the ranges-good.

[Timon2155]

The most funny thing in your comparisons is that you take only the characteristics that are convenient for you))) Do not take into account the resource of the airframe and engines, range, versatility of Raphael, Brao, etc. And yes, you can compare the Rafale with the MiG-25, its speed is even higher)))

[KIND LAVRENTIUS]

Quote: Timon2155

The most funny thing in your comparisons is that you take only the characteristics that are convenient for you)))

The trick is that you DO NOT show ANY characteristics AT ALL !!!

Quote: Timon2155

Do not take into account the resource of the glider and engines, range, versatility of the Raphael, BREO, etc.

Well, take this into account and show us !!!!!

[this]

What the hell is economics, the cost of Rafale is such that for 10 French you can buy an aircraft carrier.

[Timon2155]

Do you even understand what you wrote? We are discussing the efficiency of engines like this. This directly affects the flight range, the weight of the ammunition. More economical engine = you can take less fuel / more side kit = maneuver and accelerate with high G-forces.

[KIND LAVRENTIUS]

Quote: Timon2155

We are discussing the efficiency of engines like this. This directly affects the flight range,

Rafal: Combat radius (as a fighter-interceptor) - 1093 km
moment: 1000 km
source:
https://topwar.ru/24871-francuzskiy-mnogocelevoy-istrebitel-dassault-rafale.html

[Timon2155]

Quote: KIND LAVRENTIUS

Rafal: Combat radius (as a fighter-interceptor) - 1093 km
moment: 1000 km
source:
https://topwar.ru/24871-francuzskiy-mnogocelevoy-istrebitel-dassault-rafale.html

And you are either a sly or a liar, choose))))) We brought the radius of the Raphal in the interceptor configuration, when it flies most of the time on the afterburner, and for the MiG they brought the usual non-afterburner radius. According to the same link, the radius of the Raphal is 1800 km, and the range of the MiG-35 without PTB is only 1800 km, i.e. the radius is something around 800-850 km. Now compare 1800 and 850)))

[-Dmitry-]

and the range of the MiG-35 without PTB is only 1800 km, i.e. the radius is something around 800-850 km.

Who do you think you are: a liar or a sly? :) The combat radius of the MiG-35, according to various sources, is from 1000 to 1200 km.
https://aviation21.ru/mig-35/
https://ria.ru/20170127/1486667522.html

As for Rafal, his radius of 1800 km., In many articles, is mentioned only in conjunction with 2-3 PTBs.

[Timon2155]

It's ridiculous to read on your link the maximum take-off weight of the MiG-29 is 29700kg with a curb weight of 17500kg))) Well, okay, let's think that the remaining 12200 kg is a payload)))) I hope you've already neighing from this data? And yes, the calculated radius is 1200 km))) Very valuable link

[-Dmitry-]

It's ridiculous to read on your link the maximum take-off weight of the MiG-29 is 29700kg with a curb weight of 17500kg))) Well, okay, let's think that the remaining 12200 kg is a payload)))) I hope you've already neighing from this data? Very valuable link

You do not give any links at all. Only your overstated self-esteem. Either I heard they say, etc. Very strong arguments.

[Timon2155]

Provide links, who is against? But not overtly left-wing data.

[-Dmitry-]

It's ridiculous to read on your link the maximum take-off weight of the MiG-29 is 29700kg with a curb weight of 17500kg)))

Empty weight 11 kg
The weight of the equipped aircraft is 17 kg
Maximum take-off weight 29 700 kg
Fuel weight (without PTB) 5 kg
Combat load 7 kg

What is the contradiction? Or does one grandmother say something differently to you? :)

[KIND LAVRENTIUS]

Quote: -Dmitry-

what is the contradiction? Or does one grandmother say something differently to you? :)

Empty: 11 000 kg
normal takeoff weight: 18 kg
maximum take-off weight: 24 500 kg
maximum landing weight: 16 800 kg
internal fuel mass: 5830 kg
such data was in the Indian tender ...

[Timon2155]

Why write this dregs? Perhaps the site was mistaken and provided erroneous data - you have not seen the original source of the Indian documents.

[KIND LAVRENTIUS]

Quote: Timon2155

Why write this dregs? Perhaps the site was mistaken and provided erroneous data - you have not seen the original source of the Indian documents.

if you don’t trust my sources, then I look forward to links to your sources ...
I am writing to you for the umpteenth time, give a comparative analysis of aircraft according to the indicators that you think are correct, and give us links to the source ... AND ALL QUESTIONS WILL BE RELEASED BY YOURSELF !!!!!!

[Timon2155]

I trust numbers, but they "don't beat". Means, somewhere the error crept in. I’ll ask you a question again. The link was given at 29700, in the Hindu tender 24500. It still does not converge. What else are they going to load 8000 kg on an already equipped plane? Answer it and that's it, without verbiage. I do not give an analysis, but just give numbers, dates, data - you yourself brought them on the engines. a couple of times I caught you on the left data))))

[Timon2155]

Can't you see it yourself? Curb 17500kg, and maximum 29700kg. What else is there to load for 12000+ kg? Explain, if not difficult. They also write on the fence, and there is firewood)))

[KIND LAVRENTIUS]

Quote: Timon2155

It's funny to read on your link

give a link where it's not funny to read !!!
you yourself do not give any data!
support your conclusions with facts! give a comparative analysis of Rafale and Mig35 aircraft.
and give a link where the thrust characteristics of the M88-2 are indicated, I did not find information on your data. many sources on the Internet point to the characteristics I indicated!
Specifications (M88-2)
Data from Safran Aircraft Engines [12]

General characteristics
Type: Afterburning turbofan
Length: 353.8cm (139.3in)
Diameter: 69.6 cm (27.4 in)
Dry weight: 897 kg (1,978 lb)
Components
Compressor: Axial, 3-stage LP, 6-stage HP
Combustors: Annular
Turbine: 1-stage LP, 1-stage HP
Performance
Maximum thrust: 50 kN (11,200 lbf) and 75 kN (16,900 lbf) (with afterburner)
Overall pressure ratio: 24.5: 1
Bypass ratio: 0.3: 1
Air mass flow: 65 kg / s (143 lb / s)
Turbine inlet temperature: 1,850 K (1,580 ° C)
Fuel consumption: 3,977 kg / h (8,770 lb / h) and 12,695 kg / h (27,990 lb / h) (with afterburner)
Specific fuel consumption: 22.14 g / (kN⋅s) (0.782 lb / (lbf⋅h)) and 47.11 g / (kN⋅s) (1.663 lb / (lbf⋅h)) (with afterburner)
Thrust-to-weight ratio: 5.68: 1 (dry) and 8.52: 1 (with afterburner)

[Timon2155]

Listen, "give, give, give ..." What else to give you? You yourself brought the links and confirmed my given data - there are both dimensions and weight and other data, you know how to use the search. You'd better give a specific reference, where I gave the wrong data, I would explain.

[KIND LAVRENTIUS]

Quote: Timon2155

Listen, "give, give, give ..." What else to give you?

you did not give a single link to the source of information, you did not give any comparative characteristics of the Rafale and Mig35 airplanes ... you just blablabla ...

Quote: Timon2155

gave a reference where I gave the wrong data, I would explain.

M88-2 Thrust 9290 - give a link where this thrust is indicated for the M88-2 engine ...

[Timon2155]

Where did I write about 9290kg? Give a link to my post. This is another comrade asserted from him and demand.

[KIND LAVRENTIUS]

Quote: Timon2155

Where did I write about 9290kg? Give a link to my post.

Well I wrote to you above that they lied with the range on the link you provided))))
In terms of specific parameters: weight M88-2 - 880 kg, RD-33MK-1055 kg. Length - 3,5m / 4,23m, respectively. Diameter -0,78m / 1,04m. Thrust 9290 kgf/ 8600 kgf. The MIGA engine has less thrust, larger dimensions and weight.
Ask you? About what? Already brought a link on the ranges-good.

[Timon2155]

Please

http://www.airwar.ru/enc/fighter/rafal.html

[KIND LAVRENTIUS]

Quote: Timon2155

please

http://www.airwar.ru/enc/fighter/rafal.html

are you kidding me?
there it is written in black and white:
The next step was the creation of an improved M88-2 turbojet engine, which in the serial version corresponds to the fifth generation engines. This engine is distinguished by its low weight (about 900 kg), compactness (diameter 0,69 m) and high fuel efficiency. It has a takeoff thrust of 5100 kgf, which increases to 7650 kgf during afterburner. It uses a digital control system FADEC, with the help of which, within 3 seconds, the engine can switch from the "idle" mode to the maximum afterburner. The throttle control unit allows you to easily change the thrust from the combat mode to "low throttle" and vice versa at any time. The engine is able to operate normally even in the presence of minor failures, without warning the pilot. The TRDDF design uses a three-stage fan and a six-stage high pressure compressor. The temperature of the gases in front of the turbine is almost 1580 ° C, and the total pressure ratio is 24,5. With a takeoff thrust of 5100 kgf, the specific fuel consumption is 0,8 kg / kgf h, and with afterburner - 1,7 kg / kgf

[Timon2155]

Google the M88-3 variant - its data are given in the characteristics of the Raphal in the table at the end

[KIND LAVRENTIUS]

Quote: Timon2155

Google the M88-3 variant

you wrote about М88-2 !!!!!!!!!

Quote: Timon2155

M88-3 - its data are given in the characteristics of the Raphal in the table at the end

from the article it is clear that this is a FUTURE engine project ...
To expand the combat capabilities of the Rafale aircraft and the possible replacement of the M53 engines on the Mirage 2000 fighters and the RM12 engines on the Gripenes, SNECMA is developing versions of the M88 turbojet engine with increased thrust. The first step in this direction is the creation of the M88-3 engine. The takeoff thrust of this turbojet engine will be 9180 kgf, which is 20% more than that of the M88-2. At the same time, everything is being done to maintain maximum unification with the M88-2 engine. According to SNECMA, 40% of assemblies and parts will be interchangeable.

[Timon2155]

The article is also no longer new - there the description has been going on since the 1986 version. The wiki links to the M88-3 variant as a fact, they say, it is being offered to consumers. And future engines based on the M88 will have almost 11 tons of thrust. Where is the truth, xs.

[KIND LAVRENTIUS]

Quote: Timon2155

Where is the truth, xs.

on the manufacturer's website ....
listed thrust is 16500 lbf, which corresponds to the M88-2 73 kN (7 kgf; 400 lbf) thrust variant installed on the Dassault Rafale.
https://www.safran-group.com/products-services/m88-proven-performance-and-reliability

[Timon2155]

I am very happy for them, but there is stupid M88 and that's it. Rather, it is a handout. Neither the modification is specified, nor the characteristics of the thrust acre. But there should be a whole family
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snecma_M88

[KIND LAVRENTIUS]

Quote: Timon2155

Please

http://www.airwar.ru/enc/fighter/rafal.html

and still on your own link:
practical range without PTB 2000 km, radius 1055 km ......

[Timon2155]

1760 km according to my link, at the end of it is written in the table in the configuration for interception.

[KIND LAVRENTIUS]

Quote: Timon2155

1760 km according to my link, at the end of it is written in the table in the configuration for interception.

this is with three PTBs .... because without PTBs, the practical range is 2000 km - like the MiG35 !!!

[Timon2155]

There is no about 3 PTB))) Or give a link to the range without PTB))) For the MiG, the range is generally calculated. Does this bother you? The plane is soon 20 years old, and the range is calculated))))

[KIND LAVRENTIUS]

Quote: Timon2155

There is no about 3 PTB))) Or give a link to the range without PTB)))

because without PTB, the practical range is 2000 km
in your link .... a hypothetical plane is considered that does not actually exist ... you are linking to a 2009 article that discusses the future Rafale M ....

[Timon2155]

The wiki provides information about the existing M88-3 engines. Like, they already offer for gripena-fly in, buy. Moreover, in the future they plan to raise the thrust by almost 11 tf. Where is the truth, xs.

[KIND LAVRENTIUS]

Quote: Timon2155

And you are either a sly or a liar, choose)))))

Dmitry answered you below ...
1800 km is with three PTBs (indicated in the tender for the Indian tender).

[Timon2155]

I already answered Dmitry above, read it too, think it over, count it.

[paul3390]

Rafal is actually born in 1986 too. Not a boy. And for another 20 years, it was brought to mind.

[Timon2155]

When you talk about 1986, you mean a demonstrator of Rafal technologies with F404 engines - it has little in common with the serial Rafal that we know. This is how Rafal began flight tests in 1991 in the C01-single variant. This version was very different from the original version. And the MiG-29 in 1977 was already tested with might and main in the 9-12 version. Version C 9-13, which went to the USSR Air Force, did not differ much from the 9-12 in terms of the airframe and power plant: the changes concerned avionics, an increase in the resource and an increase in the capacity of the fuel system. Those. it was 1977 that can be considered the "birthday" of the MiG-29 in metal. After that, no significant changes were made to the glider and the power plant: the upper entrance was removed, tanks, resources, wing mechanization area, refueling bar were added, etc., but there are no fundamental changes. So, whatever one may say, Rafal is ~ 15 years younger. To be fair, the Su-35S differs from the Su-27 in about the same way as the MiG-35 from 29 - this is an upgrade, albeit extensive.

[Sergey BM]

Can you tell us more about the disadvantages?
How unrecoverable?
Yesterday on YouTube I watched about the F-5E - it flies, modernization programs are offered ...
And what old stuff ...
What's wrong with ours?

[Ingenegr]

It is illogical, because the "Rafale" design comes from the same 70s. Let me remind you that work on "Rafale" began in 1975, the first flight was performed in 1986. The competition for the creation of the PFI fighter of the USSR Air Force was announced in 1969, and only in 1971 it was "bifurcated" into 2 branches - LPFI and TPFI. That is, the start of work on the future MiG-29 and "Rafale" is only 5-6 years apart.

[lucul]

"It is illogical, because the design of the Rafale is from the same 70s. Let me remind you that work on the Rafale began in 1975, the first flight was performed in 1986."

All Raphael's trick is in the engine, constructively (glider), yes, he comes from the 70s, but the engine is state-of-the-art.

[TermNachTer]

And what is so exclusive about this engine? How is it fundamentally different from other turbojet engines? But the stealth glider - technology - that would be no better example.

[Zaurbek]

This is the freshest turbojet engine in the dimension of RD33 for today ... .. it is in gripene and tejas and F18 ... ..in technique we approach it in Al41 and 30ke ... ..but there the tonnage is different

[nks]

Quote: Zaurbek

he is in gripen and tejas and F18

You are confusing with GE F414. On the Rafala, the French Safran (SNECMA) M88 - by the way, they are smaller than the F414, which is the modernized F404, but technologically the M88 is superior to the F414 and, of course, the RD33 (it still has a traditionally so-so resource, but it turns out quite sad in the deck)

[Zaurbek]

You are right, but its roots lie in 414m .... either licenses, or assistance in creating

[nks]

No, the roots do not lie and there was no help. This myth exists precisely because the F404 was used on the demonstrator - the M88 was not yet ready, and the F404 is simply the closest in terms of dimensions, although it is still larger and therefore the rafale A demonstrator had to be made larger than the planned serial one. The F404 is a good engine, but the pregeneration relative to the M88, and therefore the rafal on the M88 can super cruise, but on the F404 it could not, and even on the F414, the grip cannot now.

[TermNachTer]

The mattress toppers have a similar engine or even better, which is on the F - 35. I think that RD - 33 is still a reserve for modernization.

[Zaurbek]

His one-year-old Al31 ....... And already here Hayat Al41 .....

[Zaurbek]

He has a lot of chips…. And modern turbojet engines (there are no such engines on MIG), a high proportion of composites, a resource ... ... and this is a single tactical fighter. In the Aerospace Forces for this Su34 + Su30 + Su35 ... .. Rafal plays the role of each of them ... there are not only long-range missiles, but there are elongated medium

[this]

Well, do not write nonsense, he is very far from dryers, they are still heavy fighters, and the Su-34 is generally a bomber.

[Zaurbek]

This is a medium fighter ... ... I wrote about the technical level ... Rafal and a bomber and a fighter

[this]

he is an average fuel truck.

[TermNachTer]

The idea of ​​universality is good up to a certain point, and then it turns out that it is equally bad everywhere. In the history of technology, such examples are dark. The stories of the French that "raphal" is good in everything and everywhere is from the series "present need as virtue." The MiG - 35 is good at what it was made for, but for other purposes there are "older brothers" - "Sushki" and the MiG - 31. And the "Raphael" has no older brothers.

[nks]

Quote: TermNachTER

and then it turns out that he is equally bad everywhere.

Rafal in practice shows the opposite - he is good everywhere.

Quote: TermNachTER

The stories of the French that "raphal" is good in everything and everywhere - this is from the series "present need for virtue"

You tell, and Raphael has statistics. It has a lower accident rate as a deck than all other analogs (including American Hornets and F-35s), while only sorties from the deck, it made several times more than the MiG-29k in general. Its wide range of performed tasks has been confirmed by practice, while some of its "analogues" (both Russian and American) lack some functions even in theory.

[TermNachTer]

What battles did Rafal take part in? What results have been achieved?

[nks]

Well, you yourself can probably work a little with Google or a wiki at least if you still don't know. Afghanistan, Libya, Syria, Mali. Just do not talk about the absence of real air battles - there are practically none of them now, and thus they themselves cannot prove in any way that someone is bad at them. In general, one must understand real exploitation - it is not only a battle, but also high operational readiness in conditions of intensive missions in various conditions and various missions, including reconnaissance. By the way, neither Mig- * nor Su- * have anything close to Reco NG.

[Timon2155]

Quote: nks

Just do not talk about the absence of real air battles - there are practically none of them now, and thus they themselves cannot prove in any way that someone is bad at them.

Here the comrade above does not appease and proves that the edge of the guns is needed!)))

[nks]

The edge is needed - this, of course, is a strong exaggeration, but for some tasks it is reasonable to preserve it (by the way, in the tender document according to MRCBF, the Indians ask about the gun - he is the customer :) Indeed, the task of destroying an enemy drone is relevant and, if there is an opportunity make a cannon so as not to waste a rocket - why not. And as a weapon of last chance in the BVB is also not bad. Plus, as a rule, operators want a cannon to work on the ground in some CAS variants. The question is exactly how much the fighter is _multi-functional_.

[Timon2155]

Wait and see. In the meantime, the gun is not on the Su-75. Even though it's a layout.

[nks]

It is not on the f-35 B / C either, but about the Su-75, I doubt that I will ever see not a model, but in the sky :)

[Timon2155]

The engine and the truncated avionics will be supplied from the Su-57. The glider will be done, I think. The probability of seeing is great, I think))

[TermNachTer]

Which of the countries you have listed has serious air defense and air forces?))) Mattress covers also used the F - 35 in Afghanistan, I still don’t understand why?))))

[nks]

Once again, I'm talking about practice. This is what it is. Sorry, but there are no serious conflicts between countries with serious air defense and air forces now (and this is a blessing). On the other hand, if you look closely, this practice is not so small. Again, even teaching is also a practice - it is a matter of the composition of these teachings. Rafal has the ability to work on exercises against various systems, including against the Slovak and Greek s-300s. The air defense was carried out in Libya. Air defense there is, of course, weak, but not all modern MFIs (and the Air Force in general) have such experience. There is still such
https://tass.ru/armiya-i-opk/5125763

"Russian air defense systems at the Khmeimim and Tartus bases timely detected and controlled all missile launches from both sea and air carriers of the United States and Great Britain," the general said.
The announced participation of the French aviation is not recorded "
Those, of course, here we were not talking about the defeat of the Rafals, since they did not attack the objects of the RF Armed Forces, but such an experience is expensive, including taking into account the fact that there were not only S-300, S-400, but also KUG in Middle-earth, from where the attack was going and AWACS A-50 was on duty. And the fact that the Rafali took off from the Istres base in France, which is almost 3000 km from the coast of Syria, speaks of high operational capabilities.

[TermNachTer]

PS I'm not saying that the MiG - 35 is very good. I doubt that Rafale is not as good as advertised. By the way, in the subject, during the campaign of "de Gaulle" it became clear that THAT on the "Rafalev" engines should be done every 150 hours. So much for saving on operating costs)))

[nks]

Nikolay, I suspect that you haven't even read these advertising brochures

Quote: TermNachTER

By the way, in the subject, during the campaign of "de Gaulle" it became clear that THAT on the "Rafalev" engines should be done every 150 hours. So much for saving on operating costs)))

I guess you read this on the Russian wiki

At the beginning of 2001, it became clear that the engines of the Rafal aircraft, designed to be based on an aircraft carrier, require technical prophylaxis every 150 hours of flight [30], while in field conditions such prophylaxis could not be carried out more often than 500 hours later. As a result, the entire batch of Rafale aircraft was rejected.

A wiki is a good tool for checking and evaluating the validity of statements in it. We follow the link, we find that the main one is broken - we look in the archive. Fox3 magazine (n2) is the official publication of the rafale international consortium (you could say that the same advertising brochure). We are looking for the right quote. Here it is (5 pages pdf)

“When introducing into service such an advanced engine, you have to be very cautious at first”, explains Jacques Desclaux. “For the M88, we have selected new technologies such as powder metallurgy, and we want to be certain that problems do not appear. This is why the engine initially had to be inspected every 150 hours, but in January 2001 this interval was raised to 500 hours, corresponding to roughly two / three years of operational use.
As experience builds up, it will be progressively extended to 800 hours or 1,000 hours, depending on the components. In comparison with the Rafale, when the Mirage 2000 entered service, the M53 had to be checked every 75 hours. "

Obviously, we are talking about the deliberate bad faith of the authors of the Russian article in the wiki. I rule out variants of poor knowledge of English - here, if you don't translate, you won't get such nonsense.
1. There was nothing unexpected "during de Gaulle's campaign." This is an absolutely routine and standard thing for all new engines (at least for SNECMA / SAFRAN) - a reduced inspected interval.
2. Already in January 2001, the interval was increased to 500 (and not at all "could not be carried out more often than after 500 hours") It should be noted that he entered the service (those IOCs) in May 2001 - those at that time he was already 500 hours). And no "rejected" parties.
3. What is 150 hours? There is already a hint, but I must say that some fighters in some countries do not have such an amount of flight time in a year (in particular, the very same mig-29k). The standard rafal flight in the French Air Force / Navy is 200-250 hours per year. Moreover, the deck-ships do not fly from the ShchdG all the time - about half of the flight time is from the deck. At the same time, the ShdG has everything not only for inspection, but even for many types of repairs, including engines.
So yes, the M88 is a very reliable engine with low maintenance and 20+ years of experience.

[TermNachTer]

I work at a plant that makes aircraft engines, although I’m not an engineer or a designer, but I understand what a good engine is. M - 88 is a regular, medium engine, like Russian, English or American. Has its own "+" and "-", nothing super unique. And the plane, respectively, is also so-so. In addition to excellent advertising))) The weakest engines, the lowest thrust-to-weight ratio, the lowest maximum speed. And oh shit - the largest combat load of 9,5 tons, even more than that of the "Eurofighter", which in all respects, where it will be better. Where do such nishtyaks come from?)))

[TermNachTer]

PS weak engines mean poor acceleration characteristics - one of the main requirements for a fighter.

[nks]

Nikolai, working at a factory is good (without any irony), but one must not forget about education. Learn and read more. Moreover, you have engineers at your side. While you have problems even with careful reading of Wikipedia, not to mention special literature, and you just write another nonsense. Sorry!)

[TermNachTer]

Do you claim to be the ultimate truth? Are you God's deputy for aviation? I communicate with designers, and so they unanimously assert that there are two good schools of aircraft engine building - Soviet (Russian) and Anglo - American, there were once German - died and French - will soon die. Because the creation of a new engine from "0" is a lot of money, which France simply does not have. The M - 88, so beloved by you, is simply a deep modernization of the M - 53 and nothing more. A fundamentally new thing, what the F - 22 flies on or the Su - 57 will fly on, is not and never will be in France.

[nks]

Quote: TermNachTER

"Do you pretend to be the ultimate truth? Are you the deputy of God for aviation?"

No, but in 1x, I am still an engineer, although not at an aircraft plant, and secondly, I am ready to communicate in detail at a good technical level and bring normal proofs. You are still speaking general phrases, demonstrating incompetence even at the level of terminology, and so far you have been able to give only one fake proof from the Russian wiki.

[TermNachTer]

Numbers are good if they are real and not advertising. But numbers are not at war. I tell you this, as a person who once ran through the mountains and "greenery" in Afghanistan.

[nks]

So I'm talking about the same thing. :) But you still figure it out and decide whether we are discussing the engineering side or the practice of application. Otherwise, you all jump from one to the other and cannot say anything in essence either there or there.

[TermNachTer]

These are two very closely related phenomena. You can have the latest and greatest weapon, but if the l / s does not know how to use it or does not want to, then this is just a very expensive scrap metal. The French cannot defend themselves at home.

[Zaurbek]

Mirages did a good job ..... and contributed to Rafale

[Zaurbek]

An Israeli or French or American suspended container has better characteristics day and night than the filling of the Su34 ...... AFAR better maps the terrain and finds targets there and determines who it is ....... Than the Su34 radar ...... .Even the PFAR Su35 for three heads does it better plus and works by air ...

[Timon2155]

You are somewhat wrong. Rafal began to develop in the 70s, yes. But the Rafal demonstrator made its first flight in 1986, and the MiG-29 in 1977. Moreover, in 1986, the demonstrator Rafal flew with F404 engines and had little in common with the Rapal that we all know. And the Rafal known to us with native engines flew only in 1991. Total 14-15 years difference between the MiG and Rafal. I will note, these years fell on the rapid development of computer technology and CAD. You can draw your own conclusions.

[nks]

Quote: Timon2155

Rafal began to develop in the 70s, yes.

No, the program was launched in 1983. As for CAD - rapid development began in the 70s and Dassault was just one of the pioneers of its implementation (and later became the industry leaders in the world of CAD and PLM development and implementation with his daughter Dassault Systemes) - already mirage 2000 was mostly parts are done in numbers, not on paper.

[Timon2155]

The whole point is that the MiG-29 was made practically without CAD, on "paper". EDSU could not (did not want to) deliver for the same reason.

[-Dmitry-]

The whole point is that the MiG-29 was made practically without CAD, on "paper". EDSU could not (did not want to) deliver for the same reason.

The Su-27 had EDSU, although it was also made on paper.

[Timon2155]

On the Su-27 / T-10, the edsu did not appear suddenly. If you are aware of it, the Sukhovites already had it for a long time and tediously at the T-4. And even with these developments, there was at least one disaster on the T-10, associated with the aircraft entering off-design mode due to the fault of the emf with the destruction of the structure, let me remind you that the Su-27 is statically unstable, if the emf fails or its error, it is likely to fail into outrageous regimes and is essentially falling apart. On the MiG, they could not / did not want to introduce the emf, since it took a lot of time to fine-tune it, and they did not have the competencies in this. Sapr could have helped with this, but at that time its use had just begun to unfold. Will that answer suit you? You can offer your version of the absence of emf on the MiG-29, I will read it with pleasure. And at the same time, you can answer my yesterday's question about your erroneous understanding of the aerodynamics of the MiG-35, tell us how it changed with the introduction of the emf, or somehow merged on this topic, probably understood the mistake and decided to chat

[-Dmitry-]

On the Su-27 / T-10, the edsu did not appear suddenly. If you are in the know, they worked it out for a long time and tediously even on the T-4, the Sukhovites already had

How many hemorrhoids were is another question. You again categorically stated that EDSU was not made at Miga, ONLY because it was made on paper. I gave you an example that the SU-27 is also made on paper, but the EDSU is there. In response, you began to play around and translate the dispute into my competence / non-competence, in the best traditions of demagoguery.

You'd better google and tell us how the aerodynamics of the MiG-35 changed with the introduction of the emf, otherwise they somehow merged on this topic, probably understood the mistake and decided to chat

You merged there, tk. began to divert the discussion aside and interfere with the flies with cutlets. Actually, the dispute began with the fact that you argued that the MiG-29K glider (and this is far from the original MiG-29) is hopelessly outdated. Then they started playing around, rubbing in about EDSU on the 35th, although there is EDSU on the MiG-29K.

[Timon2155]

Do you really not understand my posts? Or do you have your own vision? I don’t refuse my words, on paper it was impossible to make an emf for the MiG-29 within the proposed time frame. The Sukhovites were able to - they already had competencies. Is it really incomprehensible? Where am I? He painted it clearly and in detail, but you saw only what is beneficial to you))) It is interesting to know your opinion, why was there no EDSU on the MiG-29? And what about the aerodynamics of the MiG with the edsu? Has it changed or what? This is your "pearl" - I want to hear an answer from a competent comrade)))) I'm sure I won't hear it))) I still say the MiG glider is outdated. My vision is that we need a single-engine aircraft with internal compartments, moderate stealth technology without harm to aerodynamics, with the possibility of installing an optional uvt / ovt, a supersonic cruiser and a good resource. All this will be (I am sure!) On the Su-75, and the MiG does not have all of this, therefore, I think it is failing in sales. What does the MiG-29K have to do with it? Are we discussing it? No, a discussion about Rafale and MiG-35.

[-Dmitry-]

Do you really not understand my posts? Or do you have your own vision? I don’t refuse my words, on paper it was impossible to make an emf for the MiG-29 within the proposed time frame.

I say what I see. That is not what you said.

The whole point is that the MiG-29 was made practically without CAD, on "paper". EDSU could not (did not want to) deliver for the same reason.

The emphasis is on the fact that the MIL was done on paper and that is why, EDSU was not made there.

Where am I?

Above, I gave where.

I painted it clearly and in detail, but you saw only what is beneficial to you)))

Where did you describe there clearly and in detail? Is this where the MIL was made on paper and therefore the EDSU could not / did not want to do it? :)

So what about the aerodynamics of the MiG with the edsu? Has it changed or what? This is your "pearl" - I want to hear the answer from a competent comrade))))

No, it was you who gave the pearl. Can you imagine what the aerodynamics of a glider is? How EDSU can affect glider aerodynamics? EDSU affects aircraft handling in general and its performance characteristics, and not on glider aerodynamics. Glider aerodynamics the presence or absence of the EDSU does not change - the flight characteristics of the aircraft change! Or is the plane and the glider the same for you? :)
So you give the pearls, not me. Don't mix flies and cutlets together :)

I still say the MiG glider is outdated. My vision is that we need a single-engine aircraft with internal compartments, stealth technology (but without harm to aerodynamics), with the option of installing an optional uvt / ovt, a supersonic cruiser and a good resource.

The article deals specifically with 2 real planes - MIG-29K and Rafal M, and here is a non-existent plane, which will be finished for another 10 years ???? It's like the question of which is better than AK or M-4, better to say plasmogan :)))
So, excuse me, only you give out pearls here :)

[Timon2155]

Quote: -Dmitry-

I say what I see. That is not what you said.

Quote: -Dmitry-

Above, I gave where.

Quote: -Dmitry-

The emphasis is on the fact that the MIG was done on paper and that is why, EDSU was not done there.

Yes, this is exactly what I continue to say: it was precisely because of the development on paper that there was no emf on the MiG-29! If there was development experience, they would have time to do it on paper, but this experience was not there either. And starting from scratch on paper = breaking the deadline. Used a b CAD-made b eds in the proposed time frame. What confuses you in my answers? It is impossible to write more directly and unambiguously, but you still do not understand and you bend your line, such as Yulia, etc. I don't care, keep practicing denying the obvious.

Quote: -Dmitry-

Where did you describe there clearly and in detail? Is this where the MIL was made on paper and therefore the EDSU could not / did not want to do it?

And what do you want? A video from the developers with a detailed answer why, how and where? I gave you the reasons why they didn’t make EDSU. For the hundredth time I ask: give your vision of the reasons for the absence of edsu, I read, suddenly, in your version there will be something that I do not know?

Quote: -Dmitry-

No, it was you who gave the pearl. Can you imagine what the aerodynamics of a glider is? How can EDSU affect airframe aerodynamics? EDSU affects the controllability of the aircraft as a whole and its flight characteristics, and not the aerodynamics of the airframe. The aerodynamics of the airframe does not change from the presence or absence of the EDSU - the flight characteristics of the aircraft change! Or is the plane and the glider the same for you? :)
So you give the pearls, not me. Don't mix flies and cutlets together :)

Listen, I gave you a hint - look at the sharp edges of the nodules that appear! Dig there, sort out the vortices and so on, the aerodynamic characteristics have changed! Or, do you think, just replaced the rods with wires?)))) About the increased areas of control surfaces, I generally keep quiet - these are such obvious changes that they cannot be overlooked. But you insist that the aerodynamic characteristics of the original MiG-29 = MiG-35. You can see your deepest understanding of my posts and attentiveness of reading them.

Quote: -Dmitry-

The article deals specifically with 2 real planes - MIG-29K and Rafal M, and here is a non-existent plane, which will be finished for another 10 years ???? It's like the question of which is better than AK or M-4, better to say plasmogan :)))

And besides, I compare today in aviation (we have Su-57/75, F-22 (with a stretch) and their F-35) with yesterday's (rafal) and the day before yesterday (MiG-35). If for you the Su-57 (and the Su-75 uses technologies, developments and the concept of a cheaper and simplified Su-57), F-22, F-35 are plasmagons - for God's sake, this only speaks of your myopia in understanding today and tomorrow ... The Su-57 has certainly already taken place and will be purchased; it and the Su-75 will remain relevant in 30 years. How about buying a MiG-35 today so that it would lose its relevance in 3-5 years after the Su-75 entered the market? So so idea.

[-Dmitry-]

Yes, this is exactly what I continue to say: it was precisely because of the development on paper that there was no emf on the MiG-29!

Again, did you come up with it yourself, did you believe it yourself? Or will you again say that you have such information? :) Actually, the chief designer of the 29th explained the reason for the choice of the control system in a completely different way. Well, of course, you know better, you have an informed grandmother :)

Listen, I gave you a hint - look at the sharp edges of the nodules that appear!

Play again :) You said this:

As for the aerodynamics of the MiG-35, you are wrong - it is, how to say and not offend you, is different. Installing edsu left its mark on it- take a closer look at the sharp edges of the sag.

You argued that the slightly increased influx of the 35th MiG's airframe is the result of installing the EDSU :)) That is, it seems to you that the EDSU, that the structural elements of the airframe are the same :) Who gives out pearls here? :)
Naturally, in the 35th, the aerodynamics are slightly different, but I said about the glider that significant changes compared to 29 it does not. At least I'm not talking nonsense that the glider inflows is an element of the EDSU :)))

If for you the Su-57 (and the Su-75 uses technologies, developments and the concept of a cheaper and simplified Su-57), F-22, F-35 are plasmogons -

There is no need to attribute to me what I did not say.

And besides, I compare today in aviation (we have Su-57/75, F-22 (with a stretch) and their F-35) with yesterday's (rafal) and the day before yesterday (MiG-35).

And that's what I'm talking about, the article deals only with Mige and Rafal, and here the SU-57, F-22, F-35 and the non-existent SU-75 ???? Besides my myopia? How is your logic in general? :)) Nobody asked you to compare with the new generation of aircraft - it’s a no brainer that the aircraft of the 5th generation are superior to both the Rafale and the 35th. It's about a comparison between Rafal and Mig.

[Timon2155]

Quote: -Dmitry-

Again, did you come up with it yourself, did you believe it yourself? Or will you again say that you have such information? :) Actually, the chief designer of the 29th explained the reason for the choice of the control system in a completely different way. Well, of course, you know better, you have an informed grandmother :)

Did the chief designer whisper in your ear personally? Or is it your valuable information with links and stuff? I ask for a link then, I suppose, it corresponds to the truth and your grandmother is more knowledgeable than mine))) And how do you explain the fact that after a few years at 9-15, EDSU appeared?

Quote: -Dmitry-

You argued that the slightly increased influx of the airframe of the 35th MiG is the result of the installation of the EDSU :)) That is, it seems to you that the EDSU, that the structural elements of the airframe are the same :) Who gives out pearls here? :) Naturally, in the 35th, the aerodynamics are a little different, but I said about the glider, that there are no significant changes in it compared to the 29th. At least I'm not talking nonsense that the glider inflows is an element of the EDSU :)))

I still say: the changed influxesresult installation of EDSU! But further away from you is a complete lie: where did I say that "EDSU and airframe structural elements are one and the same"? Quote pliz. Or are you having trouble understanding the text? Again your habit of lying? Putting yourself in a stupid light ... Henceforth, I ask you not to invent and quote before answering. Apparently, you do not understand the essence of the installation of the EDSU and the modernization of the airframe required for this, namely, the conversion of the MiG-29 from statically stable to unstable. How to shift the aerodynamic focus forward and get this static instability? For this, we had to change the design of the influxes - the focus shifted forward, 9-15 became statically unstable. Along the way, a lot of things have been done - I'm too lazy to write you the same thing for the hundredth time. Read http://www.airwar.ru/enc/fighter/mig29m.html Definitely horns and legs remained from the previous glider. And you claim that it has remained the same and "there are no significant changes in it."

Quote: -Dmitry-

The article deals specifically with 2 real planes - MIG-29K and Rafal M, and here is a non-existent plane, which will be finished for another 10 years ???? It's like the question of which is better than AK or M-4, better to say plasmogan :)))

Quote: -Dmitry-

There is no need to attribute to me what I did not say.

Ie, this is not your message? ))) For you, the single-engine Su-75, based on the technologies of the Su-57 - is the plasmogan))))

Quote: -Dmitry-

And that's what I'm talking about, the article deals only with Mige and Rafal, and here the SU-57, F-22, F-35 and the non-existent SU-75 ???? Besides my myopia? How is your logic in general? :)) Nobody asked you to compare with the new generation of aircraft - it’s a no brainer that the aircraft of the 5th generation are superior to both the Rafale and the 35th. It's about a comparison between Rafal and Mig.

Rafal partially has the characteristics of the 5th generation. There are only internal compartments, UVT / OVT (not the fact that customers need it). That is why, technically, it looks like a preferable purchase than the MiG-35. Against Raphael, only the cost and reluctance of the French to share technology, but this is already politics, etc.

[-Dmitry-]

Did the chief designer whisper in your ear personally? Or is it your valuable information with links and stuff? I ask for a link then, I suppose, it corresponds to the truth and your grandmother is more knowledgeable than mine)))

Demagogy. Throughout the entire dispute, almost always (with the exception of 1-2 times), you did not bother to confirm your words with proofs (links, etc.). Only meaningfully hinting at your awareness. By the way, not confirmed by anything. You refute all the links of your opponents, they say they are ridiculous, they say they are unreliable, but do not give a single one in response, just let the fog in, they say I know, they say I have info :)

And yet, yes, GK whispered and just where you give the link :)

Explaining the reasons for the abandonment of the EDSU in favor of the traditional control system at that stage of development. M.R. Waldenberg (1982-1993 chief designer of the MiG-29) emphasized: “The main credo of our company: everything good, proven, should not be discarded, but applied on a new machine, whether it concerns a landing parachute, a normal rear-mounted stabilizer or a traditional control system. If these smart, reliable, simple solutions provide you with what you intend - short mileage, low creep speeds, stability and controllability, you should not change everything all at once just because someone switched to carbon brakes, duck, fly-by-wire. system, etc ... The most reliable system is the one that is not on the plane at all! She will never refuse. "

There are no hints of design difficulties. For those who are in the tank, I can explain that at that design stage, based on the technical specification, the designers considered that the introduction of an EDSU for a statically stable aircraft was not necessary, and not because they could not, because they did not have CAD systems. This is pure speculation.

But further away from you is a complete lie: where did I say that "EDSU and airframe structural elements are one and the same"? Quote pliz. Or are you having trouble understanding the text? Again your habit of lying? Putting yourself in a stupid light ... Henceforth, I ask you not to invent and quote before answering.

I see that you are not only a demagogue, but also a liar and a switchman.

The installation of the edsu left an imprint on it - take a closer look at the sharp edges of the sag.

How do you order to understand this pearl of yours? :)))

Looking at everything, you do not understand the essence of the installation of the EDSU and the modernization of the airframe required for this, namely, the conversion of the MiG-29 from statically stable to unstable. How to shift the aerodynamic focus forward and get this static instability? For this, we had to change the design of the influxes - the focus shifted forward, 9-15 became statically unstable. Along the way, a lot of things have been done - I'm too lazy to write you the same thing for the hundredth time. Read http://www.airwar.ru/enc/fighter/mig29m.html

I read this article for a long time and there is no such noodles that you are trying to hang on my ears :) Have you read this article yourself? :) In general, if you think logically, the installation of the EDSU follows from a change in the airframe, or rather its aerodynamics, that is, first, the airframe, its aerodynamics change, and based on the behavior of the aircraft, a decision is made to implement one or another control system, and not vice versa! We decided to install an EDSU and said, and he is statically stable, why does he need an EDSU then? Let's make it statically unstable :))) So who looks stupid here? :)
If you are not aware, a statically unstable aircraft is not done by installing an EDSU on it, but to increase its performance characteristics, but due to the, (exactly this way, and nothing else) that it is unstable and strives to go into a stall, such aerodynamic schemes need an EDSU, and not vice versa.

Ie, this is not your message? ))) For you, the single-engine Su-75, based on the technologies of the Su-57 - is the plasmogan))))

Who here blamed that I had problems understanding the texts? In my opinion, this is your obvious problem with understanding. And most likely, another casuistry. I said what I said, but what you thought of to yourself is your problem.

Rafal partially has the characteristics of the 5th generation. There are only internal compartments, UVT / OVT (not the fact that customers need it). That is why, technically, it looks like a preferable purchase than the MiG-35. Against Raphael, only the cost and reluctance of the French to share technology, but this is already politics, etc.

Of all the signs, it only has a cruising supersonic, which, however, does not make its combat radius without PTB, (a radius of 1800 km with only 2-3 PTBs), more than that of the MiG-35. In terms of the aggregate characteristics, the MiG-35 is not inferior, and in the BVB it definitely surpasses the Rafal. So the Rafal has no particular superiority over the MiG-35.

[Timon2155]

Quote: -Dmitry-

Demagogy. Throughout the entire dispute, almost always (with the exception of 1-2 times), you did not bother to confirm your words with proofs (links, etc.). Only meaningfully hinting at your awareness. By the way, not confirmed by anything. You refute all the links of your opponents, they say they are ridiculous, they say they are unreliable, but do not give a single one in response, just let the fog in, they say I know, they say I have info :)

Ok, I will answer your question specifically: I taught the MiG-29 and its modifications at the institute and then, on duty, dealt with them. Will it suit you? Confirm you exactly what, your knowledge)))? Why on earth? It’s no use to me - don’t overestimate the importance of your own person.
Why don't you write, why I think your links are dubious !? I specifically pointed out to you, for example, errors in the scales - you didn’t answer in essence: “why don’t the weights beat?” They allegedly referred to a Hindu tender and so on. Somewhere even a link (official, they say!) Someone threw-there as much as 29700 kg the maximum take-off on the MiG-35)))) Well this is almost like the early Su-27 -30 tons))) What do you suggest to me to do with such links ? Clap your hands and believe? Can you / can you pick up a calculator and calculate, turn on the logic? This will be the best confirmation. Once again, I do not blindly and unconditionally believe in sites typed by illiterate and not too smart typists.

Quote: -Dmitry-

Explaining the reasons for the abandonment of the EDSU in favor of the traditional control system at that stage of development. M.R. Waldenberg (1982-1993 chief designer of the MiG-29) emphasized: “The main credo of our company: everything good, proven, should not be discarded, but applied on a new machine, whether it concerns a landing parachute, a normal rear-mounted stabilizer or a traditional control system. If these smart, reliable, simple solutions provide you with what you intend - short mileage, low creep speeds, stability and controllability, you should not change everything all at once just because someone switched to carbon brakes, duck, fly-by-wire. system, etc ... The most reliable system is the one that is not on the plane at all! She will never refuse. "
There are no hints of design difficulties. For those who are in the tank, I can explain that at that design stage, based on the technical specification, the designers considered that the introduction of an EDSU for a statically stable aircraft was not necessary, and not because they could not, because they did not have CAD systems. This is pure speculation.

You described everything correctly, but you missed a couple of points:
First, Ch. the designer of the original MiG-29 was R.A. Belyakov. M.R. Waldenberg became Ch. constructor later. And not the original MiG-29, but only its modifications.
Secondly, there is no way to check the words of Waldenberg and whether he actually said this. The given characteristics, figures, technological moments can be checked - see a real plane, read the performance characteristics at the docks and you will see everything. And someone once blurted out something - I treat such information with caution, because paper suffers. Note that it was under Waldenberg that the development of an EDSU for the MiG-29M (9-15) began in 1982, because the maneuverable characteristics of the original 9-12 and 9-13 were insufficient! Think about it: a person says that the control of draft norms allows you to get the required characteristics, and after a couple of years (I note, they have not even had time to release the very first serial MiG-29!) The same person starts work on improving controllability))) ) The conclusion itself asks: a comrade covers up early blunders like that, because he cannot say "they did not have time and did not have enough competence to make an EDSU on time." What is it, who is here in the tank and does not know how to think? Turn on the logic. The teachers told us that they did not have time to bring the EDSU stupidly - it looks more logical. I do not like my version, believe the contradictions of Waldenberg, it makes no difference to me.
Third, R.A. Belyakov generally stunned on camera (!) In Farnborough-88, like, if he had an engine as reliable as a PW, it would have been a single-engine MiG-29! You can't add it, there is a video. However, given the euphoria of openness, a person for the first time abroad, in the center of attention of the foreign press, worries, is impressed by Western models, I admit that he blurted out without thinking, and I never bring this argument in a dispute which is better: 1 or 2 engine.

Quote: -Dmitry-

In general, if you think logically, the installation of the EDSU follows from a change in the airframe, or rather its aerodynamics, that is, first, the airframe, its aerodynamics change, and based on the behavior of the aircraft, a decision is made to introduce one or another control system, and not vice versa! We decided to install an EDSU and said, and he is statically stable, why does he need an EDSU then? Let's make it statically unstable :))) So who looks stupid here? If you are not aware, a statically unstable plane is not done by installing an EDSU on it, but to increase its performance characteristics, but due to the fact (exactly this way, and not otherwise) that it is unstable and strives to go into a stall, such aerodynamic schemes need an EDSU, and not vice versa. :)

You look stupid and funny. Remember the plane on which we first installed the EDSU? On the statically stable T-4 Sukhoi. Those. Now you are not just mistaken, but brazenly and with fanfare are lying. They wrote such an important and categorical gem, but forgot about the T-4))). With regards to the MiG-29, yes, I expressed the thought in the wrong sequence, but this does not change the essence of my comment, and even more so I never said that "EDSU is a part of the glider" - you are lying too, my quote literally never led. On the contrary, I told you about the changes in the glider by 9-15 and the need to shift the aerodynamic focus forward and how they achieved this, along the way, having briefly told about the changes in the glider, gave a link-article you did not read before, do not lie, otherwise you would immediately understand a hint of influx and remembered b, and you pounced on and continued to assert that the glider 9-13 = 9-15. Better tell me, do you still think that gliders 9-13 and 9-15 are the same?)))) Or did you realize your mistake? And what about the actual number of MiG-35s in the army? You said about 6, but somehow it's hard to confirm. I think, ignore it again, like all my uncomfortable questions)))

Quote: -Dmitry-

Ie, this is not your message? ))) For you, the single-engine Su-75, based on the technologies of the Su-57 - is the plasmogan))))
Who here blamed that I had problems understanding the texts? In my opinion, this is your obvious problem with understanding. And most likely, another casuistry. I said what I said, but what you thought of to yourself is your problem.

Well, let's assume that the super plasma gun is already flying in the form of the Su-57, and the simplified Su-75 plasmagun will be made in a couple of years))) Will that suit?
Well, about Rafal, tell us what is still missing for the 5th generation? I already said about the lack of compartments and OBT, now it's your turn to add minuses to Rafal, I'm waiting for specifics. And then they wrote what he has and what not, they missed it so smoothly. And "in terms of the totality of characteristics, the MiG-35 is not inferior" - in general, I do not understand the phrase. What other aggregate? More specifically, it is necessary - no one pulls you by the tongue.

[TermNachTer]

And in what way is the Rafal better than the MiG-29 of the latest modifications, and even more so the 35th, which will be even younger than the Rafal?

[Zaurbek]

To many. And he is, but Mig35 is not

[TermNachTer]

More specifically. The MiG - 35 is ready for production, only an order is needed.

[Zaurbek]

Is the moment presented with the declared systems? No two demonstrators fly without Afar. There is a turbojet engine in the dimension of RD33. modern - no .... They are in the ranks, no ...

[AC130 Gunship]

Well, it will still lie there for 5-10 years without orders, and the program will be quietly closed. This has been the case in aviation more than once or twice.

[SovAr238A]

Quote: TermNachTER

And in what way is the Rafal better than the MiG-29 of the latest modifications, and even more so the 35th, which will be even younger than the Rafal?

Everyone. Even in comparison with the MiG-35, and the mig-35 is just a new name for the mig-29m2

[TermNachTer]

More specifically, point by point. I can also say that the Rafale is a hundred times worse than the MiG.

[KIND LAVRENTIUS]

Quote: TermNachTER

More specifically, point by point.

I was not too lazy and compared:
rafal - thrust 2x50kN, afterburner 2x75Kn, max skr 1.8M, ceiling 15300m, scorpion 305m / s, thrust weapon 1.05, cost from 85mln.
MiG - thrust 2x53kN, afterburner 2x88Kn, max skr 2.25M, ceiling 17500m, scorpion 330m / s, thrust weapon 1.10, cost from 45 million dollars.
the MiG also has a deflected thrust vector and the MiG has a two-fin tail.
I absolutely do not understand why Rafal is better than a moment ???

[Zaurbek]

This is not an argument. Rafale took a long time to make and was immediately produced in 4 ++ version. There is a superhornet yet

[KIND LAVRENTIUS]

Quote: SovAr238A

Everyone. Even in comparison with the MiG-35, and the mig-35 is just a new name for the mig-29m2

I was not too lazy and compared:
rafal - thrust 2x50kN, afterburner 2x75Kn, max skr 1.8M, ceiling 15300m, scorpion 305m / s, thrust weapon 1.05, cost from 85mln.
MiG - thrust 2x53kN, afterburner 2x88Kn, max skr 2.25M, ceiling 17500m, scorpion 330m / s, thrust weapon 1.10, cost from 45 million dollars.
the MiG also has a deflected thrust vector and the MiG has a two-fin tail.
I absolutely do not understand why Rafal is better than a moment ???

[mmaxx]

Yes, in general, everyone.

[mmaxx]

Minusator, answer: why is the MiG-29 better than Rafal? And nothing. The engines are worse. It flies no better. Unfortunately. The onboard equipment is stupid to even compare. These are different eras. Price? Well, yes. But Mig will have to sit down when he appears, Rafal.

[TermNachTer]

That is, there is no specifics. Everything from the category - "so they said on the Internet"))) there will be an order, there will be engines and AFAR. Everything is available - it's called the MiG - 35. Russia now has no need to rush to modernize MiGs, but if there are buyers, it's always welcome.

[mmaxx]

The answer is simple: when all this will be, then we will talk. And now the Indians don't even ask for that. And they simply say: we will change.

[KIND LAVRENTIUS]

Quote: mmaxx

Minusator, answer: why is the MiG-29 better than Rafal?

I was not too lazy and compared:
rafal - thrust 2x50kN, afterburner 2x75Kn, max skr 1.8M, ceiling 15300m, scorpion 305m / s, thrust weapon 1.05, cost from 85mln.
MiG - thrust 2x53kN, afterburner 2x88Kn, max skr 2.25M, ceiling 17500m, scorpion 330m / s, thrust weapon 1.10, cost from 45 million dollars.
the MiG also has a deflected thrust vector and the MiG has a two-fin tail.
I absolutely do not understand why Rafal is better than a moment ???

[mmaxx]

I will definitely say that the MiG-29 is better in ground handling. But ... We have not been dealing with this plane for all the years. He is in his stepsons.

[TermNachTer]

The answer, from grandfather Krylov: "You are to blame for the fact that I want to eat))) the desire to tell people terrible tales, about backward Russia - that's what they tell. An example on the topic when something does not work out in Russia - this is a universal catastrophe: "Chef, everything is gone, shame on the jungle !!!)))) when something does not work out for the French, these are small insignificant details. For example - the first "Raphals" flew on American engines, because the "M - 88" was delayed. But all this is nonsense - the main thing is that the Rafal is a hundred times better than the MiG - 35)))

[TermNachTer]

You can add that on the 29th, the engines are spaced apart - this is even visually visible. Accordingly, upon hitting there is a chance that the second engine will survive. The "Raphael" engines "back to back". The second will survive only with a lot of luck.

[mmaxx]

And I'm not lazy here. And I talked to the person who was involved in this aircraft. Onboard equipment - the last century. If the pilot sees someone in the air, he can pile on many. But the whole appearance is at the level of the 70s. The radar is bad, there is no communication with the ground, there is none.
Electronics fail during hard landings on an aircraft carrier.
Here is the answer: why Rafal is more pleasant for Hindus.

[KIND LAVRENTIUS]

Quote: mmaxx

And I'm not lazy here. And I talked to the person who was involved in this aircraft.

what are you wearing???
what the hell person did you talk to?
ps
I've talked to the doctor and he will soon diagnose you ....

[mmaxx]

Put yourself. Through wikipedia. Everything is written in it.

[KIND LAVRENTIUS]

Quote: mmaxx

Put yourself. Through wikipedia. Everything is written in it.

go go already .... talk to the little man ... maybe he will whisper something smart to you))))))))

[mmaxx]

You are my good!
Only now they were talking about patriotism. And here comes the article. Read to clear your mind. There is the first half of what I wrote to you. And the second ... Well, so far only what I wrote. Because this is a personal relationship. That person also added that the Indians are "delighted" with the MiG-29. And they are happy to change it for something.
Link:
https://inosmi.ru/20220107/251148458.html

[KIND LAVRENTIUS]

Quote: mmaxx

Link:
https://inosmi.ru/20220107/251148458.html

- "A hornet's nest has grown in the nose of a MiG-29 (Fulcrum according to NATO classification), standing near the building of the national air and space reconnaissance center at Wright-Paterson Air Force Base in Ohio. The tires on its wheels raised above the ground cracked and torn. Bird droppings have dried on the fairing. The aircraft looks like a war trophy, paraded like a head on a pike. In a sense, this is a trophy taken as a result of victory in the Cold War. "
great article!
Not an ounce of propaganda! there is also?

[krops777]

Alas, we cannot offer anything in this class yet. MiG-29/35, whatever one may say, the machine comes from the 70s. It is possible to modernize, but in principle it is a rather outdated design in the world of aviation.

Rafal also has nothing to brag about, he comes from the same place, I think, given what intrigues the United States is building the military-industrial complex of France, the French are actively looking for sales markets with the Indians, they agreed to a campaign.

[mmaxx]

You see, the MiG-29 is not controlled from the ground at all. On the level: fly there. Nobody has had this for a long time. The locator is also useless.
This is a line of sight combat aircraft. Nobody needs this now. Unfortunately.

[Eug]

So is Rafale "from those times", the board needs to be made more modern. You can't sell anything without AFAR now ...

[Ratmir_Ryazan]

Whatever one may say, the car comes from the 70s.

Where does the American F-18 come from? And they upgrade nothing and fly.

What are they doing on the MiG that in so much time they will not give birth to a new version of the MiG-35 in a state in which it can be sold ?!

The directors write out space salaries for themselves, but the plane, in fact, never existed !!!

Already the French are bypassing us, at such a pace Ukraine will soon bypass us.

[mmaxx]

Even under the USSR, our electronics were not better than the bourgeois ones. And in the 90s, there was a big breakthrough in general

[Barberry25]

And since when did Rafal become a wunderwolf?

[yuriy55]

Quote: SaLaR

What can we offer them?

Layout of the Su-75K ... In 2027, if everything goes smoothly, the finished plane ...
Today's Russian level of production cannot offer large batches in a short time ...

[1Alexey]

Quote: SaLaR

What can we offer them?

If you are talking about kickbacks - is it worth it, in this case, to spend money on them.

The Indians do not want to take our planes - we will increase the supply of our own army (the time is not calm).

[TermNachTer]

Selling, especially to such unreliable partners as the Indians, what they themselves may need tomorrow is not very smart. Moreover, the country now can do without 2 - 3 billion dollars, there is enough income from the sale of other goods.

[IL-18]

Quote: 1Alexey

We will increase the supply of our own army (the time is not calm).

And what is not Pakistani?
Without exports, the development of our own army can also go badly.

[romance 1]

I constantly read on the internet what they think, but do not think of anything. You have nothing to offer, as well as I. We are commentators, not aviation engineers on the "MIG" e.

[Aaron Zawi]

Well, why not? The car is of course very expensive, but if the Indians like it, then ...

[Zaurbek]

In projection on F35, he needs to go to the masses and India needs a license. But they already want the fuselage of the 5th generation ... ..that is the jamb

[Barberry25]

if they can't fix those. servicing the mig-29K, then Rafal will have the same fate

[Flooding]

It is very reasonable on the part of India to take advantage of the slap in the face received by France in order to bargain for itself with the shocked Mademoiselle the most favorable terms.
The lady will cling to the buyer, not sparing the manicure "I'm ready for anything!"

[Voenoboz]

The French do not break down for 100 years.

[Andrey Moskvin]

And why is the dollar not backed by gold today?

[rocket757]

You probably don't know the Indians at all ... they can do it much faster.

[Zaurbek]

The question is what ……. And quickly it's not about them

[rocket757]

Compared to the statement "100 years does not break," another dozen years is fast.

[Alexey Stepanov]

Quote: VOENOBOZ

The French do not break down for 100 years.

Excuse me, but how did you know that?
Are you writing from the future?

[Voenoboz]

How humor can be viewed. Indians have no opinion.

[SovAr238A]

Quote: VOENOBOZ

How humor can be viewed. Indians have no opinion.

Well, yes.
Its nuclear warheads, its own ballistic missiles, its SLBMs, its SSBNs, its aircraft carriers ..
Moreover, they have more experience in operating aircraft carriers than we do.
But yes, fools think about lack of opinion

[Voenoboz]

Everything in our world is relative, but, as always, there is a problem. You can compare economics, science, religions and more, but everyone has their own opinions. So ?

[1Alexey]

Quote: SovAr238A

their aircraft carriers ..
Moreover, they have more experience in operating aircraft carriers than we do.

Tell me please, when did they have aircraft carriers?
And why did they buy our old repaired aircraft carrier, if they had their own?

[SovAr238A]

Quote: 1Alexey

Quote: SovAr238A

their aircraft carriers ..
Moreover, they have more experience in operating aircraft carriers than we do.

Tell me please, when did they have aircraft carriers?
And why did they buy our old repaired aircraft carrier, if they had their own?

Aircraft carriers appeared in India in 1957 ...
30 years earlier than in the Soviet Union.
They bought not an old renovated ship, but a completely rebuilt ship.
And yes, they have already built their own, and are building another one.
Again yours.

[1Alexey]

Quote: SovAr238A

Aircraft carriers appeared in India in 1957 ...
30 years earlier than in the Soviet Union.

You have false information:

1. In January 1957, the unfinished aircraft carrier was sold to the Indian Navy, it was already completed for them, having entered service in 1961 year as "Vikrant".

2. In the USSR, the first aircraft carrier "Kiev" entered service in 1975, and not in 1987, as you think, if you add 1957 by 30 were in the USSR since 1915).

Quote: SovAr238A

They bought not an old renovated ship, but a completely rebuilt ship.

The case is still old.

[SovAr238A]

Kiev is not an aircraft carrier.
from the word in any way.

[Kusja]

And they bend over right away, as in 1940 ...

[tralflot1832]

Whatever you drink, whatever you drink, you still wake up at the same time. I didn't hold a pen on Rafale.

[dreamshake]

In fact:

India has never been involved in major wars or attacked. They have enough and what can bomb papups, even the F-35 will do

[Zaurbek]

The United States is surrounded by China and the Russian Federation. Loyal countries with F35 in service ... ... for a reason

[75 Sergey]

And Rafali was originally decked? It looks like it's not just like that ...

[Alexey Stepanov]

Well, the MiG-29 was never originally decked.

[75 Sergey]

I'm talking about those bought by India, they kind of bought the usual, and not the deck modification?

[Alexey Stepanov]

Carefully read:

In the Indian press, with reference to representatives of the military department, they write that the aircraft carrier will begin to operate in August 2022. Until that time, it is planned to conduct a series of tests with Rafale fighters in the Rafale-Maritime (Rafale-M) modification. Moreover, these tests will be carried out at the ground test complex in the state of Goa. It is not reported when exactly the modifications of the Rafale-M fighters arrived in India. The Rafale-M fighters are the backbone of the air wing of the French aircraft carrier Charles de Gaulle.

[nks]

We bought the Air Force, here we are talking about the fleet - essno the Navy will not use land aircraft.
This is just another Indian Multi-Role Carrier Borne Fighters (MRCBF) tender

[Zaurbek]

Deck only F18 even among the Finns…. But there was land

[Constanty]

The naval version of the Rafale M, intended for deployment on aircraft carriers, entered service in 2002 (deliveries began in 1999). Compared to the Rafale C, the Marine Rafale M has many changes and is heavier by about 500 kg. The plane, although outwardly similar to the Rafale C, is different from it, among other things.
reinforced structure, reinforced main landing gear,
an elongated nose landing gear, a decommissioned central ventral suspension assembly, a large brake hook between the engines, a built-in automatic ladder for the pilot, a microwave landing aid system for an aircraft carrier, and the Telemir inertial navigation system.
To date, 46 Rafale Ms have been produced, 3 fatalities in accidents.

[SovAr238A]

And who, besides the last Tomket, was originally Deck?

[nks]

Rafale is - it was originally developed, including as a deck boat, which determined its many design features, since the Navy had stricter requirements than the Air Force.

[SovAr238A]

Quote: nks

Rafale is - it was originally developed, including as a deck boat, which determined its many design features, since the Navy had stricter requirements than the Air Force.

I do not agree.
Rafal was not originally.

But the F-14 is truly deck-based, because it was created only for aircraft carrier squadrons.
The Iranians bought it simply because it was the largest and newest at that time ...

[nks]

Of course, your right to disagree, but this does not change the facts about Raphael. Of course, do not confuse the concepts of "created specifically for" and "created exclusively for".

[Glagol1]

The Rafale is almost pure gold for a price. I don’t think it’s real. F-35 striped will not give as revenge for the Triumph. So the MiG-29K (M) remains on the agenda.

[dreamshake]

This is not revenge for the Triums, but the danger of revealing the real EPR of the F-35, the same story as with Turkey

[mmaxx]

Well, I bought, for example, 20 Migs for the price of 5 Rafales. And Rafali knocked them all into one gate. And why such savings? It's good when it's cheap and a lot. But nobody canceled the efficiency.

[Rome]

"due to the fact that servicing such fighters is becoming more and more difficult. These are technical problems."
What are the difficulties with MiG29K? We do not produce spare parts for this model? Or do they fail too often that maintaining combat capability is painfully expensive? Or the Indians bought repair kits in reserve and they ran out, but they don't see any point in buying new ones, although they would also understand why?

[Barberry25]

these are Indians, they, with the same success, once cursed su-30mki and mig-29, and then quietly, until no one saw they bought an additional batch ... They are trying to pull planes everywhere for the national armament program

[Split]

Even it seems to me that the Indians clearly do not eat ... compare the price of a miq and rafalle and service ... Apparently, the printing press of green candy wrappers was brought to India Mig is still in serial production and I do not see a problem in the AF and maintenance
ZY but it is not good to count other people's money ... india does not have golden tea .... the military-industrial complex will not suffer IMHO

[exo]

A state that does not have an operating aircraft carrier fleet can hardly develop and offer a competitive carrier-based aircraft. And the French have quite decent traditions. Plus for the Indians: some unification with the land version of Raphael.

[Zaurbek]

If we compare with Sukhoi, then we can see the development of Su27-Su30-Su35S-Su57 ... ... Mig35S in terms of a level somewhere between Su30 and Su35 ... and its RD33 level clearly does not reach Al41 (and this is yesterday's today's level)

[exo]

Quote: Split

Even it seems to me that the Indians clearly do not eat ... compare the price of a miq and rafalle and service ... Apparently, the printing press of green candy wrappers was brought to India Mig is still in serial production and I do not see a problem in the AF and maintenance
ZY but it is not good to count other people's money ... india does not have golden tea .... the military-industrial complex will not suffer IMHO

It was about spare parts and service that the Indians had complaints about. Maybe something has changed recently?

[Barberry25]

though they couldn’t squeeze out something specific on the claims, but they wanted a new batch of the 29-cube last year ... Rather, it is about getting the technology of the ship's Raphael, therefore they began the usual tantrums about "what a bad weapon, we want another ".. They hayal the Kalashnikovs under the same brand in their time to order Israeli machines .. as a result, they have now purchased a production line for ak-200. moreover, to direct questions, you used to say that Kalashnikov is UG silent

[Freedim]

The problem of the Indians is that all of their "hare-krishna" is trying to "suck several queens at once" .. and it would be fine of one breed .. Since the time of Indira Gandhi there is such a "zoo" of military equipment that only an international council of technicians can deal with it trained in Russia, Europe, America, the Middle East, Asia and Oceania ..
Jimmy, Jimmy .. Acha, Acha .. They still cannot understand what to grab first - the dollar, the euro or the yuan they hate. And the action taking place on the Hindustan peninsula (in military terms) looks only like a fair, where the first image of a high-caste Indian that pops up in the browser of a high-caste Indian close to military equipment can become a military order.

[Osipov9391]

Look at life, India is a country of the third or some kind of world there. And now they will have two aircraft carriers! And one new one! The one that is being built will even be able to take on board the Su-33 with limited weight.
What do we have? One is old, and the one from the repair does not climb out and did not get out earlier. I did not go further than the Mediterranean Sea.
So India, China, and France, for example, will have more operating experience than Russia.
And this is the direct fault of our authorities / fleet command that for 30 years they have not made a combat unit out of Kuznetsov and sold the Gorshkov, which could be a replacement ship.
It was logical to base the light MiG-29K / Ka-31 helicopters on the Gorshkov;
It was logical to base heavy Su-33 / Su-33UB / Yak-44 on Kuznetsov.

But this is nothing. And the write-off of Kuznetsov will mean one thing - our country will forever abandon the ocean-going fleet and naval aviation without the prospect of their restoration.

India's potential abandonment of the MiG-29K is fully justified - the aircraft is already outdated for them. France can offer better, there is advanced electronics and composites that work for Airbus.
There are problems with KSU-941 and engines. Perhaps the BKDU do not work well if they got rid of the cylinders there.

[dreamshake]

The range of the newest UAV, Hunter, is 6000 km. In fact, such UAVs nullify the need to have expensive aircraft carriers, not to mention its mortal danger to the enemy aircraft carrier.

[Osipov9391]

What kind of UAVs? Are you kidding me? Any aircraft that approaches the AUG will be detected at a distance of up to 800 km and attacked by an air patrol on duty.
Only a submarine can try something more or less if it picks up imperceptibly. Everything else can be ignored.

[dreamshake]

As far as I remember, for Okhotnik and the Su-57 they developed their own hypersonic missiles and with them the aircraft carriers have zero chances.

[storm]

Osipov9391 the write-off of Kuznetsov will mean one thing - our country will forever abandon the ocean-going fleet and naval aviation without the prospect of their restoration.

You are probably confusing deck and naval aviation ...
Deck aviation is only a small part of the sea, besides it there is anti-submarine, patrol, attack missile, rescue, which are based on coastal airfields.
Does Russia need carrier-based aircraft without aircraft carriers and modern carrier-based AWACS aircraft? This is a question to which even the leadership of the Ministry of Defense cannot give an intelligible answer.

The purchase of several Su-30SM2 regiments for naval aviation would be a reasonable alternative to the modernization of the no longer "young" Kuznetsov.

[Osipov9391]

I am not confusing anything. Because apart from the relatively young MiG-29K and Su-33 (a little more Su-30SM in Crimea), there is essentially no naval aviation in Russia anymore.
All that is left is absolute junk and extremely few in number. At the age of 40-50. These are anti-submarine aircraft. Missile aircraft have not been there for 10 years.
Even the Ka-27/29 helicopters are all Soviet-made and worn out to the limit.

Therefore, only fighters are mainly deck-based.

[storm]

The coastal aviation of the fleet is armed with long-range anti-submarine aircraft Tu-142M (a modification of the strategic bomber Tu-95), Il-20, Il-38N, MiG-31 interceptor fighters, An-12, An-24, An-26 transport aircraft, helicopters Mi-8, Mi-24 and Ka-31.

Back in 2016, naval aviation received the first eight upgraded Ka-27M deck-mounted helicopters equipped with the latest radio-acoustic equipment, a digital flight and navigation system and a Kopye-A airborne radar station with an active phased antenna array. Also, three Be-200 amphibious aircraft should enter service with MA.

[this]

And we generally need him, if our polite people appear somewhere, then immediately somehow with an airfield nearby.

[storm]

Hindus seem to have decided to follow the old rule of "expensive and cute, cheap and rotten"
It is extremely risky to contact the United States, at any time you can fall under their sanctions and lose spare parts, those. support, weapons .....
Although the F-18 would be ideal for India.

[Zaurbek]

The Indians bought a license, like China C27 ​​and Su30 ... ... now they want to repeat the same ... ... but the French and the Russian Federation want real money, and it's politically dangerous to get in touch with the Americans ... ....

[Ratmir_Ryazan]

RSK MiG is a shame and a shame !!!

Over the past 20 years, no successes, only failures !!!

It’s very interesting what the salary is for the management of this corporation and for what the hell do they get it ?!

Already the French are squeezing us out of the traditional arms markets.

RSK "MiG" can provide neither the production of new aircraft, nor worthy maintenance of old ones, nor a normal modernization project !!! All failed, all that is possible !!!

[dreamshake]

Ok, show me how you need it, come out with rationalization proposals in the design bureau and management, business is

[Andy J.]

That Rafali, that Super Hornets are still sharpened for a catapult start. I have no doubt that they can fly from a springboard, but the combat load and / or radius will be greatly affected. IMHO, the Indians do not have good options for their aircraft carriers, except for the F-35B or the purchase of the MiG-29K.

[Pavel57]

Quote: voyaka uh

"Are the F-18 SH and Rafali generally adapted for aircraft carriers with trampolines?" ///
---
With a partial load - take off.
Checked.
If you have to load a lot of bombs, pour a little kerosene and refuel in the air.

Then you need a tanker.

[Roman_vh]

Is he there? Or will he deliver kerosene to them from the shore?
And so it turns out on two combat sides one tanker (optimistic), and the wing on this trough is by no means rubber. And what is tsimes?

[Osipov9391]

Any MiG-29K or Su-33 (I don’t know about the 18th and 35th in the United States) can be a tanker.
There is an UPAZ unit under the fuselage.

[nks]

Hornets - yes, but f-35 - no. Rafal, essno, can too

[Osipov9391]

According to the idea, all carrier-based aircraft should have such a function. It is explained by the limitation of the take-off weight from the deck.
Of the usual, only the Su-30MKI has this option. But the OPAZ is English.
And also the Su-24.

[nks]

Quote: Osipov9391

All carrier-based aircraft, according to the idea, should have such a function.

The F-35C does not. :) For the time being, it can refuel from superornets, and in the future, perhaps, from drones.

Quote: Osipov9391

It is explained by the limitation of the take-off weight from the deck ..

Not only, refueling is generally a common procedure, not only for deck ships to expand tactical capabilities, but at the same time, AUG should be able to operate autonomously without involving refuelers at land airfields. It would be possible to have special deck tankers, but in the end, so far the best is the OPAZ for base deck ships.

Quote: Osipov9391

Of the usual, only the Su-30MKI has this option. But the OPAZ is English.

Land-based versions of Raphael can also :) - this is generally logical for aircraft of the same type. Although I haven’t heard anything like this about the MKI, especially with the English (!) OPAZ - here it would be logical to just see the OPAZ from the Su-33, since the MKI is largely derived from this version.
Su-24 - yes.

[Rostislav]

Quote: bayard

But the tests from the springboard will show everything. The Super Hornet has already failed them.
And the price.

Well, at the cost of the Indians not to frighten.
Let's hope that Rafali will fail the springboard test and MiG will have the opportunity to defend their positions

[Ingenegr]

Quote: Rostislav

Let's hope that Rafali will fail the springboard test.

I remember the classic: "We will be saved only by a serious flight in the next part!"
But, unfortunately, in the neighboring parts nowadays no flights are expected and "Rafale" will not fail. This is a very good car, definitely not worse than the 29th in terms of VPH and significantly better in terms of functionality.

[this]

What tests are there for Indians just dancing around kickbacks.

[Put__NIK]

Bought what was cheaper. So let them fly on mops now.

[agond]

For a medium-sized aircraft carrier and a medium-sized aircraft, the MiG-29K is too large for a displacement of 37500 tons.

[this]

Training yaks then chtol? Rafal is even bigger than a MiG.