Military Review

Soon a contract will be signed for the supply of MiG-35

122
During the recent Le Bourget 2013 international air show, several Newsconcerning the future of domestic aviation industry. According to one of the statements of Russian officials, in the near future the Ministry of Defense will sign a contract for the supply of new MiG-35 aircraft.




The plans for the production and purchase of new generation fighter 4 ++ MiG-35 became known from an interview with the general director of the Russian MiG aircraft manufacturing corporation S. Korotkov. As reported by Jane's, referring to the head of the organization, negotiations between the Ministry of Defense and the corporation are underway recently, and a contract will be concluded very soon. According to the general director of the company "MiG", an agreement on the supply of aircraft could be signed before the end of June. At the same time, Korotkov noted that the signing of the document could take place next month. As it became clear a few days after the interview, the Ministry of Defense and RAC “MiG” did not have time to conclude a contract before the end of June and therefore this agreement is likely to appear during the month of July that began.

It is worth noting that such a shift in the timing of the signing of the contract does not look like something strange or even dangerous for the Russian air force. The fact is that a few weeks waiting for the official registration of the order literally fades against the background of the entire previous stories MiG-35 project. The first reports of the plans of the Ministry of Defense regarding the purchase of these fighters appeared in 2009 year. However, over the past four years, the opinion of the military department has managed to change and so far there have not been any such aircraft in the Air Force. Shortly before the appearance of those messages, Sukhoi received an order for the construction of 48 Su-35C fighters, because of which the potential supply of Mikoyan machines was considered as a measure designed to complement Su fighters and expand the capabilities of the Air Force. But such an addition still remained at the level of various reflections.

The volume of probable purchases in 2009 was estimated at 20-30 aircraft, and unnamed sources in the Ministry of Defense shared with the press information about plans to equip two squadrons for 2015 year. The latest reports on the future purchase of MiG-35 fighters were received in the autumn of the same 2009 year, after which the topic disappeared from view for a long time. Nevertheless, the testing and refinement of the promising fighter continued, and last year information about the future order reappeared. In October, 2012, the general director of RSK MiG, S. Korotkov, announced that the first MiG-35 will be transferred to the customer already in 2014. A few months after that, in April of the current 2013, Russian President V. Putin also spoke about the planned start of purchasing a new fighter.

Finally, at the end of June, S. Korotkov made another statement about future deliveries of the MiG-35. Thus, the epic that lasted for several years with the determination of the need for the purchase of such fighters was coming to an end and the corresponding contract would be signed soon. The exact number of aircraft required has not yet been announced. Previously called various numbers up to 70-80 fighters. Now the volume of purchases is estimated much more modest: according to Korotkov, more than two dozen planes will be the subject of a contract. This number of fighters is enough to equip several squadrons. At the same time, the needs of the Russian Air Force in the MiG-35, according to different sources, are estimated at least in 35-40 machines. Perhaps in the future there will be another contract, in accordance with which RAC "MiG" will supply an additional batch of fighters. Such a development in the light of the existing construction of the Su-35C aircraft looks real and likely. Recall, at present, the company "Sukhoi" fulfills an order for the supply of 48 multi-role fighters, and in the future it is planned to sign a new contract involving the construction of a new series of the same aircraft.

Until now, the question of why the MiG-35, despite all the statements, for several years could not be the subject of a supply contract, remains open. Some time ago it was often said that this plane had insufficient technical and combat characteristics. The reason for the appearance of such fabrications was the failure of the MiG-35 in the Indian tender MMRCA. In the summer of 2011, after several months comparing the submitted documents and airplanes, the Indian competition commission announced its preliminary decision: the Russian fighter does not meet the requirements and therefore does not qualify for the final part of the competition. This decision of Indian officials was the reason for the charges in the direction of the new aircraft.

Almost two years have passed since then, during which the development of the fighter and its individual systems continued. Judging by the latest statements and ongoing negotiations, the main deficiencies in the design and systems have been eliminated and the MiG-35 is ready for the start of full-fledged serial production. Thus, as early as next year, the air force can receive the latest multi-role fighter aircraft that meet the existing requirements for such equipment. The Russian Aircraft Manufacturing Corporation MiG, in turn, will receive a good financial incentive and will begin to correct its economic situation. Due to the lack of large orders in the past few years, MiG is in a difficult financial situation and the contract for the supply of aircraft will undoubtedly help it.


On the materials of the sites:
http://janes.com/
http://lenta.ru/
http://ria.ru/
http://flightglobal.com/
Author:
122 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. fzr1000
    fzr1000 2 July 2013 08: 07 New
    15
    Good MiG help. The main thing is not to break the deadlines, and there MO will buy more aircraft there.
    1. aktanir
      aktanir 2 July 2013 08: 37 New
      +4
      Well, what are now the characteristics of the Mig-35, taking into account the refinement, who will tell the thread? What gives him reason to be called a fighter "4 ++"?
    2. Greyfox
      Greyfox 2 July 2013 08: 38 New
      +9
      That's what help. The latest contracts for MiGs (ship, and now MiG-35) seem to be issued to keep companies and plants afloat and to push MiGs for export. At one time MiG-29 was created as lightweight, and therefore cheaper a fighter with limited air capabilities compared to the Su-27, but with the ability to work on the ground (the Su-Shka was a “clean” fighter). The Su-27 grew into a multi-functional Su-30, and then the Su-35 . MiG-29 grew up in MiG-35, which is inferior to Su in all respects, but it caught up with the price. And here an interesting question arises, but does our MiG-35 Air Force need it? It is the Air Force, not industry? If there are people from the Air Force, then explain.
      1. fzr1000
        fzr1000 2 July 2013 08: 59 New
        +3
        MiG -35, like, "work on the surface" can. The engines are modernized, with OVT and new RE equipment. That's all the differences from the MiG 29.
        1. klimpopov
          klimpopov 2 July 2013 09: 30 New
          +6
          Do you think this is not enough? belay Unfortunately, there is a lot of work and you need to run away, but all the same I’ll say that the increase in take-off mass and the new ER are not at all small and the integrated line-up will still live well, the possibilities have not yet been exhausted ...
          1. fzr1000
            fzr1000 2 July 2013 09: 57 New
            +4
            It was irony.
            1. klimpopov
              klimpopov 2 July 2013 11: 02 New
              +7
              Okay then. And yet I do not understand what the argument is. Some Yak - 130 offer under the exterminator. It is good as a training one and no more, it can be a light attack aircraft, Papuans drive, but now MANPADS are common so that ...
        2. TSOOBER
          TSOOBER 2 July 2013 12: 59 New
          +4
          Forgot to mention the converted glider - and the output is a practically-new machine! I look forward to it - I really like it!
      2. klimpopov
        klimpopov 2 July 2013 09: 09 New
        10
        Remember the history of the creation of Su - 27 and why then the need for 29 appeared. The same need now as in a light fighter ... There are reasons to call 4 ++!
        In general, in terms of integration and technological solutions used in its creation, the MiG-35 is unparalleled among European aircraft. The main efforts of the developers to improve on-board electronic equipment were made possible by the well-developed aerodynamic concept used to create the MiG-29 fighter, the potential of which has not yet been exhausted. Its perfection ensured that when designing a family of new aircraft based on the MiG-29, the internal fuel supply was increased by approximately 50% and the combat load was more than doubled. External fuel tanks and an in-flight refueling system (including those of the same type of aircraft) increase the range of the MiG-29K / KUB and MiG-35 to the level of heavy fighters. The maximum take-off weight of the MiG-35 compared to the MiG-29 increased by 30% and reached 23,5 tons. In fact, the MiG-35 moved from the class of light aircraft to the middle one. To preserve some and improve other flight performance, a number of improvements were used in the design of the aircraft. For example, the load-bearing properties of the wing are improved and the structural strength is increased.
        The power plant was updated, including RD-33МК engines with increased thrust by 10%, smokeless combustion chamber, increased reliability and long operational life. The RD-33 engine and its modifications were developed by Klimov OJSC (St. Petersburg) and are commercially available in Moscow at the Moscow Polytechnic Institute. Chernysheva. As an optional solution for the MiG – 35, modernized RD – 33 with an all-angular thrust vector deviation are offered.
        And so forth ...
        And the fact that after the war in the Gulf and Yugoslavia began to shout that the 29 is a useless plane ... So this is not a plane of fault sorry ... So I think ..
        In general, Mig-29 was created as a light front-line destroyer and of course the counterweight of the F-15. And when they say that battlefield planes are not needed, remember about Su - 25 and HIS history (I understand that different planes laughing , and nevertheless once they said that front-line bombers are not needed, so it is here). In the end, well, not the Yak-130 fill this niche laughing .
        And while I walk around the forum.
        1. klimpopov
          klimpopov 2 July 2013 09: 24 New
          +8
          Well, photos6 how can it be without them (already a tradition of the forum however)
        2. dizelniy
          dizelniy 2 July 2013 14: 39 New
          -13
          "improved" due to weight gain, the same traction, range and maneuverability worse.
          1. klimpopov
            klimpopov 2 July 2013 20: 26 New
            +4
            Understand the takeoff weight is increasing for a reason. And to compare the Su-35 and MIG - 35 .... Well, well, you compare Gazelle with Ekarus, well, actually .... I started to stutter. Migar needed plane! I am sure about that!
            Py Sy. Mig-35 is by no means a gazelle ...
            1. Rakti-kali
              Rakti-kali 2 July 2013 22: 12 New
              +1
              Quote: klimpopov
              You Gazelle compare with Ekarus

              Quote: klimpopov
              Migar needed plane!

              So no one argues that Migar (as a light and multi-functional aircraft with good impact capabilities) is the right aircraft. Indeed, for example, it is more convenient to deliver groceries to Gazelles in gazelles, and to ride passengers on the intercity line with a big bus. But in its current form, the MiG does not fall into the free niche of a light multifunctional aircraft (fighter / striker), IMHO.
              1. klimpopov
                klimpopov 2 July 2013 23: 08 New
                0
                And we have no other .... Only Migar! You understood me correctly! But Migar must be kept! The plane is very good! Propaganda Poghosyan ....
        3. Apologet.Ru
          Apologet.Ru 2 July 2013 22: 31 New
          +2
          Quote: klimpopov
          In general, Mig-29 was created as a light front-line destroyer and, of course, the counterbalance of the F-15

          In fact, a colleague, in contrast to the F-15, the Su-27 was created, and the Mig-29 was created in opposition to the F-16 ...
          planes of the battlefield are not needed, remember about Su - 25 and HIS history (I understand that different planes, and nevertheless when they said that front-line bombers are not needed,

          And the front-line bomber is the Su-24, and the Su-25 is an attack aircraft ...
          1. klimpopov
            klimpopov 3 July 2013 09: 01 New
            0
            Ok wink A bunch of Su - 27 and Mig 29 counterbalance F-15 and F-16 are all true.
            And the front-line bomber is the Su-24, and the Su-25 is an attack aircraft ...

            This is understandable.
      3. Rakti-kali
        Rakti-kali 2 July 2013 09: 38 New
        15
        Quote: Greyfox
        MiG-35, which is inferior to Su in all respects, but it caught up with the price

        For the MiG-35 indicate the export price of $ 45 million, for the Su-35 $ 85 million. Now the question is what kind of nonrelativistic mathematics is 45 = 85?
        1. Greyfox
          Greyfox 2 July 2013 09: 57 New
          +2
          Now adjust the price of the aircraft's capabilities (load / range) Su-35 8t / 3600km, MiG-35 6,5t / 2000km (I pulled the numbers from Wikipedia, so if anything), consider that the range of weapons on the Su-35 is larger than . Add the cost of operation (for this reason, Malaysia decided to get rid of the MiG-29, and Serbia wanted to replace the MiG-29 not with the MiG-35, but with the Su-30), and then 45 will turn into a number very close to 85.
          PS The problem with the corrosion of load-bearing elements manifested itself for some reason precisely in MiGs, and not in Su.
          PPSPrices from you, as I understand it, also from Wiki? So there the price of F-16 block 52 is indicated by 34 megabytes ...
          1. Russ69
            Russ69 2 July 2013 10: 42 New
            +3
            Quote: Greyfox
            and Serbia wanted to replace the MiG-29 not with the MiG-35, but with the Su-30),

            In fact, Serbia just wants to buy either 8 or 12 MiG-29s, while Su has stopped negotiations.
            1. Greyfox
              Greyfox 2 July 2013 10: 47 New
              +1
              Quote torn from the CAST blog
              When there were reports that Russia was planning to deliver MiG-29M2 fighters to Syria, and Serbia would have to wait two years for its turn, the option of purchasing Su-30K fighters (stored in Baranovichi) that had been in operation was considered. Currently, Su fighters are considered by the Serbian command as more efficient than the MiG-29, on the other hand, additional costs are required for the retraining of the flight and technical personnel, as well as ground infrastructure. But at the same time, according to the Serbian side, it will not have as many problems with the maintenance and supply of spare parts, as was the case with the MiG fighters.

              At the same time, the MiG-29M2 is still considered the best option, and the fate of its supplies in Serbia depends on the fulfillment of the Syrian contract.

              In other words, if the Serbian "Wishlist" coincided with their financial "mogulki", they would have chosen Su.
          2. Rakti-kali
            Rakti-kali 2 July 2013 10: 49 New
            12
            Quote: Greyfox
            Now adjust the price of the aircraft's capabilities (load / range) Su-35 8t / 3600km, MiG-35 6,5t / 2000km (I pulled the numbers from Wikipedia, so if anything), consider that the range of weapons on the Su-35 is larger than . Add the cost of operation (for this reason, Malaysia decided to get rid of the MiG-29, and Serbia wanted to replace the MiG-29 not with the MiG-35, but with the Su-30), and then 45 will turn into a number very close to 85.

            And why do this digital balancing act? According to this logic, Kalina costs the same as a BMW of the seventh model, if we compare engine power, speed, comfort.
            You can’t buy a bucket of dimes for half the money. Yes and no need. MiG and Su (both 35) are essentially aircraft of different classes. And there is not always a need to drive to complete the tasks of Su, because the tasks can be different.
            1. Greyfox
              Greyfox 2 July 2013 11: 28 New
              0
              Quote: Rakti-Kali

              And why do this digital balancing act? According to this logic, Kalina costs the same as a BMW of the seventh model, if we compare engine power, speed, comfort.
              You can’t buy a bucket of dimes for half the money. Yes and no need. MiG and Su (both 35) are essentially aircraft of different classes. And there is not always a need to drive to complete the tasks of Su, because the tasks can be different.

              What you call balancing is called the cost of operation and it is calculated by the buyers of the aircraft. And if they see that for the Kalina-Miga, the horseradish parts will be delivered on time, and if they will be delivered, they will be “gold” and there will be a lot of these parts, then they will choose BMW- Su. It is for these reasons that Su is selling much more than MiGs
              1. Rakti-kali
                Rakti-kali 2 July 2013 13: 38 New
                +2
                Quote: Greyfox
                What you call balancing is called the cost of operation and it is calculated by the buyers of the aircraft.

                Do you have comparative characteristics of the operating costs of the Su-35 and MiG-35 aircraft? If there is, please be kind enough to share. If not, why are you referring to this?
                Quote: Greyfox
                And if they see that for the “Kalina” -Miga the horseradish parts will be delivered on time, and if they will be delivered, they will be “gold” and there will be a lot of these parts, then they will choose BMW-Su.

                Do you have comparative information about the after-sales support of Su-35 and MiG-35 aircraft, information about the cost and resource of spare parts, and the possibilities for their production and delivery? If “Yes” - please, share, if “no”, why are you referring to this?
              2. fzr1000
                fzr1000 2 July 2013 14: 36 New
                +2
                BMW, such as cheaper at the s / n "Kalina" and everything is in stock? He owned two BMWs, something did not notice this.
              3. Avenger711
                Avenger711 2 July 2013 15: 10 New
                +1
                Not quite so, the Su-27/30 basically went to India and China, which have so many things in the MiG-29 class, including the MiG-29 itself, but it’s stressful with heavy vehicles in the world.
              4. avdkrd
                avdkrd 2 July 2013 19: 56 New
                +4
                for a non-belligerent country, in principle, it’s normal to bet on a more expensive and powerful car. During the war, often the quantity prevails over the qualitative characteristics, especially since during the global war the more complicated the production, the more doubtful it will be able to support. The MiG-29 was created to gain superiority in the air in the combat zone and at small distances from the front and is designed to combat enemy aircraft, cover troops and rear targets from air strikes, and to counter enemy air reconnaissance day and night, in simple and difficult weather conditions . (this is information for Greyfox) and as such, instant 35 will certainly surpass the entire SU family at least in economic terms. In any case, air battles involve losses, especially since this is a front-line fighter operating precisely at a small distance from the front line and cannot, by definition, fill its SU niche. If you build airfields for su five times more expensive and longer than for twinks, you don’t have to fly in the frontline zone at 3500 km and it’s more efficient to hammer nails with a hammer (it’s more convenient).
                1. Greyfox
                  Greyfox 2 July 2013 22: 06 New
                  0
                  Can I find out about the fivefold difference in airfields in more detail? Where does this information come from? Nothing that Su and MiGs use the same airfields now? And is there anything at the front-line airfields that aviation is more vulnerable to the enemy?
                  PS Do not bother quoting from capital sources about the purpose of the "front-line" MiG.
          3. velikoros-xnumx
            velikoros-xnumx 2 July 2013 12: 20 New
            10
            As far as I remember, the anti-advertising company against Mig began with the refusal of Algeria to accept the Migi delivered under the contract. There was information that in the production of that batch the old manufacturing reserve for gliders was used, and this served as the reason for the failure of Algeria.
            A friend was on a business trip in Algeria for 1,5 years (he works at a defense plant producing radars and something from avionics), he trained Algerian personnel in servicing radars and other on-board electronic systems. He is familiar with aircraft engineering firsthand. Once we discussed with him about Su and Mig, then he told me that an hour of flight Mig-29 costs much less than an hour of flight of Su-27 and this hour of flight requires a smaller number of hours of ground handling.
            I think quite often in modern wars situations may arise where the capabilities of the Su-35 will simply be redundant, and here, the MiG-35 will come in handy.
            1. Avenger711
              Avenger711 2 July 2013 15: 11 New
              -3
              For kerosene less, for the rest of the equipment a question.
          4. Avenger711
            Avenger711 2 July 2013 15: 09 New
            -2
            And the Su-35 to 135. X)
          5. Roll
            Roll 2 July 2013 17: 10 New
            -5
            wassat Mig’s problem is twin-engine, which is bad for a light fighter. Of course, purely in a duel battle he can fill up the Chinese Ji 10 V or Amerov f 16, but he will not be able to cope with the rest of the tasks better than them, but the price of a flight hour, and the price of a moment is much more, and this is not good, therefore, the potential of the export moment is limited, no one will buy it except us, the dead end branch does not bear much fruit.
            1. klimpopov
              klimpopov 2 July 2013 20: 30 New
              +3
              You are just like an “effective manager” reasoning. Do you know the tasks of Migar? And at Drying? You’ll probably send the toner to transport the nightstand, right? fellow
        2. igor36
          igor36 2 July 2013 09: 57 New
          +3
          Quote: Rakti-Kali
          For the MiG-35 indicate the export price of $ 45 million, for the Su-35 $ 85 million. Now the question is what kind of nonrelativistic mathematics is 45 = 85?

          It looks like this in the geometry of Lobachevsky lol
        3. velikoros-xnumx
          velikoros-xnumx 2 July 2013 12: 08 New
          +5
          I absolutely agree, I tried to say similar earlier in the comments to the article "Russia will buy two dozen ..."
          velikoros-88  June 24, 2013 23:13 pm | Russia will buy two dozen MiG-35 fighters

          I really hope that people like "pancake-faced" at hour "X" will become very quickly blue. As for the MIG-35, the car is certainly good, and in my opinion, the troops should have at least two hundred. I’ll explain my position - PAKFA and SU-35 are first-class scam (judging by the information available), but in local conflicts, having a high cost, their capabilities are clearly redundant; in a large-scale war with a serious adversary, you need a cheaper machine, with a smaller production cycle (even with less outstanding characteristics, the experience of many wars and conflicts shows that a lot depends on the level of training of pilots and on their desire to win) to more quickly make up for losses in troops, especially since the capabilities of the MIG-35 and the capabilities of the SU-35 do not correlate in any way 1: 2 with just such a price ratio.
          1. Avenger711
            Avenger711 2 July 2013 15: 13 New
            -4
            Of course redundant, for local conflicts there is a Su-34, which is even more expensive. Exactly precisely the possibility of conducting air combat, as well as the MiG-35.
          2. SOZIN2013
            SOZIN2013 2 July 2013 19: 29 New
            +1
            I really hope that people like "pancake-faced" at hour "X" will become very quickly blue. As for the MIG-35, the car is certainly good, and in my opinion, the troops should have at least two hundred. I’ll explain my position - PAKFA and SU-35 are first-class scam (judging by the information available), but in local conflicts, having a high cost, their capabilities are clearly redundant; in a large-scale war with a serious adversary, you need a cheaper machine, with a smaller production cycle (even with less outstanding characteristics, the experience of many wars and conflicts shows that a lot depends on the level of training of pilots and on their desire to win) to more quickly make up for losses in troops, all the more so because the capabilities of the MIG-35 and the capabilities of the SU-35 are not correlated in any way 1: 2 with just such a price ratio.

            I also support a justified reason not to abandon these machines!
      4. duke
        duke 2 July 2013 10: 09 New
        -6
        you are absolutely right, you just forgot to clarify that ours are adopting it, also because since the machine is export-oriented, the buyer is always interested in whether this device is in service with the air forces of the exporting country. The machine weighs more than 23 tons, so it does not apply to the light class even with a stretch. I don’t understand why work is not underway to create a lightweight 4+ hawk based on the Yak-130, because we have nothing else as the basis for it. And that development of the 5th generation light machine is underway, something is not heard. To defend such a country, you need a lot of inexpensive and light vehicles, with all necessary and heavy ones. But you can buy 5 Yak-130, instead of one MiG -35, since there are already heavy, beautiful Dryers.
        1. Wedmak
          Wedmak 2 July 2013 10: 19 New
          13
          But you can buy 5 Yak-130, instead of one MiG -35, since there are already heavy, beautiful Dryers.

          Yes, which of the Yak-130 fighter? Maximum light attack aircraft, drive the bandits! The purpose of Yak-a is a training machine, so let it remain. And the MiG will work where the use of heavy drying is not justified.
          1. klimpopov
            klimpopov 2 July 2013 10: 58 New
            +3
            Exactly! I fully support. Again, why from spinning and salting the Yak-130, if there is a Mig-35?!?!? This is the first and the second is not worth comparing Su -35 and Mig - 35! The machines are different and designed for different things!
            1. velikoros-xnumx
              velikoros-xnumx 2 July 2013 12: 28 New
              +4
              By the way, it is necessary to take into account the fact that the price of 45 million indicated on Wikipedia is very approximate, because to this day, there is no serial production of the machine and it is impossible to calculate all production costs at this stage. Everyone knows the obvious fact - the larger the series ordered, the lower the price. Order 25 pcs. - $ 45 million, they will order 150 units - $ 25 million (for the numbers, do not criticize this as an example).
            2. klimpopov
              klimpopov 2 July 2013 12: 35 New
              0
              AutoCorrect failed! To write tin with a pipe!
          2. svp67
            svp67 2 July 2013 19: 49 New
            +1
            Quote: Wedmak
            Yes, which of the Yak-130 fighter? Maximum light attack aircraft, drive the bandits!

            And as a "UAV hunter"?
            1. Rakti-kali
              Rakti-kali 2 July 2013 22: 15 New
              +1
              Quote: svp67
              And as a "UAV hunter"?

              Too expensive a pleasure to have such a "hunter", which only UAV / UAV do not consider game.
        2. Rakti-kali
          Rakti-kali 2 July 2013 10: 54 New
          +2
          Quote: duke
          I don’t understand why work is not underway to create a lightweight 4+ hawk based on the Yak-130, because we have nothing else as the basis for it. And that development of the 5th generation light machine is underway, something is not heard

          Well, from a Yak-130 fighter - like from a 5vn bullet. But a light fifth-generation single-engine fighter is needed. And while it will be developed (unless of course they decide to develop such a project), it is necessary to maintain production facilities afloat, for which 30-40 MiGs can be ordered, and 3-5 years the factories producing it will have something to live on.
          1. patsantre
            patsantre 2 July 2013 16: 53 New
            +3
            The 5th generation will not work from a light single-engine engine. In fact, there are already no light fighters, there are medium ... light ones, except that they are relatively heavy.
        3. Avenger711
          Avenger711 2 July 2013 15: 17 New
          +1
          The machine weighs 11 tons. Maximum takeoff 23 tons, the "typhoon" weighs the same. Rafale is empty 9.5, the last F-16s fit the same weight. Normal in general, an easy class. Higher units are more serious like F-15, F-18E / F and F-35, below the bottom like flu, tejas, FC-1.

          Lightweight and inexpensive cars are very badly suited for the defense of such a country and in many directions, where hundreds, if not 1000+ kilometers, will simply not be pulled to the point of interception.
          1. Wedmak
            Wedmak 2 July 2013 15: 25 New
            +1
            and many directions, where there are hundreds, if not 1000 + kilometers, just up to the line of interception.

            Who said that MiGs will be engaged in interception? For this there is 31, and Su-27.
            1. Avenger711
              Avenger711 3 July 2013 01: 15 New
              0
              This is exactly what they will be doing in object-based air defense of densely populated areas, and of tactical strike machines as well. It’s another matter that the coating of numerous areas of possible air invasion like Kamchatka will be dragged anyway, and he doesn’t want to, but at least the squadron should always be on duty.
      5. abc_alex
        abc_alex 2 July 2013 10: 58 New
        +4
        I don’t know how it is now, but in the USSR it was planned to provide 2/3 of the fighter fleet with MiGs and only 1/3 of the Dryers. I don’t think it’s worth it to be done now, especially since naval aviation is definitely a Mig.
        1. old man54
          old man54 2 July 2013 14: 27 New
          +2
          definitely fav isn’t enough to put all the points over i! :) sorry
      6. Avenger711
        Avenger711 2 July 2013 15: 07 New
        0
        The MiG-29 is the same zero on the ground as the Su-27, there is no equipment for this on it, as well as on the early F-16s. The MiG-29M already could, but the series, unlike the F-15 Block 50/52, did not see.
        1. Wedmak
          Wedmak 2 July 2013 15: 22 New
          +3
          MiG-29 is the same zero on the ground as the Su-27

          That is, the FAB, OFAB, NURSY spelled out in the nomenclature of weapons is zero? It is clear that it is not a bomber, but it can work on the ground. And the Su-27 can use rockets, it will not seem enough.
          1. Avenger711
            Avenger711 3 July 2013 01: 16 New
            -1
            This can be suspended on the MiG-29, another thing that so smart people do not.
      7. SOZIN2013
        SOZIN2013 2 July 2013 19: 24 New
        +2
        MiG-35, which is inferior to Su in all respects, but it caught up with the price

        1) Where does the conclusion that MiG is inferior to Su ???
        A fighter is good, it’s easier, and with the installation of OVT in general a fairy tale, easier means even more maneuverability. I consider it an indispensable melee vehicle! Regarding thrust-weight ratio and flight range, yes ... But the car is light for a moment
        2) Where does the conclusion that Mig at a price compared with Su ???
        An instant is almost two times cheaper than Su, even according to open data it can be seen.
        3) The concept of a heavy and light fighter has not been canceled.
        Russian Air Force, these are all the same Air Force of the USSR (but with some changes)
        4) Order MO = profit = modernization of the machine park and increase in salaries = increase in production.
        5) "Competition is the engine of progress." Plus, soo I think it’s already quite loaded
        unlike Mig. Moreover, new cars were supposed to come not today, but already yesterday !!!
        1. Avenger711
          Avenger711 3 July 2013 01: 16 New
          -1
          It is not a matter of maneuverability, but of range and load with equipment.
    3. Apologet.Ru
      Apologet.Ru 2 July 2013 17: 52 New
      +3
      According to one of the statements of Russian officials, in the near future the Ministry of Defense will sign a contract for the supply of new MiG-35 aircraft.

      Looks like a foreign buyer appeared, not without reason,
      "During the recent international air show Le Bourget 2013 were announced"
      but until the aeroplane is in service with its Russian army, it is unlikely that anyone will buy it, by law request not allowed...
  2. igor36
    igor36 2 July 2013 08: 13 New
    +8
    Quite a logical decision Mig and Su complement each other.
    1. klimpopov
      klimpopov 2 July 2013 09: 34 New
      0
      From me to you + good
      1. Argon
        Argon 2 July 2013 10: 31 New
        +7
        The decision is quite logical for the USSR, Errefiya-like Bolivar cannot stand two, Mig as a platform is much more promising dry machines in the context of waiting for PAK FA (less EPR, cost, by all indicators, especially flight hours) according to the criterion cost / efficiency leaves the Su-35,30. 4 is far behind. Another thing is that the “management” of the UAC is intensely struggling with a competitor in the 27 ++ segment ... The most painful place is MiG engines, and there is nothing fatal (from a technical point of view), but as soon as the question of finances arises, as something immediately more necessary things appear. I consider it necessary to recall that the USSR could afford to have one Su-29 for three MiG-XNUMXs.
        1. Odysseus
          Odysseus 2 July 2013 14: 46 New
          +2
          Quote: Argon
          Mig as a platform is much more promising dry machines in the context of expectation of PAK FA (lower ESR, cost, for all customers, especially the flight hour) according to the criterion of cost \ efficiency leaves the Su-35,30 far behind

          Absolutely right! It's nice that there are sane people.
          Quote: Argon
          Another thing is that the "management" of the UAC is intensely fighting with a competitor in the 4 ++ segment ... MiG engines are the most painful place, and there is nothing fatal (from a technical point of view), but as soon as the question of finances arises, it’s immediately more necessary things appear.

          The whole trouble was in the collapse of Mig in the 90s. And then Sukhoi picked everything up and a decision was made on the priority of his planes. Now it’s too late to talk about this. Now there is a stalemate situation - because of the weak production base, you won’t produce a lot of Mig-29m2, and on the other hand, containing 3 intermediate types of 40-60 aircraft is also somehow silly.
          Quote: Argon
          I consider it necessary to recall that the USSR could afford to have one Su-27 for three MiG-29s.

          Here I do not agree 800 Su-27 to 1200-1300 Mig-29. One and a half turns.
          1. dizelniy
            dizelniy 2 July 2013 17: 03 New
            -5
            Our country does not need the MiG-29. In the USSR, for groups of forces as a means of repelling the first blow to the lack of fish, one can agree. With our distances and the state of the network of aerodromes, with the complete absence of the content in the expression of the combat radius for this aircraft, the scanty composition of the IA Air Force needs aircraft of the Su-35 type.
            1. Odysseus
              Odysseus 2 July 2013 21: 21 New
              +3
              Quote: dizelniy
              Our country does not need the MiG-29.

              Our country needs a new generation of aircraft and preferably more. But as for the Su-27M, and Mig-29M ... In the late 80s, when the programs were developed, both were needed.
              Now it’s hard to say. They have dragged on too long. And as an intermediate type, the Mig-29M2 is better. Why do we need an intermediate plane with a large EPR as an intermediate?
              On the other hand, the decision in favor of the Su-35 was made, what to talk about ... But then you need to purchase at least 100-120 aircraft.
              Buying 48 Su-35s, then 60 Su-30s, and then 20-30 MiG-29M2 is some kind of very strange strategy.
              Quote: dizelniy
              With our distances and the state of the network of aerodromes, with a complete absence of content in expression, the combat radius for this aircraft is scanty

              The combat radius is small, I agree. But you still need to build tankers, you need to repair airfields, and if there were even more new more economical engines, the severity of the problem would subside.
        2. Apologet.Ru
          Apologet.Ru 2 July 2013 18: 14 New
          0
          MiG-29 was initially, according to the concept accepted then, developed as a lighter platform in addition to the heavy Su-27 ...
  3. ed65b
    ed65b 2 July 2013 08: 17 New
    +2
    Well, otherwise I was worried about the fate of the MIG. All SU is heard.
    1. Arberes
      Arberes 2 July 2013 08: 45 New
      +7
      Quote: ed65b
      Well, because I was worried about the fate of the MIG.

      I am also glad that the MIG will continue its flight. And it may happen that the Hindus still regret their refusal! drinks
    2. Airman
      Airman 2 July 2013 09: 15 New
      +6
      Quote: ed65b
      Well, otherwise I was worried about the fate of the MIG. All SU is heard.


      Poghosyan, as the head of the United Aircraft Corporation, simply “pushed” the MIGs in order to get the maximum profit from the SU, but the MIG made its way into our aviation, a little belatedly.
  4. Avenger711
    Avenger711 2 July 2013 08: 17 New
    -1
    At the same time, the needs of the Russian Air Force in the MiG-35, according to various sources, are estimated at no less than 35-40 aircraft.


    For the sake of 35-40 cars, it makes no sense even to deploy production. What kind of nonsense in the article? A contract for 24 cars for trial operation would be quite sufficient, and even a smaller pre-production batch could be dispensed with. But then the need is still at least 200-300 cars. And in general, put on already. There will be a contract, then the news can be done.
    1. igor36
      igor36 2 July 2013 08: 58 New
      +3
      At the same time, the needs of the Russian Air Force in the MiG-35, according to various sources, are estimated at no less than 35-40 aircraft.

      The need for at least 200 cars is clear to everyone, I think. But the possibilities of procurement are limited by the possibilities of the budget of the country and the possibilities of production, because such series (200 aircraft) have not produced aircraft in the Russian Federation for a long time.
      1. MilaPhone
        MilaPhone 2 July 2013 09: 28 New
        +4
        Avenger711
        Given that the MiG-35 was created on the basis of the “ship” MiG-29 which are in production, there should not be any problems with the deployment of the series.
    2. Rakti-kali
      Rakti-kali 2 July 2013 09: 50 New
      0
      Quote: Avenger711
      For the sake of 35-40 cars, it makes no sense even to deploy production. What kind of nonsense in the article? A contract for 24 cars for trial operation would be quite sufficient, and even a smaller pre-production batch could be dispensed with. But then the need is still at least 200-300 cars. And in general, put on already. There will be a contract, then the news can be done.

      Despite the fact that the assembly of one side takes 9 months, and the annual production will fluctuate between 15-20 cars - the implementation of this project will take at least 10 years.
      It is probably better to be more modest, and to develop a new project for a light and multi-functional fighter. And in order to support design bureaus and plants, order 30-40 boards.
      1. Wedmak
        Wedmak 2 July 2013 09: 53 New
        +2
        It is probably better to be more modest, and to develop a new project for a light and multi-functional fighter.

        Why is this bad? It is unlikely that he has yet to reach his full potential for modernization.
        1. aleshka1987
          aleshka1987 2 July 2013 11: 09 New
          -5
          It is bad initially with 2 voracious engines (where it should have been 1) and a small payload. The rest is good ...
          1. Wedmak
            Wedmak 2 July 2013 11: 16 New
            +6
            Two engines provide additional survivability and traction, allowing for maximum maneuverability. And since our aircraft are still more focused on medium and close maneuverable air combat - this is a big plus.
            1. aleshka1987
              aleshka1987 2 July 2013 11: 29 New
              -3
              Survivability yes, maneuverability yes! But there is little fuel, Mig must either quickly defeat or die ...
          2. Avenger711
            Avenger711 2 July 2013 15: 22 New
            +1
            RD-33 is more economical than the engine on the F-16. All similar cars, except the F-16, and even lighter ones, have 2 engines.
        2. Rakti-kali
          Rakti-kali 2 July 2013 13: 29 New
          +1
          Quote: Wedmak
          Why is this bad? It is unlikely that he has yet to reach his full potential for modernization.

          Two engines, a heavy glider, a small payload, a small fuel supply (more precisely, a large fuel consumption), and, accordingly, a small radius.
          1. Wedmak
            Wedmak 2 July 2013 13: 39 New
            +6
            Will one engine save the situation? It is unlikely ... But vitality will reduce.
            6.5 tons on 10 suspension units - is that small ??? And you are greedy ...
            2000 km without PTB - not enough? This is a battlefield plane! He does not need to fly far, he needs to cover ground forces directly next to the battle formations. Yes, and there is a PTB, there is a refueling.
            The only thing this aircraft lacks is modern engines!
            1. Rakti-kali
              Rakti-kali 2 July 2013 19: 21 New
              0
              Quote: Wedmak
              Will one engine save the situation?

              Yes. One engine is lighter than two.
              Quote: Wedmak
              It is unlikely ... But vitality will reduce.

              Do you know many cases of the return of the MiG-29 to the base on one engine? Share, please.
              Quote: Wedmak
              6.5 tons at 10 nodes of the suspension is not enough ???

              Less than just a very toy "Grippen."
              Quote: Wedmak
              And you are greedy ...

              Give pills for greed. And more, more ... wassat
              Quote: Wedmak
              2000 km without PTB - not enough?

              And no load. And on what profile? Ferry on cruising at high altitude. With 6 tons of load without PTB along the drummer’s profile, God forbid there will be 500 km of combat radius.
              Quote: Wedmak
              This is a battlefield plane!

              Like everyone else except for the very pure interceptors.
              Quote: Wedmak
              He does not need to fly far, he needs to cover ground forces directly next to the battle formations.

              And?
              Quote: Wedmak
              Yes, and there is a PTB, there is a refueling.

              PTB reduces the payload and maneuverability, refueling increases the response time, and this is: - “a battlefield plane!”, It “needs to cover ground forces directly next to the battle formations”.
              Quote: Wedmak
              The only thing this aircraft lacks is modern engines!

              Yeah. A modern engine and lightweight glider.
          2. fzr1000
            fzr1000 2 July 2013 13: 44 New
            +3
            2000 km without PTB is not enough? Is flying time 2 hours short? The payload is useful, yes, 6,5 tons, less than that of competitors, and now what not to produce, but to create a new one? 5-6 years to wait?
          3. Avenger711
            Avenger711 2 July 2013 15: 23 New
            +2
            You can find out what the hell the motor of the MiG-29 has become gluttonous than its competitors? For F-16, for example, the bypass ratio is even less, which already implies a higher consumption, compared to the engines on the "typhoon" of the MiG-35, the specific consumption is approximately the same.
            1. Rakti-kali
              Rakti-kali 2 July 2013 19: 25 New
              +1
              Quote: Avenger711
              You can find out what the hell the motor of the MiG-29 has become gluttonous than its competitors? At

              Yes you!? How can you !? The MiG engine is even a bit more economical than the F-16 engine. But the trouble is that TWO MiG engines are already really much gluttonous than ONE F-16 engine
              1. Avenger711
                Avenger711 3 July 2013 01: 20 New
                0
                Yes, damn it, the motor on the F-16 actually has more traction than the engines on the MiG-29, the unit costs are compared to achieve traction. At the same time, the F-16 itself is smaller, which again does not contribute to the growth of the specific gravity of the fuel.
                1. Rakti-kali
                  Rakti-kali 3 July 2013 10: 37 New
                  +3
                  Quote: Avenger711
                  Yes, damn it, the motor on the F-16 actually has more traction than the engines on the MiG-29, the unit costs are compared to achieve traction.

                  Specific fuel consumption, (kg / h) / kgf:
                  F110-GE-400 - on unforced mode (10500 kgf) - 0,69; in forced mode (12500 kgf) - 1,95.
                  Dry weight of the engine, kg - 1740.
                  RD-33MK - on max. mode without afterburner (5300 * 2 = 10600) - 0,78 * 2 = 1,56; in full forced mode (9000 * 2 = 18000) - 1,96 * 2 = 3,92.
                  Dry weight - 1099 * 2 = 2198 kg.
                  Then you can calculate everything yourself.
      2. Avenger711
        Avenger711 2 July 2013 15: 21 New
        +1
        Why the hell should you develop it when you put the horseradish’s internal weapon compartments there, because there’s not enough room, and without them there is no radical decrease in visibility and resistance to supersonic sound, which at short range and need something less, cannot be achieved? Development another 10 years before the first flight and then again assembling machines a year for a teaspoon.
    3. duke
      duke 2 July 2013 09: 55 New
      -1
      it seems that ours is taking it into service, since the machine is export-oriented, and the buyer is always interested in whether this device is in the arsenal of the air force of the exporting country. The car weighs more than 23 tons, so it does not apply to the light class even with a stretch, and the magnificent Su occupies the niche of heavy cars. The light class could include a hawk based on the Yak-130, with improvements of course - supersonic, AFARs, glider amplification, etc. And this machine - MiG 29/35 - drops out of the circuit, only export remains, hence the symbolic installation lot.
      1. fzr1000
        fzr1000 2 July 2013 13: 50 New
        +2
        "Yak-130, with modifications to supersonic" -new glider, TS and HELL, i.e. new plane. For reference, the equipped F-18 weighs about the same.
  5. lawyer
    lawyer 2 July 2013 08: 57 New
    -1
    Hello everyone! I think that it is necessary to order at least 200 cars and not 35-40 chickens to laugh, the shoigu drove out the stools and that they began to buy a lot of equipment? as always, everyone thinks and deliberates; do the military really have no more convolutions, kick all in the neck, got this illiterate general staff am
    1. Airman
      Airman 2 July 2013 09: 22 New
      0
      Quote: lawyer
      Hello everyone! I think that it is necessary to order at least 200 cars and not 35-40 chickens to laugh, the shoigu drove out the stools and that they began to buy a lot of equipment? as always, everyone thinks and deliberates; do the military really have no more convolutions, kick all in the neck, got this illiterate general staff am


      Yesterday, the chief of the General Staff received the Chinese delegation, they must have come to look at promising developments and agree on something.
      1. cyberandr
        cyberandr 2 July 2013 14: 23 New
        +2
        Well, if anything they look, then it’s definitely not the MiG. They had been offered it before, but they needed Su.
    2. duke
      duke 2 July 2013 09: 58 New
      +3
      everything is not so simple and the General Staff is far from illiterate, your comments are based more on emotions than on assessing the real situation
  6. IsailoR
    IsailoR 2 July 2013 09: 21 New
    +1
    Boldly. Do you have the fullness of the information picture to make such statements?
  7. pensioner
    pensioner 2 July 2013 09: 22 New
    +1
    Maybe these contracts will breathe new life into MIG! And then they began to forget ... And there you look and a breakthrough will create something! Surely MIG specialists amazes something ...
  8. Wedmak
    Wedmak 2 July 2013 09: 30 New
    +3
    MiG was created as an addition to the heavy Su. Even the ratio of these machines in the troops was determined. What, now the concept has changed? Light fighters are not needed? It’s not clear what pulls the cat by the tail.
    1. abc_alex
      abc_alex 2 July 2013 11: 06 New
      +3
      Not certainly in that way. MiG did not supplement Su. Both of these aircraft equally shared the concept of a promising fighter in the understanding of the 70s. Well, if we proceed from the planned volumes of production and the range of tasks to be solved, then it is more likely that Su has supplemented the MiG.
  9. Vtel
    Vtel 2 July 2013 09: 50 New
    +1
    “The MiG-35 glider differs little from the original MiG-29. The main differences lie inside - in engines, on-board electronic equipment and other“ stuffing. ”The MiG-35 power plant consists of two RD-33MK turbojet engines with afterburner thrust of about 9000 kgf. The basis of the onboard equipment is the Zhuk-A radar equipped with an active phased antenna array. The MiG-35 also has a set of the most advanced electronics, which, according to the developers, will be relevant for at least the next 15-20 years. in flight and serve as a tanker. " http://www.sdelanounas.ru/blogs/13742
    Let it be, better than ever.
    1. Argon
      Argon 2 July 2013 12: 46 New
      +3
      My dear Vtel, the MiG-35 is a CONCEPTUAL modernization of the MiG-29M. In the early 90s they wanted to call the MiG-33 precisely because it has almost only the appearance of the product 9-12 9-14, the key difference is the rejection of a booster system in favor of the EMF (if this tells you something?). The manufacturing / assembly technology has been changed a lot. But this did not happen because the engine did not appear.
  10. Grigorich 1962
    Grigorich 1962 2 July 2013 10: 05 New
    +1
    yes good news .... good .... that's just not impressive the number of fighters being bought ..... hundreds of them are needed ..... hundreds !! ... and not dozens .... look how the Chinese are arming themselves. ...
  11. Stiletto
    Stiletto 2 July 2013 10: 13 New
    12
    People, come to your senses! MIG is our plane! Since when did we no longer need our aircraft? MIGs and SUs at all times perfectly complemented each other, and they should not compete with each other, on the principle of who will "strangle anyone", but with aircraft from other countries. If you do not support this project now, tomorrow there will be no other projects - in principle. Or do we have so many design bureaus that the country no longer needs Mikoyan’s?
    1. aleshka1987
      aleshka1987 2 July 2013 13: 15 New
      -1
      Well, you say correctly, the purchase is going to support Mig Design Bureau, our + Indian marine orders, MIG-35 to the troops. But in no way should it be 500 planes ... Migi is no match for the Su-33 at sea, the production of which has already been scored. The design bureau should receive the terms of reference for a new light fighter - economical, with better combat range, greater payload. Otherwise, support is all in vain, and the lack of competition between Sukhoi Design Bureau and Mikoyan Design Bureau will lead to decline.
      1. Argon
        Argon 2 July 2013 15: 53 New
        0
        Aleshenka from which snuff box did you jump out? The combat potential of the Su-33 is now (due to aging, the initial inferiority of the OMS) close to 0. If we talk about the construction of new decks, the issue should be considered in close connection with the ship. Displacement of our aircraft carriers (future, very I hope that they will appear anyway) there will hardly be more of an “Admiral” and the aircraft carrier’s efficiency is closely related to the quantitative component of the wing on board. -1,85 times. Given the nomenclature of weapons in the army, some superiority over the MiG radar is leveled out by the impossibility of realizing it. Another point is that dry acrobatics is possible with very modest fuel reserves (like the MiG) in absolute values ​​this value is higher than that of MiG, but in specific relative to the mass of the structure \ actual payload is slightly lower. Competition (in the best sense of the word) in the military-industrial complex at the moment history in Errefii is not possible. And what we are discussing now is proof of that. There is an example of combat helicopters there "competed" for 2 years, and the "museum" boards worked in the troops all this time. And the result? both are accepted. The question is what is the competition? I think you will draw the analogies with this situation yourself. no
        1. aleshka1987
          aleshka1987 2 July 2013 18: 42 New
          -2
          Honestly, I didn’t quite understand you. Too smart you say - not for my level. And here is the snuff box? If the debate about the imaginary "future" aircraft carriers, then talking about the Su-33 \ MiG-29Kub is generally stupid. What cannot be ordered for Sushki modernization? Is it really rotten at all? Is it difficult to build new ones, are they so different from the general line? (If you do not take into account that Sukhoi is so littered with orders). It breaks in more, that's good! How is it with their combat range, payload, quantity / quality of missile weapons?
          On the Su-33, the ability to work on land / surface targets is not finished, but on MiGs, is everything fine with this?
          1. Argon
            Argon 3 July 2013 00: 58 New
            +2
            In order (don’t even think about the snuff box) I’ll just try, they give you a new “Prior” get on a ride, you don’t have my grandfather GAZ-24, I’ll earn money, repair it and ride. It’s NOT possible to upgrade the deck fatigue stresses of structures (due to high, in fact, shock loads, during landing, for example). The release of the Su-33KUB is technologically much more complicated than all machines on the Su-27 platform (for example, wing elements with flexible casing) and even more expensive than the Su-35C (according to some sources the cost of the side is comparable with PAK FA.) The MiG radii are certainly less, however, taking into account the “light class” and the main task: self-grouping air defense is quite sufficient. The number of suspensions 9 versus 12 for the “dry” MiG on the ground is implemented at about the level F-16C (application of CLE, mapping targets), by the way, these capabilities of the Su-33 are no different from the Su-27 and the MiG-29t.E. The radar \ OLS on the ground do not work. Air combat is also implemented fuller (simultaneous shelling of 4 c oil) Su-33 is really just one. But the most important thing on the MiG is the principle of automatic landing on deck.
            1. Avenger711
              Avenger711 3 July 2013 01: 25 New
              +1
              Do not compare 80s electronics with modern ones. Of course, the MiG-29K (35) will surpass the Su-33, but the deck on the basis of the Su-35 cannot be surpassed. But it is really smaller and mass-produced for India, which deprives the design of the deck Su-35 of any meaning.
            2. TSOOBER
              TSOOBER 3 July 2013 02: 30 New
              +1
              in addition: vaf somehow said that the SU-33 was so heavy that it couldn’t take off the Kuzi deck with full ammunition (at least there is no video photo of take-off and landing facts with a full set), so either MIG or the development of a new deck aircraft ! Yes, and another question is whether there is a developed DRO model for Russian aircraft carriers, because without them it is not a full-fledged aircraft wing! Thanks in advance hi
            3. aleshka1987
              aleshka1987 3 July 2013 10: 38 New
              +1
              Thanks for your clarification. It's nice when a person argues, and not just just minuses.
  12. Russ69
    Russ69 2 July 2013 10: 36 New
    +3
    The MiG has its own niche in the Air Force, like the f-16. An airplane is needed, and with regards to quantity, it is until 2016, then maybe a few dozen more will be ordered.
  13. KG_patriot_last
    KG_patriot_last 2 July 2013 10: 48 New
    +1
    in any case, the manufacturer needs to be supported. monopoly is not very good. especially to such a big country.
  14. Black Colonel
    Black Colonel 2 July 2013 10: 51 New
    +1
    I wonder what configuration will be delivered MiG-35? It seems that Algeria was offered these aircraft.
    1. Avenger711
      Avenger711 3 July 2013 01: 25 New
      0
      Algeria received the MiG-29SMT.
  15. The comment was deleted.
  16. Black Colonel
    Black Colonel 2 July 2013 12: 59 New
    +1
    A single-engine fighter could be designed for export. There is experience in design and construction, there is also demand. And there you look, and in the homeland you will need a new concept
  17. USNik
    USNik 2 July 2013 13: 32 New
    -2
    I agree with the opinions about the excess cost of the “light” Mig-35. It is inferior in all respects to the Su-35, not far behind in price. And world practice shows that other customers also think so. The point of the procurement, of course, is to support the Mikoyan Design Bureau, provide workers and prevent everything from collapsing. But here the question arises, or maybe it is worth loading MIGovtsev with work to the fullest and forcing them to create a new pace easy cheap a fighter capable of competing in the foreign market with the Flu and the Chinese? Fortunately, there are projects in the bedside table and financing will be found.
    1. fzr1000
      fzr1000 2 July 2013 13: 52 New
      +4
      The Chinese before MiG 35 are still ...... far shorter.
    2. Odysseus
      Odysseus 2 July 2013 15: 02 New
      +6
      Quote: USNik
      . And world practice shows that other customers also think so.

      What kind of customers?
      Su-35 existed in 4 configurations. All have long and desperately moved for export. The results are zero. Now they are trading with the Chinese who initially wanted to buy 4 aircraft.
      Customers prefer the Su-30 on credit))
      If the Miga had not collapsed in the 90s, he would have had absolute superiority in export orders, which he actually had before.
      1. Avenger711
        Avenger711 3 July 2013 01: 26 New
        0
        Well, the F-16 was the most successful 4th generation aircraft in this regard, and only the rich Pinocchio acquired the F-15.
  18. aleshka1987
    aleshka1987 2 July 2013 13: 56 New
    0
    Quote: Wedmak
    The only thing this aircraft lacks is modern engines!

    Here you are right for all 100!
  19. dizelniy
    dizelniy 2 July 2013 14: 37 New
    -2
    Quote: aktanir

    aktanir


    Today, 08: 37

    ↑ ↓ New


    Well, what are now the characteristics of the Mig-35, taking into account the refinement, who will tell the thread
    Flight duration without PTB 50 min. And where will he fight?
    1. Wedmak
      Wedmak 2 July 2013 14: 40 New
      +5
      Flight duration without PTB 50 min. And where will he fight?

      Not true. Flight duration without PTB 2.2 hours, range 2000 km.
      1. dizelniy
        dizelniy 2 July 2013 17: 13 New
        +1
        Divide 4200 kg of fuel into two engines and multiply by the specific fuel consumption in combat maneuvering mode at an average height from 6 lvl. I'm afraid even 50 minutes. will not work. I speak from experience of personal exploitation.
        1. Wedmak
          Wedmak 2 July 2013 17: 19 New
          +2
          I can hardly imagine a modern air battle lasting more than 20 minutes. Although it may be wrong.
          1. aleshka1987
            aleshka1987 2 July 2013 18: 57 New
            +1
            What 20 minutes there is a lot! The problem is that in battle you have to work at maximum afterburner! This is not flying at high altitudes in economy mode. The problem of not flying back is very relevant, because of this you have to leave the battle early, if this is possible. The actual combat radius is reduced even more if we take into account the maximum afterburner when approaching (to launch a medium-range cancer) + Close maneuverable battle - there is no fuel economy there.
            1. Avenger711
              Avenger711 3 July 2013 01: 36 New
              +1
              It seems that this is exactly how the Su-27 of Ethiopia and the MiG-29 of Eritrea raped, so they had to leave the battle, and there was still plenty of kerosene in the dryers.
          2. Odysseus
            Odysseus 2 July 2013 20: 38 New
            +2
            Quote: Wedmak
            I can hardly imagine a modern air battle lasting more than 20 minutes. Although I may be wrong

            dizelniy means that the real combat radius will be small, which is very important for Russia. The Mig-29 is really quite small, the Mig-29M2 has a bigger one but not a fountain. You need to build tankers.
            1. Avenger711
              Avenger711 3 July 2013 01: 36 New
              0
              We need not build tankers, but the Su-35.
        2. Avenger711
          Avenger711 3 July 2013 01: 35 New
          -1
          So it is with afterburner, and in the economical mode, you will stretch 2 hours.
          1. dizelniy
            dizelniy 3 July 2013 16: 37 New
            0
            It is necessary not to pull, to be prepared for maneuvering during the entire combat flight. This means to withstand not the maximum range or flight duration mode, but the mode that allows you to perform any combat maneuver, which requires increased fuel consumption.
  20. I.G.O.R.
    I.G.O.R. 2 July 2013 15: 54 New
    0
    What did you want? Everyone has their own niche!
    (price, range, load, etc.)
  21. old man54
    old man54 2 July 2013 16: 39 New
    +3
    maybe the mind of the GDP and Rogozin is enough to restore the pr-in and the MiG design bureau, at least on that base that remains? It was the right decision and wise. The country needs at least some semblance of competition for tactical aviation design bureaus.
  22. Diviz
    Diviz 2 July 2013 17: 10 New
    0
    Mig29 cube and Mig 35 counterweight f35. Su35 and T50 counterweight f22.
    1. dizelniy
      dizelniy 2 July 2013 17: 15 New
      0
      Can the production of the Yak-3 revive?
      1. Wedmak
        Wedmak 2 July 2013 17: 24 New
        +3
        Can the production of the Yak-3 revive?

        And found a new sport - air paintball! Dog dump over Kubinka - balls of paint fly in all directions, roar of engines, lines of guns and machine guns, cursing pilots, smoke indicators of hit. Yes, on this show half the world will cringe!
  23. rudolff
    rudolff 2 July 2013 17: 20 New
    +6
    I do not presume to compare the technical characteristics of the Mig and Su fighters, but the Mig design bureau must be preserved in any case. Including by placing an order for the 35th. We have already lost too many design schools, and those that have formally remained, for the most part, in a half-strangled state. Perhaps it makes sense to think about the merger of KB Mig and Yakovlev. The latter seems to be living out its last days and will not come out further on its own. Yakovlevsky "Combine" in Saratov is completely destroyed and cannot be restored even as an aircraft repair enterprise. Itself hails from there, a sad sight. At the same time, Yakovlev Design Bureau has retained unique design developments for Russia and the themes with Design Bureau Mig are somewhat similar. This work on the "light" fighter, and marine subjects. Now they talk a lot about creating a combat version of the training Yak-130. Why not do it jointly by the forces of both design bureaus. Even with partial transfer of copyrights. Training Yak-130 and combat Mig-130. Do not judge strictly, just think out loud.
  24. studentmati
    studentmati 2 July 2013 21: 20 New
    +2
    Quote: rudolff
    Mig's design bureau needs to be maintained anyway

    I totally agree. The path to creating one single corporation is the path to degradation. Only the competition of design schools will be able to move Russian aviation.
    Quote: rudolff
    Perhaps it makes sense to think about the merger of KB Mig and Yakovlev

    Perhaps it makes sense, both KB are on the verge of survival. And not only these design bureaus on the verge of survival ...
    1. Rakti-kali
      Rakti-kali 2 July 2013 22: 19 New
      0
      Quote: studentmati
      I totally agree. The path to creating one single corporation is the path to degradation. Only the competition of design schools will be able to move Russian aviation.

      So after all, no one bothers to have unified production facilities and independent design bureaus. Now the Tupolev firm had large production capacities, and after the 154th they didn’t give a single normal machine to the country.
  25. tupolev-95
    tupolev-95 2 July 2013 21: 28 New
    +4
    The MiG-35 is needed by the Air Force yesterday and is simply needed today. The MiG-29 fleet is rapidly aging and needs a decent replacement. The Su-35 is not suitable here. The Air Force needs both light and heavy fighters. A comment in the style of the MiG-29 is not needed - complete nonsense, but to compare it with the Yak-130 or Su- 34 generally nonsense. The 29th served and adequately served (I personally served them for 5 years) now I need a replacement and there should be hundreds of cars, not two dozen.
  26. 0255
    0255 2 July 2013 22: 02 New
    +1
    RSK MIG developed many projects based on IFIs, but it turns out that they once again had to refine the MiG-29. I would like to see a new plane, not a revision of the old
  27. papik09
    papik09 3 July 2013 02: 25 New
    +1
    Quote: Rolm
    wassat Mig’s problem is a twin-engine, which is bad for a light fighter.

    Maybe I’m not “catching up” with something, but, explain, pliz, why is there a problem in twin-engine? In my opinion, it’s the opposite - an advantage over SINGLE-ENGINE devices. After all, this affects maneuverability, which is very important. Or isn’t it?
    1. aleshka1987
      aleshka1987 3 July 2013 10: 53 New
      0
      Yes, everything is so, much has been said above. Fuel consumption is large, but not enough reserves - reduces flight range. The instant is ideal for covering aerodromes, not very distant objects. Well, as a front-line fighter, it is also very good (efficient and cheap), only now the probability of mass front-line wars has slightly decreased, a little.
      1. abc_alex
        abc_alex 3 July 2013 12: 54 New
        0
        Well, somehow you mixed everything.

        A MiG is a figuratively expressed frontier plane. Front lane, airfields located close to the border. The plane of the army, that takes off in the first minutes, holds the main strike of the aircraft and then hangs over the ground units.
        Therefore, it is small, the flight radius is relatively small. This is not a flaw; this is a clear understanding of what to fly on to him. not necessary.
        But it is cheaper than drying by half, it is smaller, lighter. And a pair of engines is not a defect, but again a conscious need - the fulfillment of its tasks requires ensuring high survivability of the machine. And he, by the way, is very tenacious.

        Those who say "two engines for a light fighter are bad" just evaluate our machines based on an alien for them state concept light fighter. This is incorrect in principle. Therefore, it turns out that everything that is not in the US state is bad.
        1. aleshka1987
          aleshka1987 3 July 2013 13: 35 New
          0
          Both you and I wrote the same thing. I am white in a black striped, you are white in a white striped. Well, people do not like critics, everything should be perfect and great! Could you compare the capabilities and characteristics of our front-line fighter Mig-29 and their multi-purpose F-16 (modification of your choice)? I did not raise the topic of air-to-air missile weapons (especially medium-range ones), it would also be worth clarifying.
          1. Rakti-kali
            Rakti-kali 3 July 2013 15: 04 New
            +1
            Quote: aleshka1987
            Could you compare the capabilities and characteristics of our front-line fighter Mig-29 and their multi-purpose F-16

            And what to compare? The MiG carries less combat load at a shorter range, while spending more fuel. On the afterburner in an aerial battle or as a striker at low altitude, the MiG will survive in the air one and a half times less than the efka.
        2. Rakti-kali
          Rakti-kali 3 July 2013 15: 00 New
          +2
          Quote: abc_alex
          Those who say "two engines for a light fighter are bad" simply evaluate our machines based on the alien to them state concept of a light fighter. This is incorrect in principle.

          Two engines are not bad if in total they weigh as much as one with similar traction, specific fuel consumption, geometric dimensions, they require no more time for dismantling / installation, maintenance than one engine.
  28. Tot-enot
    Tot-enot 8 July 2013 21: 44 New
    +1
    Initially, the MiG-29 cost, if I don’t confuse something, more than two times cheaper than the SU-27, the MiG-35 costs only 20% cheaper than the SU-35, which belongs to the class of light vehicles with limited capabilities, the instant has an advantage in working on the ground and based on short-run airfields but that's all! further some cons, size matters .....
    A true light air force fighter is needed! We need a kind of MIG-21 of the 21st century, relatively simple, not expensive and efficient, the MiG-35 unfortunately is not suitable for this role, at this price and the cost of operation not much less than heavy machines, its existence does not make sense ....
    purchased only for the sake of maintaining the design bureau.