Military Review

MiG-35 is preparing for flight tests

243
Director General of RAC "MiG" Sergey Korotkov told reporters about the preparation for flight tests of the newest multi-role fighter MiG-35. According to Sergey Korotkov, the first stage of the RAC "MiG" contract with the Ministry of Defense, providing for development work, has been successfully completed. At the moment, the MiG-35 is under construction on the premises of the production complex of the company in Lukhovitsy.


Press office RSK MiG cites the statement of the general director of the manufacturer:

We completed the first stage of this work - the draft technical project was protected and adopted by the Ministry of Defense. Therefore, we are proceeding in accordance with the schedule of the contract signed by the Ministry of Defense. Today the plane, located here (Lukhovitsy), is going through all the stages of assembly, and this year it will be assembled and presented to the customer for flight tests.


According to Sergey Korotkov, for the flight tests of the RAC "MiG" will collect several units of the MiG-35 (the first batch is presented).

MiG-35 is preparing for flight tests


Information about some of the characteristics of the newest multi-purpose fighter MiG-35, relating to the generation of 4 ++:
airplane speed - up to Mach 2,23,
simultaneous capture of up to 10 targets
defeat to 6 the most dangerous targets of the "captured",
The average radius of action is at least one and a half times larger than that of the MiG-29 (excluding additional fuel tanks).


MiG-35 is one of the stages of deep modernization and development of combat aircraft MiG-29K / KUB and MiG-29М / М2.

Sergey Korotkov:
The MiG-35 inherited the aerodynamic concept of the MiG-29 and is multifunctional. In addition, it (the concept) is able to make it possible to use high-precision weapons for any - air, ground, surface - targets. The open architecture of avionics allows the MiG-35 to use modern and promising aviation means of destruction of Russian and foreign production.
Photos used:
http://www.migavia.ru
243 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. avvg
    avvg 18 March 2016 06: 30
    +50
    Good luck in your trials!
    1. SANAY
      SANAY 18 March 2016 07: 20
      +5
      Lord How handsome he is! Serious helm!
      1. FID
        FID 18 March 2016 08: 16
        +15
        Quote: SANAY
        Lord How handsome he is! Serious helm!

        I apologize, what did you actually mean? An airplane glider or control system (in which the helm is by definition NO)?
        1. Maxom75
          Maxom75 18 March 2016 10: 06
          -2
          Good afternoon! I apologize for explaining what MIG-35 is for if the army is switching to the SU-35 and SU-30. Function in the MIG-35 Air Force what? Support for the Mikoyan Design Bureau? And another question is whether we will make light fighter aircraft with a single-engine scheme or we finally abandoned their development and thereby killed the market for most of the small countries including Africa and Asia, because they have no long borders and they have an airplane with a radius of action 1500-2000km is not needed. just wondering.
          1. Ezhaak
            Ezhaak 18 March 2016 10: 29
            +27
            Quote: Maxom75
            and why do we need the MIG-35 if the army moves to the SU-35

            So I think, but why are women in the country if people refuse to give birth without paying maternity capital? And men are also useless. It seems to me. laughing
            For those who did not get it, I explain, this is sarcasm! And there will be dull ones, believe me. I'm afraid that there will be those who will have to interpret the word "sarcasm".
            1. Maxom75
              Maxom75 18 March 2016 19: 31
              +13
              Stunned, I asked only a question, and in response a mountain of minuses and no answers. Super no words. Everyone oahali my question and did not object to the merits. In addition to the ability to use the MIN-35 on a dirt strip, there are no other advantages over the SU-30 and Su-35?
              1. Pilat2009
                Pilat2009 18 March 2016 20: 02
                +7
                Quote: Maxom75
                In addition to the ability to use the MIN-35 on a dirt strip, there are no other advantages over the SU-30 and Su-35?

                We must also look at the price and fuel consumption, for example, it suddenly turns out that the operation of a light fighter is cheaper
                1. max702
                  max702 18 March 2016 22: 14
                  +4
                  Quote: Pilat2009
                  We must also look at the price and fuel consumption, for example, it suddenly turns out that the operation of a light fighter is cheaper

                  For a long time, everything has been counted and it has been found out that on the whole SU-27 operation cycle, the MIG-29 is cheaper .. And given the increased price of the MIG-35, it is almost the same as the SU family .. then yes the MIG-29 is only for export, but in order to successfully sell the equipment it is necessary that it It was in the arsenal of the army of the country of the manufacturer .. Yes, and we must also take into account that Sukhov's plants are packed with orders for years to come, and giving part of the market where the MIG-35 may well be successful is simply stupid .. So they are trying to make a competitively capable machine, which in principle is not bad .. We will have well-established production of not the worst equipment is wonderful! And if it also brings profit, it’s very good ..
                  1. tomket
                    tomket 18 March 2016 23: 56
                    +1
                    Quote: max702
                    For a long time, everything has been counted and it has been found out that on the whole operating cycle the SU-27 is cheaper than the MIG-29.

                    Counted by Poghosyan?)))))
                    Quote: max702
                    And one must also take into account that Sukhov's plants are filled with orders for years to come, and giving part of the market where MIG-35 may well be successful is simply stupid .. So they are trying to make a competitively capable machine, which is not bad in principle .. We will not have established production the worst technique is wonderful!

                    In general, we are re-equipped on the principle that each plant supplies what it can, and not what is really better.
                  2. hartlend
                    hartlend 20 March 2016 21: 27
                    0
                    Who is SUHOV? Maybe Dry?
                  3. Mih
                    Mih 21 March 2016 00: 01
                    0
                    I liked MIG so much, and I'm so sorry that they spit on him, although this is my purely subjective attitude to this machine. I saw this beautiful car under the code E-155. I'm so sorry, so sorry!
              2. Tibidokh
                Tibidokh 18 March 2016 20: 07
                +8
                Quote: Maxom75
                Stunned, I asked only a question

                Don't be so upset. Read this topic:
                http://forums.airbase.ru/2000/06/t6212--mig-29-vs-su-27-vzryvoopasnaya-tema.html

                Also check out the Ethiopo-Eritrean conflict. But very few people will take this experience seriously (as an indicator of the "coolness" of Sushki).
                In my subjective opinion, the MiG-29/35 is an excellent aircraft. Only now he was conceived in the USSR, when airfields were every 200 km. And now...
                On the other hand, the MiG-35, in any case, will be cheaper than the Su-35. And for certain tasks it will be more than enough.
                And to the eternal question: "who is cooler, the MiG-29 or the Su-27", the best answer is: "Board number 1".
                With respect. hi
                I almost forgot! It is imperative that we adopt it, if only because it is very problematic to export an airplane that you yourself cannot commission. And MiG export orders OH as needed.
                1. tomket
                  tomket 18 March 2016 23: 59
                  +3
                  Quote: Tibidokh
                  Only now he thought in the USSR, when there were airfields every 200 km. And now...

                  It’s just that he was conceived as a destroyer of FRONT AVIATION, and he did not need to fly on those tasks to the front line beyond 2000km. Therefore, when it turned out that both MiG and Su did not reach the range according to the technical task, the MiG did not undergo alteration, because the range was not a critical indicator for him.
                  1. Tibidokh
                    Tibidokh 19 March 2016 04: 08
                    +8
                    hi
                    Quote: tomket
                    It’s just that he was conceived as a destroyer of FRONT AVIATION

                    I do not quite understand why you singled out "FRONT AVIATION". Su-27, T-50, F-22, Grippen, Tszyan-20 - these are all front-line fighters, with the amendment that the "partners" call them tactical.
                    Quote: tomket
                    to the front line for 2000km

                    belay It’s a bit much, however ... There are jump airfields. After all, even now, with a normal load, few fighter / IFIs fly 2000 km. and join the battle. And with a maximum load so in general ...
                    Quote: tomket
                    range for him was not a critical indicator.

                    Yes, definitely. But I, indicating about airfields 200 km away., Did not mean that the MiG had a short range, but that it was planned as a cheaper and more massive aircraft, unlike the MiG-31 and Su-27.
                    Quote: tomket
                    MiG did not undergo alteration, because the range for him was not a critical indicator.

                    Maybe. And maybe just the then leadership could not, unlike Sukhoi, push through the MiG-29M3 - this is the one that was planned with PGO, new engines (not from the RD-93 series) and a range of 4000 km.
                    With respect!
              3. Xsanchez
                Xsanchez 18 March 2016 22: 09
                +4
                The answer on the surface: a twin-engine scheme is 2 times more reliable than a single-engine one, if one engine fails. It's just cheaper to put a second engine than to lose the whole plane. So it doesn’t cost the hatched egg to save fuel, reduce the combat load, increase the repair base. And a long range It is used in countries with a small territory for long patrols, and no one has ever sold a warship at cost. Regarding the budget option: either let them buy a used one or a training yak-130. Another option is to upgrade the existing old armament .
              4. Konstantin Yu
                Konstantin Yu 19 March 2016 11: 09
                +1
                I’m sure there should be several different aircraft, the monopoly of one design bureau is unacceptable, the more honest the competition, the more likely it is to create a better one ... all the more so since it actually came to a real test ..
              5. DHA
                DHA 19 March 2016 16: 00
                -4
                and you saw his profile picture, in essence, he’s an Amer’s vulture, clutching his victim’s throat, he’ll cover it with a clever saying, for the most part he’ll clap his hands in delight, just to make them cuddle
            2. Ezhaak
              Ezhaak 20 March 2016 18: 02
              0
              Quote: Hedgehog
              And there will be dull, believe me

              А dull at this moment, as many as 9 pieces were found. And this is a quarter of the total number noted. So draw conclusions, citizens.
          2. Pravdarm
            Pravdarm 18 March 2016 11: 24
            +21
            Quote: Maxom75
            Support for the Mikoyan Design Bureau?

            And what confuses you in this matter!
            Yes, at least for the sake of it !!! Design Bureau of Mikoyan - the most valuable gold of Rosavi Colossal design experience and practice.
            Although not only! Mig 35 is a medium fighter-bomber (Normal take-off weight 17500 kg), and Su 35 heavy (normal take-off weight 25300 kg.). (Su 30 - 24900)
            And another important factor: MIG - cheaper!
            1. marshes
              marshes 18 March 2016 11: 29
              +1
              Quote: Pravdarm
              And another important factor: MIG - cheaper!

              And how much is it?
              Here is the Su-30 SM, prices range from 28 lyam greens and higher, depending on the stuffing.
              1. Ezhaak
                Ezhaak 18 March 2016 12: 07
                +1
                Quote: marshes
                And how much is it?

                According to Vika, the unit cost is $ 30,0 million (2009), depending on the liver, the price may change.
                1. marshes
                  marshes 18 March 2016 12: 19
                  +1
                  Quote: Hedgehog
                  According to Vika, the unit cost is $ 30,0 million (2009), depending on the liver, the price may change.

                  Well on Vick there the price of the SU-30SM is clearly overpriced.
                  According to one infe, the Russian Aerospace Forces are buying Su-30SM at a price of 27-28 Lyamov apiece, about 4 units of Su-30 cm were purchased in Kazakhstan by such a sum. It is still not clear what contract the modernization of the airfield infrastructure at the base site entered into.
                  According to MIG, they will be "tasty" if the price is 15-20 lyamas for the "budget" (LOW COST) and there the price tag really goes up for 30tnik, there was an offer to purchase. True, they delayed, perhaps, only after the adoption of the RF Aerospace Forces into service with subsequent operation in the army.
                  1. Ezhaak
                    Ezhaak 18 March 2016 15: 13
                    +4
                    Quote: marshes
                    27-28 Lyamov apiece, approximately in such a sum per unit went the acquisition of 4 Su-30 cm, Kazakhstan

                    But the price includes maintenance. Belarusians, for example, have their own repair plant, their own specialists, and the price will be noticeably lower for them. This must also be taken into account.
                    1. marshes
                      marshes 18 March 2016 15: 30
                      0
                      Quote: Hedgehog
                      But the price includes maintenance. Belarusians, for example, have their own repair plant, their own specialists, and the price will be noticeably lower for them. This must also be taken into account.

                      By the way, our SU-27 was undergoing modernization.
                      The price of the Su-30SM, no lower, maybe because of the exchange rate difference in the region of 24-25 lyam.
                      But the MIG-35, what is the real price? at CADEKS they offered our side to invest in the development of this unit, they say then you will be the first buyers ... it was "scary" to give money, the Russian Aerospace Forces was not adopted, what kind of beast? not a "kidok"? - it's about the level of trust in your "managers". So the acquisition was abandoned until better times.
                      1. Ezhaak
                        Ezhaak 18 March 2016 16: 12
                        +2
                        Quote: marshes
                        But the MIG-35, what is the real price?

                        Today, none of the outside observers will be able to name the figure. No copies have been sold yet. hi
                      2. Kasym
                        Kasym 18 March 2016 16: 20
                        +6
                        Salem, Swamp! The price for Kazakhstan and the CSTO countries is within Russia. For export it is completely different. Of course the question you raised is the most interesting. Honestly, I've been waiting for this car for a long time. It has a much larger market than heavyweights. Note that in the EU they don't make heavy goods at all! Therefore, I always believed that the Russian Federation would "finish" it - we had to harness (my opinion). Recently it was reported in RUSSIA24 that the flight hour of operation of the MiG-35 is 29 times cheaper than that of the MiG-2,5 - I can't imagine why. If this is true, then this is generally super. hi
                        Mach 75, the MiG-35 actually has its own tasks. He is a frontline, to support ground forces.
                      3. marshes
                        marshes 18 March 2016 16: 42
                        0
                        Quote: Kasym
                        Salem, Swamps!

                        Greetings!
                        Quote: Kasym
                        Notice, in the EU they don’t make heavy at all!

                        They have a small theater of operations and there is no open space both in the Russian Federation and the KZ.
                        Quote: Kasym
                        Therefore, I always believed that the Russian Federation would "finish" it - we had to harness (my opinion).

                        Here it is simply different, I think, the Russians ignored the exhibition all the same, but where will they go, Paris, the exhibition is in front of them. The "expanded" composition, wives, girlfriends, children went for budget money. Plus the Swifts with the Knights flew to our border and then from Moscow did not gave permission and these aerobatic teams were waiting.
                        On this and ride ... smile
                        And even the Indians gave money to acquire some technologies, but what are they for us?
                      4. Kasym
                        Kasym 18 March 2016 19: 47
                        +1
                        If we invested, we have the right to even ask for repairs or assemblies on our territory that make it easier to produce components (after all, it will cost less). We have to start with something if the government is interested in aircraft manufacturing. The MiG-35, as stated in the company resources are much higher than the 29-ki (which was one of his problems). Still, the Russian Federation is neither the USSR, but we could help in this matter. It would be easier together. Indeed, the commercial success in this sector is probably higher than that of the cords. Those F-16 Turks under 2 hundreds, and for our territory it is necessary not less - at least for yourself to begin to collect. In this class, we will soon have nothing left. In my opinion, for one heavy we would need 2-3 of this class. Why drive expensive Sushki or MiG-31 when they can perform many tasks (the WAF wrote that it is many times cheaper to maintain)? Something like this. hi
                      5. marshes
                        marshes 18 March 2016 20: 02
                        +1
                        Quote: Kasym
                        If we invested, we have the right to at least ask for repairs or assemblies on our territory that make it easier to produce components.

                        In the KZ, at least something like Eurocopters set up the assembly, and here 35, the Russian Federation will not give it up for any "gingerbread". We are not India, SU-30MKI.
                        Quote: Kasym
                        Those F-16 Turks under 2 hundreds, and for our territory it is necessary not less

                        In the current realities, we would have to keep what is, and that is not bad, gradually replacing them with new "classmates".
                        Only one is not the task of the Mig-31 and Su-25 what to change and the timing is the same.
                        So that is is.
                      6. DHA
                        DHA 19 March 2016 16: 04
                        -1
                        who cares? you - me? And who is in the government, they are interested in filling their pockets, there are no illusions for a long time!
                  2. Pilat2009
                    Pilat2009 18 March 2016 20: 06
                    +2
                    Quote: Kasym
                    MiG-35’s flight hour is 29 times cheaper than that of the MiG-2,5 - I won’t know how

                    Due to fuel economy, probably. 29 it was no secret that they were voracious, which is why the Germans sold their MiGs, inherited from the GDR
                  3. Kasym
                    Kasym 18 March 2016 20: 48
                    +2
                    The Germans rather sold for political reasons and because of resources that were not available (there were 500 hours for engines, which is very small). The Germans on the MiG-29 in the close combat training beat everyone.
                    Bolot, so I write that the Russian Federation is not the USSR. And the plant would not be superfluous. There would be a task, and the personnel would be prepared. Those Uzbeks and Georgians collected what we are worse. Men wrote to military universities in the Russian Federation that we are sending literate children. Those Ukrainians were even surprised. Why in all areas began to open physical.-mat. schools, those nazarbayev schools? And before, there was only one (RFMSh in Alma-Ata). I understand that those five-year-old riveters are being trained, but patience and skill are needed here. What we will not find such patient? I’m not saying that we release electronics there. But blanks for the fuselage, why not? In the Russian Federation, many aircraft factories are breathing in the air, so why not discuss such a question (even if with Russian interest, no one talks about some kind of independence). There will be no excess for the CSTO. hi
                2. Yarhann
                  Yarhann 19 March 2016 15: 14
                  0
                  components and assemblies are more reliable and have a longer service life, therefore it is cheaper so well and most likely less personnel for maintenance is necessary if there is a modern system for diagnosing faults
    2. silver_roman
      silver_roman 18 March 2016 16: 19
      +1
      Quote: Pravdarm
      And another important factor: MIG - cheaper!

      At a price per piece it’s too early to say, it depends on the state order, but I heard that its cost is quite high.
      But speaking of the cost of a flight hour, it seems to me that the MiG-35 will be cheaper than the Su.
      That and I agree that the support of the OKB Mikoyan and Gurevich - the most important task.
      By the way, who is up to date on the topical filling account? What about weapons and engines? HEADLIGHT or AFAR?
    3. Maxom75
      Maxom75 18 March 2016 16: 50
      -8
      Sorry, but I do not agree with you; no one supported Lavochkin’s orders like many others. The fact that the MIG has no new developments and the 90s are to blame, but many years have passed, but nothing has changed. Maybe you already have to do something? MIG-35 is simply not the most advanced aircraft, and indeed it is heavy. Hindus abandoned him in favor of the Raphaels, probably for a reason? And the matter is not only corruption, but also tactical and technical characteristics.
      1. silver_roman
        silver_roman 18 March 2016 17: 23
        +6
        Quote: Maxom75
        MIG-35 is simply not the most advanced aircraft, and indeed it is heavy.

        in general it is a light fighter. and the level of technology in it is sufficient to fulfill all assigned combat missions.

        At the expense of the Indians' refusal - THIS IS NOT AN INDICATOR!
        They are diversifying their weapons market.
        For example, they abandoned the Mi-26 niches in favor of Chinook, who lost in almost all respects to ours, and this despite the fact that the American is ALWAYS much more expensive.

        But the fact that there is no MiG-35 in the native army can push the buyer away.

        Quote: Maxom75
        the fact that the MIG has no new developments and the 90s are to blame, but many years have passed, but nothing has changed

        As if the top of the aviation industry did not greatly favor the MiG. That is to say the least.
        The country is simply obliged to keep this design bureau, because it has truly created the most unique aircraft, which to this day are unique.
        1. Kasym
          Kasym 18 March 2016 20: 01
          0
          Roman, if I had to make a choice (due to lack of finances), then I would also primarily support Su because of the size of the territory of the Russian Federation.
          In my opinion, the Indians took Rafal because of the avionics on it.
          And you can answer all sorts of stealth technologies with electronic warfare equipment. They can somehow try to act differently on their air-to-air missiles, which are stuffed with electronics and not quite modern. And they will have to engage in close combat, and there the MiG-29 (35; and even with engines with IWT) have no equal.
          I fully support in terms of uniqueness of the MiG-29 (35). A couple of years in the army had to watch him at the training ground. hi
          1. silver_roman
            silver_roman 18 March 2016 22: 01
            +1
            At the expense of the area of ​​the Russian Federation I agree. To be honest, I don’t understand where the ratio of 2 to 1 light to heavy came from, but apparently there is logic. By the way, if anyone knows, it would be interesting to hear.
            Hindus are not very bad, and they endured everything and everything on the Su-30MKI, I think it’s corny because of diversification. + We really had problems with maintenance and the supply of components. In this, Westerners are ahead of us. I don’t know, maybe today something has changed for the better.

            I don’t know about any avionics at the expense of Raffal’s avionics, but I’m sure that they have an elemental base, technical processes, and microelectronics are much more developed. Trite everything is more compact, smarter and more technological. It was always our minus.
            Our people are strong in fundamental sciences, the strongest theorists. In general, we hope that we will achieve condition and come out on self-sufficiency.

            In addition, the MiG experience is needed for the subsequent interceptor - a descendant of the MiG-31. The old man is still strong and in service, but the years go by! hi
            1. Kasym
              Kasym 19 March 2016 00: 42
              0
              In my opinion, Roman, because of the radius of action. But the lungs can immediately saturate the direction, surpassing others. And also the load. 8 tons versus 2 or 3 tons on the lungs. hi
      2. Konstantin Yu
        Konstantin Yu 19 March 2016 11: 20
        +1
        There is a separate story about Rafali, and still there, .. the aircraft performance characteristics themselves have little relation. Sometimes in a black room there is no black cat ....
      3. cedar
        cedar 19 March 2016 17: 42
        +1
        Quote: Maxom75
        Sorry, but I do not agree with you; no one supported Lavochkin’s orders like many others. The fact that the MIG has no new developments and the 90s are to blame, but many years have passed, but nothing has changed. Maybe you already have to do something? MIG-35 is simply not the most advanced aircraft, and indeed it is heavy. Hindus abandoned him in favor of the Raphaels, probably for a reason? And the matter is not only corruption, but also tactical and technical characteristics.


        The loss of such a design bureau, a unique school of advanced aircraft manufacturing, would be one of the defeats in the information and economic war declared to us. Today, for well-known reasons, the MIG-35 may not be the most advanced aircraft, but we all live in the hope of a better future, and the MIG will have it.
        And internal competition for the Sukhoi Design Bureau with the MIG Design Bureau will only benefit.
  2. Tektor
    Tektor 18 March 2016 12: 07
    +15
    I apologize for explaining what MIG-35 is for if the army is switching to the SU-35 and SU-30. Function in the MIG-35 Air Force what? Support for the Mikoyan Design Bureau?
    It is believed that heavy fighters to gain air superiority (Su-27 - Su-35) are designed to escort bombers and defeat the adversary with their SVP in their area. Light fighters gaining superiority in the air, i.e. MiGs are designed to defend our zone from their fighters and bombers, and fight against their SVP in our same zone. In addition to this, MiG-35s have the ability to use all types of SVPs, which makes them multifunctional. In addition, MiGs are short-take-off and landing fighters, which makes them less demanding on runway quality, i.e. possibly based on unpaved airfields ...
    1. ssergn
      ssergn 18 March 2016 15: 21
      +7
      Quote: Tektor
      based on



      Do not forget the ship. MiG is just that.
  3. Dam
    Dam 18 March 2016 13: 08
    +1
    This is a good export option for multi-purpose 4 ++. And about the Mikoyan design bureau, even if there is something else in service, you need to support your design bureau so that you don’t stop leading in aircraft construction
  4. Army1
    Army1 18 March 2016 15: 35
    +3
    Quote: Maxom75
    Good afternoon! I apologize for explaining what MIG-35 is for if the army is switching to the SU-35 and SU-30. Function in the MIG-35 Air Force what? Support for the Mikoyan Design Bureau? And another question is whether we will make light fighter aircraft with a single-engine scheme or we finally abandoned their development and thereby killed the market for most of the small countries including Africa and Asia, because they have no long borders and they have an airplane with a radius of action 1500-2000km is not needed. just wondering.

    Different types of aircraft have different tasks.
  5. Ride78
    Ride78 18 March 2016 17: 22
    +4
    Again, the latest?))))) Haha, 5 years ago he was considered to be backward, and now he suddenly became the newest? Wonderful things are your Lord)))
    1. Pilat2009
      Pilat2009 18 March 2016 20: 12
      0
      Quote: Ride78
      5 years ago he was considered lagging behind,

      Because at that time the locator was not finished, and the engines may be different. In general, in five years you can radically rework the filling
      1. clidon
        clidon 19 March 2016 12: 40
        0
        And what have you completed the locator? Where did the engines come from?
  6. olegfbi
    olegfbi 18 March 2016 22: 13
    0
    Good afternoon! I apologize for explaining what MIG-35 is for if the army is switching to the SU-35 and SU-30. Function in the MIG-35 Air Force what?

    It seems that they have reached the general’s rank (by site rating), but you don’t understand simple things ...
    Let me explain, everything is simple !!!
    Mig - Light front-line fighter;
    Su - Heavy fighter.
    Accordingly, these are different classes of machines with completely different tasks!
    Those. work on different radii, with different times and against different goals!
  7. sssss018
    sssss018 19 March 2016 11: 15
    0
    Two engines are first and foremost safety!
  8. stopkran
    stopkran 19 March 2016 12: 54
    0
    Two engines are not foppiness, but flight safety.
  9. hartlend
    hartlend 20 March 2016 21: 24
    0
    DRY is a multi-purpose fighter, perform the whole range of combat missions, for example. escort of bombers, destruction of ground targets, air battles. MIGs are air defense systems, receive target designation from the ground, quickly take off and destroy targets (missiles and planes) in the indicated square. MIGs are many times cheaper, and therefore in demand, despite the narrow range of applications.
  • gjv
    gjv 18 March 2016 11: 04
    0
    Quote: SANAY
    Serious helm!

    Quote: SSI
    control system (in which the helm is by definition NO)

    When you open this thread, there is an ad for a series. There are tachilas with steering wheels. Serious tachilas, "thick".
  • Falcon
    Falcon 18 March 2016 11: 52
    +1
    Sergey Ivanovich!
    The plus man earns, and you're here with the controls drinks
  • Platonich
    Platonich 18 March 2016 08: 41
    +5
    And what, even the helm is visible? Here is a look!
  • Jerusalem artichoke
    Jerusalem artichoke 18 March 2016 09: 44
    .
    This is why this 35 flashlight is boiled up. Su-30СМ steers!
    1. tomket
      tomket 18 March 2016 10: 26
      +14
      Quote: Jerusalem artichoke
      This is why this 35 flashlight is boiled up. Su-30СМ steers!

      Actually, if you follow your logic, then Drying is copied from the MiG-29. Because the original Su-27 had little to do with its current look. And MiG, unlike Su, practically did not change, and took off earlier.
      1. Jerusalem artichoke
        Jerusalem artichoke 18 March 2016 10: 45
        .
        Quote: tomket
        And MiG, unlike Su, practically did not change, and took off earlier.

        And as a result, it is technologically far behind. Look, R&D on a 6th generation aircraft is already underway at Sukhoi! And the flashers cannot attach all their wunderwales of the 4th anywhere, the current for sale in third countries and only because of the brand. I don't see anything new on this 35th. All this is already on the new STROEVYH DRYERS. Note, already combatants, and tested in Syria! And one more interesting point to note for YOU: There was not a single MIG in the entire air group in Syria! Well, you understand, right? Further, I think there is no need to explain. hi
        1. Falcon
          Falcon 18 March 2016 12: 01
          +10
          Quote: Jerusalem artichoke
          Look, R&D on a 6th generation aircraft is already underway at Sukhoi!


          And what is not 10? With the fifth it is already scattered.

          Quote: Jerusalem artichoke
          Nothing new on this 35 I see

          Quote: Jerusalem artichoke
          I called Mig-35 a chopper on Su-30СМ


          What nonsense !? Take the trouble to understand at least a little what Su-30СМ and MIG-35 are. SOAR, ОАР, ЖУК-А, ОЛС-35, ОЛС-К. This is not dreamed of Su-30СМ.
          Mig is second only to GP and range. At the same time - this is the most modern drummer, which is now created in the Russian Federation.
          1. Arkon
            Arkon 18 March 2016 19: 16
            0
            By the way, is MiG AFAR worth it?
        2. Gorodovik
          Gorodovik 18 March 2016 13: 01
          +12
          You didn’t even bother to know the history of the MiG design bureau, and you say that. Dry reached such a peak only thanks to the lobby on the part of the state. After all, the first generation prototype of the 5th generation was built just on the MiG. And the MiG 35 was created almost in the 90s.
          In the 2000s, it was more profitable to sell drying rather than instantly. If you think that moment 29 is bad, then you are very mistaken. They just stopped supporting him. And in Syria there were only 8 fighters. So the Syrian group is not an indicator.
          About the moment 35. I agree. They are no longer needed at the air force. It is necessary to develop a new light fighter. Although at such a pace, this is the best option.
          1. marshes
            marshes 18 March 2016 13: 20
            +2
            Quote: Cityman
            It is necessary to develop a new light fighter. Although at such a pace, this is the best option.

            I agree with you, really light and not expensive, with one engine. Yes, it is desirable that the engine be of the same type as a heavy fighter. That would not "inflate" the staff in TECHi at air bases, in our case.
            An example is F-15, F-16-Pratt & Whitney F100
            Or Chinese Chengdu J-10, with an engine-1 × turbofan "Saturn-Lyulka" AL-31FN.
            And so MIG-35.
            1. Falcon
              Falcon 18 March 2016 13: 32
              +5
              Quote: marshes
              I agree with you, really light and not expensive, with one engine. Yes, it is desirable that the engine be of the same type as a heavy fighter. That would not "inflate" the staff in the TECHi at airbases, in our case.


              I agree that the thought is good. The only question is the price of development. Will she then fly out a pretty penny. As an example, this is French Rafale, whose price is over a hundred.
              Those. it may turn out that with good intentions, they will create equipment even more expensive than it was.

              The bloating of personnel in the TEH is not entirely correct. There are no mixed regiments of Su-27 / Mig-29. Each TEC in its own shelf for its type.
              1. marshes
                marshes 18 March 2016 13: 49
                +1
                Quote: Falcon

                I agree that the thought is good. The only question is the price of development. Will she then fly out a pretty penny.

                So this is for the future, although in the "fat years" it was necessary to do this.
                For not having another, MIG-35 remains.
                By the way, due to the devaluation, the cost in dollar terms should become lower, here you can really compete with China.
                Quote: Falcon
                The bloating of personnel in the TEH is not entirely correct. There are no mixed regiments of Su-27 / Mig-29. Each TEC in its own shelf for its type.

                I explained in our case, mixed airbases. Although, to take Shymkent, there is a hodgepodge and just the MIG-29 base, although there are other types of aircraft. So 35 may replace 29 in the future.
              2. eagle11
                eagle11 20 March 2016 04: 59
                0
                For that there are mixed regiments SU-27 / MiG-31
          2. cesar65
            cesar65 18 March 2016 21: 38
            +1
            Quote: Cityman
            After all, the first 5 generation prototype was built just on MiG. And the 35 MiG was created almost in 90.

            You are right, the work has been going on since the middle of the 80's, you yourself took part in these works, and also built the first MiG-29K.
          3. Lex.
            Lex. 19 March 2016 22: 06
            +4
            About the moment 35. I agree. They are no longer needed at the air force. It is necessary to develop a new light fighter. Although at such a pace, this is the best option.
            That you, in your opinion, decided that you do not need?
            Why did you decide to resume production of that -160?
            how much time is needed to develop a new fighter and another 5 years will pass for testing and the instant-35 is almost ready
            1. clidon
              clidon 20 March 2016 00: 16
              0
              The Tu-160 was renewed for two reasons - bombers are needed to replace the Tu-95, and the PAK YES is long.
              Even more important - you need to take the team to business.
        3. Konstantin Yu
          Konstantin Yu 19 March 2016 11: 26
          0
          And that MIG became a bomber? or fight with Assad aviation?
      2. irbis0373
        irbis0373 18 March 2016 15: 11
        +1
        Dry is not a copy of Mig, just like the other way around. Base models were developed almost at the same time. The similarity of these machines is only in the aerodynamic design.
      3. yehat
        yehat 18 March 2016 15: 18
        +1
        learn history !!! A moment before he took off ...
    2. Falcon
      Falcon 18 March 2016 11: 56
      +7
      Quote: Jerusalem artichoke
      This is why this 35 flashlight is boiled up. Su-30СМ steers!



      And what does this picture have to do with Su-30СМ?
    3. cherkas.oe
      cherkas.oe 18 March 2016 14: 18
      +4
      Quote: Jerusalem artichoke
      This is why this 35 flashlight is boiled up. Su-30СМ steers!

      Mr. root, you blurt out like artiodactyls after pasture. Though you need to think a little. Or do you have the task of picking up cons from being especially nervous? laughing
    4. yehat
      yehat 18 March 2016 15: 17
      0
      completely different cars
      unless avionics gets worked out Mig-u
  • Jerusalem artichoke
    Jerusalem artichoke 18 March 2016 08: 57
    .
    MiG-35 is preparing for flight tests

    After the Syrian diphile Su-30SM, Su-34 and Su-35S, the blinks are somehow not perceived ... Moreover, they do not have a coherent development program. We muddied this 35th, which in fact was simply upgraded to a non-Mig-29. Where is the 5th generation, at least in a draft version ???
    In general, I am not happy. Their Mig-35 is a lap on the Su-30SM.
    1. FID
      FID 18 March 2016 09: 10
      +11
      Quote: Jerusalem artichoke
      In general, I am not happy. Their Mig-35 is a lap on the Su-30SM.

      And the Su-30SM is a "paddle" (according to your statements, I beg your pardon) Su-27 ??? I'm not happy, although I have been in aviation for a VERY long time ...
      1. Jerusalem artichoke
        Jerusalem artichoke 18 March 2016 09: 24
        .
        Quote: SSI
        Quote: Jerusalem artichoke
        In general, I am not happy. Their Mig-35 is a lap on the Su-30SM.

        And the Su-30SM is a "paddle" (according to your statements, I beg your pardon) Su-27 ??? I'm not happy, although I have been in aviation for a VERY long time ...

        If you have really been in aviation for a long time, then such things would not have been written. I called the MiG-35 a litter for the Su-30SM because the Migovites did not find anything better than just making a heavy fighter out of a light fighter, that's all their alteration. Do not believe it, dear aviator? Look at the tonnage of the Mig-29 and Mig-35. Copy-paste on the Su-30 from the side of the Migovites is evident. So the question arises, why do we need another version of the Su-30SM ??? If the Su-30SM showed itself perfectly in a real combat situation.
        1. The comment was deleted.
        2. bulvas
          bulvas 18 March 2016 09: 43
          +18
          Quote: Jerusalem artichoke
          Their Mig-35 is a lap on the Su-30SM.


          Quote: Jerusalem artichoke
          I called Mig-35 a chopper on Su-30СМ


          I apologize, but what is "lap"?

          Something special from aviation?


          1. Jerusalem artichoke
            Jerusalem artichoke 18 March 2016 09: 48
            .
            Quote: bulvas
            I apologize, but what is "paddle"?

            Ask the Chinese. They will explain to you in detail lol
            1. gergi
              gergi 18 March 2016 10: 24
              +14
              In the Tambour Sumbur. Padelka Fell on Padla.
            2. Pravdarm
              Pravdarm 18 March 2016 11: 13
              +19
              There is a word "dressing" - from Ch. "MAKE"!
              There is a word "pODDelka" - from Ch. "FORGE"!
              the words "PADELKA" - NO !!!
              from ch. "FALL" is much better to come up with the word "FALLING", although this too - NO !!!
              There is, for example. "PADAL", but this is what lies dead on the ground!
              So you, Jerusalem artichoke, - 2 points! because such words and words - DO NOT HAPPEN!
              1. Jerusalem artichoke
                Jerusalem artichoke 18 March 2016 11: 19
                .
                Quote: Pravdarm
                There is, for example. "PADAL", but this is what lies dead on the ground!
                So you, Jerusalem artichoke, - 2 points! because such words and words - DO NOT HAPPEN!

                belay And I didn’t know that I was taking a spelling exam! laughing
                I'm not greedy - you 5 points for resourcefulness yes
                1. The comment was deleted.
                2. bulvas
                  bulvas 18 March 2016 11: 59
                  +16
                  Quote: Jerusalem artichoke

                  belay And I didn’t know that I was taking a spelling exam! laughing



                  And here everything is simple:
                  if a person is used to brushing his teeth in the morning, he will not be able to start the day normally until he has cleaned and washed.

                  If a person is accustomed to the correct Russian language, he will not be able to perceive normally written with such gross errors.


                  For example, I’m just offended by my native language, I think that the most brilliant knowledge in any field does not cancel out the knowledge of the basics of the native language

              2. fzr1000
                fzr1000 18 March 2016 11: 28
                +4
                Scavenger - apples that fell from an apple tree for natural reasons. They make jam or mash of them. Podalka is a surname.
              3. Boa kaa
                Boa kaa 18 March 2016 12: 06
                +8
                Quote: Pravdarm
                it is much better to come up with the word "FALLING", although this too - NO !!!

                Categorization is not the best argument in a dispute!
                The best way is to turn on your brains!
                Scavenger Valentin Anatolyevich
                07.04.1960 -
                Hero of the Russian Federation

                Dates of decrees
                1. 18.04.1994 Medal No. 74
                And the ace looks like this:
          2. guzik007
            guzik007 18 March 2016 09: 51
            +11
            "paddle"?
            -------------
            This is something from the exam.
            1. Jerusalem artichoke
              Jerusalem artichoke 18 March 2016 09: 56
              .
              Quote: guzik007
              "paddle"?
              -------------
              This is something from the exam.

              Does the exam have a course? belay Do you happen to work in the Ministry of Education? lol
          3. Turkir
            Turkir 18 March 2016 10: 37
            +9
            I apologize, but what is "paddle"?

            Padelka - you can’t imagine it on purpose ..
            With such knowledge, there are usually at least department heads.
            A simple engineer will never think of such a thing.
            1. Jerusalem artichoke
              Jerusalem artichoke 18 March 2016 10: 55
              .
              Quote: Turkir
              Padelka - you can’t imagine it on purpose ..

              That's it, from the word fall.
              Quote: Turkir
              With such knowledge, there are usually at least department heads.
              A simple engineer will never think of such a thing.

              And you, as I understand it, a simple engineer? laughing
        3. Nick
          Nick 18 March 2016 10: 22
          +19
          Quote: Jerusalem artichoke
          If you have really been in aviation for a long time, then such things would not have been written. I called the MiG-35 a chopper on the Su-30СМ because the Migovites did not find anything better than just making a heavy fighter out of a light fighter, that's all their alteration.

          You obviously do not own the information. Mig 35 is a lightweight fighter-bomber, and Su 35 is heavy. Compare the masses and the combat load.

          MiG35 take-off weight 23,5 tons combat load 6,5 tons
          Su30СМ take-off weight 34,5 t. Combat load 8 t.


          It is obvious that the Su30 SM and MiG 35 are different aircraft in terms of mass and dimensions, but the layout of the airframe is of course similar. The laws of aerodynamics apply to everyone.
        4. FID
          FID 18 March 2016 10: 34
          +14
          Quote: Jerusalem artichoke
          If you have really been in aviation for a long time, then such things would not have been written. I called the MiG-35 a litter for the Su-30SM because the Migovites did not find anything better than just making a heavy fighter out of a light fighter, that's all their alteration. Do not believe it, dear aviator? Look at the tonnage of the Mig-29 and Mig-35. Copy-paste on the Su-30 from the side of the Migovites is evident. So the question arises, why do we need another version of the Su-30SM ??? If the Su-30SM showed itself perfectly in a real combat situation.

          The question is - why are you not the Chief Designer of the UAC ?? You check the "tonnage" of the Tu-22M3 and Tu-160 and make the "appropriate" conclusion, dear visitor VO ...
        5. fzr1000
          fzr1000 18 March 2016 11: 04
          +12
          Reduce aplomb. MIG is cheaper than Su, and yes, KB MIG should not be lost.
        6. DarkMatter
          DarkMatter 18 March 2016 15: 00
          -2
          Su-30SM showed itself perfectly in a real combat situation.

          But can one show in more detail how in a combat situation he showed himself?

          P.S. And I, by the way, like Jerusalem artichoke, brings something fresh, a new stream, so to speak wassat
          1. bulvas
            bulvas 18 March 2016 18: 18
            +6
            Quote: DarkMatter
            Su-30SM showed itself perfectly in a real combat situation.

            But can one show in more detail how in a combat situation he showed himself?

            P.S. And I, by the way, like Jerusalem artichoke, brings something fresh, a new stream, so to speak wassat



            Well, yes, only the jet turned upwind


          2. The comment was deleted.
      2. Nick
        Nick 18 March 2016 09: 53
        .
        Quote: SSI
        And the Su-30SM is a "paddle" (according to your statements, I beg your pardon) Su-27 ??? I am not happy, although I have been in aviation for a VERY long time ..

        Judging by your comments, you’ve been on the couch a long time ago.
        1. Jerusalem artichoke
          Jerusalem artichoke 18 March 2016 09: 57
          .
          Quote: Nick
          Quote: SSI
          And the Su-30SM is a "paddle" (according to your statements, I beg your pardon) Su-27 ??? I am not happy, although I have been in aviation for a VERY long time ..

          Judging by your comments, you’ve been on the couch a long time ago.

          good drinks
        2. gergi
          gergi 18 March 2016 10: 26
          +4
          Judging by his comments, he accidentally works in the Ministry of Education. Cheered to tears.
          1. Nick
            Nick 18 March 2016 16: 11
            0
            Quote: gergi
            Judging by his comments, he accidentally works in the Ministry of Education. Cheered to tears.

            In the department of the fight against religion?
        3. FID
          FID 18 March 2016 10: 36
          +21
          Quote: Nick
          Judging by your comments, you’ve been on the couch a long time ago

          Close to you? I apologize, but I'm still working ... I wanted to write, unlike you, but the education did not allow ...
          1. Nick
            Nick 18 March 2016 16: 12
            -2
            Quote: SSI
            Quote: Nick
            Judging by your comments, you’ve been on the couch a long time ago

            Close to you? I apologize, but I'm still working ... I wanted to write, unlike you, but the education did not allow ...

            Thank God I don’t sit idle either ... hi
        4. Botanologist
          Botanologist 18 March 2016 10: 55
          +19
          no need to run into SSI.
          Quote: Nick
          Judging by your comments, you’ve been on the couch a long time ago.


          All our "strategists" have passed through his hands. And they still pass.
          Maybe you have more experience? Would share.
          1. FID
            FID 18 March 2016 11: 03
            +16
            Quote: Botanologist
            All our "strategists" have passed through his hands. And they still pass.
            Maybe you have more experience? Would share.

            Thank you for your support!
          2. Nick
            Nick 18 March 2016 16: 15
            0
            Quote: Botanologist
            All our "strategists" have passed through his hands. And they still pass.

            Well, I did not look into the workbook of the comrade. Maybe you?
            But it’s strange, you see, that Comrade Su 30СМ is not very good, although he doesn’t give specifics. It is even more strange if he is an expert in this field.
        5. fzr1000
          fzr1000 18 March 2016 11: 09
          +4
          Quote: Nick

          Judging by your comments, you’ve been on the couch a long time ago.


          And in your opinion, a good upbringing is not your strongest side.
    2. Mareman Vasilich
      Mareman Vasilich 18 March 2016 09: 18
      +8
      There are people smarter than you, who conceived and adopted both the MiG and SU.
      1. Nick
        Nick 18 March 2016 10: 25
        +3
        Quote: Mareman Vasilich
        There are people smarter than you, who conceived and adopted both the MiG and SU.

        You are certainly right, Mareman Vasilich, but on the site it’s customary to communicate with an opponent on you ...
    3. kit-kat
      kit-kat 18 March 2016 09: 25
      +4
      But the Su-30, and Su-34, and Su-35 in fact, are also just a deep modernization of the Su-27.

      http://bmpd.livejournal.com/607559.html
      1. Jerusalem artichoke
        Jerusalem artichoke 18 March 2016 09: 41
        .
        Quote: kit-kat
        But the Su-30, and Su-34, and Su-35 in fact, are also just a deep modernization of the Su-27.

        Yes. But this is a modernization of a heavy fighter into a heavy one. And the flashing lights stupidly increased the Mig-29 in size. In fact, as was the 4th generation, it remained. And there you still need to see what is done and how. By the way they did it themselves, without a state order, which means for sale. And this means that there is nothing new, outstanding there. Well, why is the Russian Air Force another mediocre fighter ??? Do we have nowhere to put money?
        1. tomket
          tomket 18 March 2016 10: 37
          +7
          Quote: Jerusalem artichoke
          Well, why is the Russian Air Force another mediocre fighter ??? Do we have nowhere to put money?

          Well, why do we need four types of Su-27 and the mediocre Su-30M2 in the presence of Su-30СМ? There is nowhere to put money?
          1. Jerusalem artichoke
            Jerusalem artichoke 18 March 2016 10: 53
            .
            Quote: tomket
            Well, why do we need four types of Su-27 and the mediocre Su-30M2 in the presence of Su-30СМ? There is nowhere to put money?

            Ah, well, if you are such a lover of diversity, then you can also finance out-of-pocket flashers with their mediocre child prodigy lol
        2. Nick
          Nick 18 March 2016 10: 58
          +10
          Quote: Jerusalem artichoke
          Well, why is the Russian Air Force another mediocre fighter ??? Do we have nowhere to put money?

          MiG 35 is an excellent fighting vehicle. For many tech. performance, is at the level of existing light fighters from world manufacturers, and in some it surpasses them.
          Moreover, at a price it is almost 45% cheaper than Su 35.
          1. Jerusalem artichoke
            Jerusalem artichoke 18 March 2016 11: 10
            .
            Quote: Nick
            MiG 35 is an excellent fighting vehicle.

            Come on! And who said that? Flyer commercial? lol The 4th generation car is positioned as a breakthrough ... fool Well for Indonesia it will do. But what do we need it for if we have Dryers tested in Syria? Moreover, work on the design of the 6th generation is already underway at the SU. request Something like that. Migushniki let them stamp Mig-31 is their only highly specialized machine demanded by the Russian Air Force. And do not climb into the pros on the front-line fighters. Su-out of competition!
        3. Gregazov
          Gregazov 18 March 2016 10: 59
          +7
          Sorry, Jerusalem artichoke, but it seems that you have very wide sources of information, and you do not doubt the reliability of it. This is the level of at least the chairman of the KGB or similar position. True, there is another version of the explanation - insufficient depth of assessment of the scarce information available. Well, the third option is an insufficient level of competence.
          Work on the MiG - 35 was started a long time ago. Due to a number of circumstances, they were constantly postponed. The aircraft is designed for carrier-based aviation.
          1. Jerusalem artichoke
            Jerusalem artichoke 18 March 2016 11: 17
            .
            Quote: GregAzov
            Work on the MiG - 35 was started a long time ago.

            This is the problem. Technology does not stand still.
            Quote: GregAzov
            The aircraft is designed for carrier-based aviation.

            The Su-33 is also intended for carrier-based aircraft. And the aircraft carrier "Admiral Kuznetsov" has long been equipped with 10 units of deck-mounted Su-33. The meaning of replacing sewed on soap ???
            1. Falcon
              Falcon 18 March 2016 12: 08
              +12
              Quote: Jerusalem artichoke
              And the aircraft carrier "Admiral Kuznetsov" has long been equipped with 10 units of deck-mounted Su-33. The meaning of replacing sewed on soap ???


              Nothing that Su-33 can only work on air targets? And we always needed a plane with the ability to carry at least RCC and KAB ?? Yes, and Migov more can be placed on the deck.
              What nah sewed on soap? Two completely different planes.
              Is Su-33 an eternal resource? They are already how old?
              1. Jerusalem artichoke
                Jerusalem artichoke 18 March 2016 20: 13
                -3
                Quote: Bottle
                Nothing that the Su-33 can only work on air targets?

                What???? Dear, you go, read first what heavy multi-functional Su-33 fighters can do, and then write any kind of crap that is ridiculous here. Adios!
                1. Falcon
                  Falcon 18 March 2016 21: 06
                  +1
                  Quote: Jerusalem artichoke
                  What???? Dear, you go, read first what heavy multi-functional Su-33 fighters can do, and then write any kind of crap that is ridiculous here. Adios!


                  I just don’t read apparently wiki fool

                  Where do these come from? Since when is Su-33 multifunctional. What does heaviness have to do with it? Also say that the Su-27 multi-functional fighter. fool negative
                2. tomket
                  tomket 19 March 2016 00: 04
                  0
                  Quote: Jerusalem artichoke
                  what can the Su-33 heavy multi-functional fighters do, and then write all the ridiculous things here in your comments. Adios!

                  Yes, even if you place a laser installation on the su-33, he will not be able to take off one horse-radish from the deck of Kuzi.
        4. Falcon
          Falcon 18 March 2016 12: 06
          +5
          Quote: Jerusalem artichoke
          A flashlights stupidly increased the Mig-29 in size


          I wonder if it has become longer or wider? But nothing that the Su-35 is heavier than the Su-27.

          Quote: Jerusalem artichoke
          than just make heavy fighter out of a light


          From your personal classification? Well, they didn’t please you, of course, it’s very sorry.
    4. Jerusalem artichoke
      Jerusalem artichoke 18 March 2016 10: 27
      .
      Yes, you can at least minus. One hell, this flying shushpanzer will go exclusively for sale. The niche of a real multipurpose fighter has long been rightfully occupied by the cool Sukhoi aircraft, and this is a FACT!
      1. tomket
        tomket 18 March 2016 10: 48
        +11
        Quote: Jerusalem artichoke
        The niche of a real multipurpose fighter has long been rightfully occupied by the cool Sukhoi aircraft, and this is a FACT!

        They have already been squeezed out of the fleet; there is a place in the Air Force for the MiG.
        1. Jerusalem artichoke
          Jerusalem artichoke 18 March 2016 11: 03
          .
          Quote: tomket
          They have already been squeezed out of the fleet; there is a place in the Air Force for the MiG.

          Who was pressed? SU ??? What parallel reality are you, dear? The main core of our naval aviation is the Su-24, Su-25 and the all-new Dryers. The flashing lights there, like ballast from Soviet times, still hang out before being written off. They are now decommissioned and replaced with the Su-30SM, etc.
      2. bk316
        bk316 18 March 2016 12: 10
        +11
        Quote: Jerusalem artichoke
        is rightfully occupied with cool Sukhoi cars and this is a FACT!

        You behave (and probably sincerely) as a football fan: Hooray hooray Spartak champion (only instead of Spartak KB Sukhoi).

        Only in the military-industrial complex are other realities: it is impossible to have one design bureau in one direction, because there will be no competition in design decisions. Look at the experience of the USSR in any strategic direction, but what about the USSR, look at the experience of the USA.

        And I’ll answer right away, I didn’t read it from the Internet. My father worked as a department head at the Central Design Bureau, and even managed to work at OKB-52. Yes, and I participated in the development of SS LSI, although it would seem why - the Elbrus already worked.

        So success MIGu
      3. bk316
        bk316 18 March 2016 12: 10
        +3
        Quote: Jerusalem artichoke
        is rightfully occupied with cool Sukhoi cars and this is a FACT!

        You behave (and probably sincerely) as a football fan: Hooray hooray Spartak champion (only instead of Spartak KB Sukhoi).

        Only in the military-industrial complex are other realities: it is impossible to have one design bureau in one direction, because there will be no competition in design decisions. Look at the experience of the USSR in any strategic direction, but what about the USSR, look at the experience of the USA.

        And I’ll answer right away, I didn’t read it from the Internet. My father worked as a department head at the Central Design Bureau, and even managed to work at OKB-52. Yes, and I participated in the development of SS LSI, although it would seem why - the Elbrus already worked.

        So success MIGu
  • yehat
    yehat 18 March 2016 15: 49
    +1
    As far as I read, the main plus of the Mig-35 is not in the performance characteristics, but in the change in manufacturing technology.
    Connectors, standards and so on.
    This seemingly inconspicuous change is seriously changing the approach to servicing and upgrading the machine.
  • Herman
    Herman 18 March 2016 06: 31
    +6
    A light fighter is of course needed, but I like the Sukhoi s-54 project with one engine from the su-27.
    1. mirag2
      mirag2 18 March 2016 06: 44
      0
      A light fighter is of course needed
      -very needed!
      1. alex-712
        alex-712 18 March 2016 06: 53
        +3
        Enlighten why?
        Why, by analogy, they did not develop the tanks in the same way, they left the main tank and that’s why not do the same with airplanes?
        1. drunkram
          drunkram 18 March 2016 07: 02
          +1
          are you hinting at the example of the F-35?
          1. alex-712
            alex-712 18 March 2016 07: 13
            0
            If you ask me, then no.
        2. Cheshire
          Cheshire 18 March 2016 07: 54
          +6
          Enlighten why?

          Competition is always good
          1. just exp
            just exp 18 March 2016 08: 53
            +6
            for sure, that’s why, for the sake of competition, in addition to the armata from UVZ, something else should be taken into service, and the fact that logistics (maintaining a fleet of different models) in some cases takes up to 40 percent of municipal defense spending is trifles, we have a rich country, everything will be mastered.
          2. Pereira
            Pereira 18 March 2016 09: 00
            -4
            This is not a competition. If there is no export order, this MIG is not needed.
            1. serezhasoldatow
              serezhasoldatow 18 March 2016 09: 09
              +1
              Do you serve in the field of state defense order?
            2. dyksi
              dyksi 18 March 2016 12: 56
              +4
              This MiG is very necessary for our country, the Commander-in-Chief of the Aerospace Forces and Sergei Korotkov spoke about this, and the participation of our Aerospace Forces in Syria is especially pushing for this. Both in our country and in the States, the question arises of returning to a pair of light and heavy fighters. Cars will be split into niches, as it was before. Heavy vehicles have a very expensive combat mission, while the Su-34 is prohibitively expensive. Therefore, in Syria, our vehicles mainly operated OFAB-250-270, which were taken for departure no more than four units. If they worked mostly KABs, then this operation would be ruinous. Sergei Korotkov, and many servicemen say: - “Why send a fighter to XNUMX, XNUMX kilometers, which should operate at ranges of a thousand kilometers. And higher, which itself is very expensive and its combat mission is very expensive. Europeans have been building only light and medium fighters, one of which is "Rafale", surpasses all heavy fighters in the world in almost all performance characteristics, including ours.
        3. Signaller
          Signaller 18 March 2016 08: 27
          0
          Of course, two engines are better than one. but ...... here I immediately recall the experience of the Second World War and specifically IL-2. They were made by more than 36 thousand. And why???? Yes, because he has ONE engine. Experts noticed that if he had two engines, then in such quantities it simply could not be done. Engine plant capacity was not enough. Yes, and judging by the experience of WWII pilots on the IL-2 riveted thousands. and rarely anyone lived to 6-7 sortie .. That’s the problem. I think of course, and our aircraft manufacturers need to attend to this problem. With mass production and loss of aircraft in the war. and not in local conflicts, and the pilots will be cooked like baking pies. Massively and not very high quality. But this is in my opinion. I do not insist. But there is a problem.
          1. demo
            demo 18 March 2016 08: 37
            +3
            The future war (God save us from this) will not have that clearly defined confrontation between the two armies.
            An example is Syria, Libya, Iraq.
            You can’t figure out who and where.
            The military is mixed with civilians and civilians.
            So it is with aviation.
            Imagine a simultaneous blow to Russia from all sides and at the same time.
            And when do you bake pilots then?
            There is nobody and nothing to bake.
            God forbid to teach the pilot to fly.
            And landing, like a Japanese kamikaze, is already superfluous.

            Although our military probably has a different view of things and a different strategy.
        4. Falcon
          Falcon 18 March 2016 12: 11
          +3
          Quote: alex-712
          Enlighten why?
          Why, by analogy, they did not develop the tanks in the same way, they left the main tank and that’s why not do the same with airplanes?


          Lightweight is always cheaper. An hour of flight costs less. Preflight training time is less. The work of ITS for an hour of flight is much less.
          An emergency flight is always faster. Maneuverability is higher, in the BVB it is more difficult to fight with light.
      2. Jurkovs
        Jurkovs 18 March 2016 07: 36
        +5
        Quote: mirag2
        -very needed!

        What for? Judging by the Ethiopian-Eritrean war, the case with the previous generation was as follows: the MiG-29 combatant lost the Su-27 combatant. Dryers fired a little further, carried more fuel (MiGs were the first to leave the battlefield and go to base) and had the best avionics.
        Nothing to spray.
        1. SSR
          SSR 18 March 2016 07: 45
          +12
          Quote: Jurkovs
          Quote: mirag2
          -very needed!

          What for? Judging by the Ethiopian-Eritrean war, the case with the previous generation was as follows: the MiG-29 combatant lost the Su-27 combatant. Dryers fired a little further, carried more fuel (MiGs were the first to leave the battlefield and go to base) and had the best avionics.
          Nothing to spray.

          Apparently, the Ethiopian-Eritrean War is the standard of aviation.
          1. Jurkovs
            Jurkovs 18 March 2016 07: 55
            +7
            Quote: SSR
            Apparently, the Ethiopian-Eritrean War is the standard of aviation.

            This is the only case of the combat use of dryers against flashlights.
            1. FID
              FID 18 March 2016 08: 19
              +2
              Quote: Jurkovs
              This is the only case of the combat use of dryers against flashlights.

              Therefore, since everyone is fighting with domestic weapons, there will be world peace - for, the weapons of the USSR are UNBEATABLE. I understand you?
          2. EvilLion
            EvilLion 18 March 2016 08: 21
            +1
            Everything was honestly there, no 100500 NATO aircraft with AWACS against several MiG-29 with non-working radars from the lack of spare parts.
          3. just exp
            just exp 18 March 2016 08: 55
            +1
            and NATO block wars as a standard fit?
            the main number of downed aircraft falls on the F-15, and not on the F-16.
            1. mvg
              mvg 18 March 2016 10: 01
              +1
              the main number of downed aircraft falls on the F-15

              Are there real facts of confirmation about the downed "Needles"? Let's guess, Yugoslavia .. :-) But they didn't show their tails ..
            2. EvilLion
              EvilLion 18 March 2016 14: 07
              0
              F-16 and F-15E were engaged exclusively in percussion tasks, so something that went astray was almost entirely due to the escort F-15C.
      3. Jerusalem artichoke
        Jerusalem artichoke 18 March 2016 09: 06
        .
        Quote: mirag2
        A light fighter is of course needed
        -very needed!
        What for? And to whom?
        Guys. The times when the tactics of air combat implied the presence of two multi-tonnage fighters have sunk into oblivion due to the development of electronics and weapons. Now all the functions of a fighter are performed by such MULTIFUNCTIONAL machines as Su-30SM, Su-35S and our tactical flagship of the 5th generation T-50. Even bombers (such as the Su-34) have fighter options — super-maneuverability and the ability to suspend air-to-air weapons.
        1. tomket
          tomket 18 March 2016 10: 18
          +1
          Quote: Jerusalem artichoke
          Even bombers (for example, Su-34) have fighter-super-maneuverability options and the ability to suspend air-to-air weapons.

          Oh God .... Even Su-24 carries r-60. Did it help him in Syria?
          1. Jerusalem artichoke
            Jerusalem artichoke 18 March 2016 10: 36
            -3
            Quote: tomket
            Quote: Jerusalem artichoke
            Even bombers (for example, Su-34) have fighter-super-maneuverability options and the ability to suspend air-to-air weapons.

            Oh God .... Even Su-24 carries r-60. Did it help him in Syria?

            Judging by the fact that, on the whole, the military part of the Syrian operation is victoriously completed, yes, it helped. Do you have something against it? Su-24 clean bomber of the 74th year of adoption. Your example is incomprehensible.
        2. EvilLion
          EvilLion 18 March 2016 14: 09
          0
          Given the weight of the Su-34 and the lack of a radar for a good view of the airspace (there is not a headlamp, which within certain limits does not matter what to scan), a fighter from it, like a ballerina from me.
          1. Jerusalem artichoke
            Jerusalem artichoke 18 March 2016 20: 18
            0
            Quote: EvilLion
            Given the weight of the Su-34 and the lack of a radar for a good view of the airspace (there is not a headlamp, which within certain limits does not matter what to scan), a fighter from it, like a ballerina from me.

            Su-34 has never been a fighter. It was originally a supersonic bomber from the time of the Soviet Union projects.
        3. Ros 56
          Ros 56 19 March 2016 18: 45
          0
          Quote: Jerusalem artichoke
          What for? And to whom?


          Well, it’s understandable not to you, it would be better for you to do agriculture with your call sign, in the sense of agriculture.
    2. EvilLion
      EvilLion 18 March 2016 08: 20
      +2
      But the pilots are unlikely to like the fuel supply per hour of flight and a maximum of half a ton of missiles. Even Gripen is considered by some to be under-plane.
      1. Kasym
        Kasym 18 March 2016 20: 34
        +2
        It is customary for the military to speak of a pilot, pilots in civilian life. Look at Syria. The plane flew in, loaded and again into the sky. Modern F-22s and F-35s won't do that. This speaks to the cost of the service. Specialists wrote that the MiG-29 is at times cheaper to maintain than the Su. The question arises: is it worth it to drive heavy on the task, if you can get by with the easy one. Have you seen how the MiG-29 works on the ground? And I was lucky. It is harder for Su to "turn over" (because it is heavier) when diving on a target than the MiG. Therefore, it is better to work on the ground to support the troops than the MiG than the Su. And to disperse the enemy over the battlefield is better than the MiG, tk. more maneuverable. In the Republic of Kazakhstan, close training battles were conducted between Su-30SM and MiG-29, guess who came out the winner. And if you also put engines with UVT on the MiG, then there will be no equal at all. Or do you think, as Western experts, that close maneuverable combat will disappear. So I see in Syria how the electronic warfare equipment works (those cheap Syrian birdhouses are being saved from TOU, and few will tell what the RF Armed Forces have in store in the store). Not half a ton, but 2-3 will drag without any problems, and now count how many bombs 250-270 kg will drag if necessary, each of which can solve no less on the ground, judging by Syria and what I saw at the airfield).
        That Su-24 at low altitudes can fly around the terrain, and the Su-34 has not yet been taught. Above, they are not fools, since the Su-24 was driven to Syria. And it seems to me that he flew more in combat than the Su-34. Because of the likes of Jerusalem artichoke, many pros are not visible on the site. You at least wrote with RESPECT. And it is not for you to criticize "SSI". Instead of illiterate statements, it is better to ask stupid questions from such people. hi
        1. tomket
          tomket 19 March 2016 00: 08
          +1
          Quote: Kasym
          and Su-34 has not yet been taught.

          and unlikely to be taught due to the specifics of the glider. f-15 have the same problems. By the way. at one time, Americans almost completely exhausted the fleet of b-47 flying at low altitudes, not taking into account the specifics of the airframe and wing.
  • Andrey Yuryevich
    Andrey Yuryevich 18 March 2016 06: 35
    +3
    interesting engines will be with the OVT "RD-33MKV"? What about the Zhuk-A radar? Or is there anything else in the "store"? what
    1. donavi49
      donavi49 18 March 2016 09: 37
      +2
      Radar Beetle-A almost certainly will not. This is a competitive product. It must be put on the stream, that is, pay for the development of production. And most importantly, Fazotron has already advanced far in AFAR and for them, Zhuk-A is a couple of steps back.

      Most likely there will be a Zhuk-M slot in general - it is he who goes to the Indians, it is he who is put on the MiG-29M, it is he who is now on the MiG-35 demonstrators.
      1. adept666
        adept666 18 March 2016 09: 49
        +1
        And most importantly, Fazotron has already advanced far in AFAR and for them, Zhuk-A is a couple of steps back.
        Seriously? And where did they go so well? smile Here on their website they are promoting, among others, both FGA29 and FGA35, and there is still nothing more perfect in the prospectuses.
  • demchuk.ig
    demchuk.ig 18 March 2016 06: 46
    +8
    Finally, the MiGs are celebrating a holiday! And at one time it was said that the MiG design bureau had died forever! Only DRYs should not live in our sky - the concept of light and heavy fighters, in my opinion, is very good!
  • WE ARE MAKING
    WE ARE MAKING 18 March 2016 06: 48
    +12
    That would be two rival giants in the world market - MiG and Sukhoi) Beauty and pride ...
    PS: ... I hear "MiG" and nastolgiya)
  • Uncle lee
    Uncle lee 18 March 2016 06: 51
    +6
    Quote: demchuk.ig
    light and heavy fighters,

    More Dryers and MIGushka!
    1. ayuric
      ayuric 18 March 2016 07: 21
      0
      read SIGUSHEK, something super-serious would have turned out.
  • Blondy
    Blondy 18 March 2016 06: 52
    +5
    Well, I don’t understand such a PR. The text says that for the flight tests, MiG will collect several MiG-35 units, with the first batch presented. In the illustration, a photo from a Vietnamese website is presented, where among the Vietnamese words you can make out the MiG 35. What does the first batch have to Vietnam, or is it still 35 in the photo? - It’s hard to imagine the first covert flights with missiles on all suspensions.
    1. Bayonet
      Bayonet 18 March 2016 07: 41
      0
      Quote: Blondy
      In the illustration, a photo from the Vietnamese sites is presented, where among the Vietnamese words you can make out MiG 35. What does the first batch have to do with Vietnam,

      Our sites also have enough, for example F-35 - what does Russia have to do with it? hi
  • sergeyzzz
    sergeyzzz 18 March 2016 06: 53
    +2
    Fifteen years ago, the documentation was handed over to the Indians, for which he just crawled for himself.
    1. aba
      aba 18 March 2016 06: 59
      +1
      for myself, just now crawled.

      I have not disappeared and it’s already good.
  • VP
    VP 18 March 2016 06: 54
    +1
    I would like to understand why it is needed. Well, in addition to supporting the MiG.
    What are its advantages over Sushki, what tasks will it perform better?
    1. K-50
      K-50 18 March 2016 07: 07
      +5
      Quote: VP
      What are its advantages over Sushki

      Just cheaper. In the current conditions, an important factor, especially since the monopoly in such matters is not buzzing hi
      1. VP
        VP 18 March 2016 07: 20
        +3
        And where does the information that it is cheaper?
        Dryers are baked like pies for both their Air Force and for export, i.e. simply through a series of many costs are reduced. Why will MiG be cheaper?
        He lost to Rafal in India at a tender.
        I don’t know, I’m somehow wary of him, some feeling that the MiG has lost some of its competencies in both development and production.
        Of course, it is necessary to revive - nevertheless it is a legendary design bureau. But ... In general, it is ambivalent somehow.
      2. mvg
        mvg 18 March 2016 10: 14
        -3
        Just cheaper.
        Taking into account the dollar exchange rate, the price tag for the Su-35 is more than competitive. If they write the truth in the press, then for our Air Force the Su-35 costs 17 million dollars ... a penny, compared to 100-115 million for Typhoon or Rafale. The MiG-35 should be in the same range as the F-16, Grippen, i.e. 25-35 million dollars. So I have serious doubts that a crude plane that came out of workshops that have not been doing anything serious for a long time ... will fit into this "plug". MiG-29KUB do not count .. a small batch of previously produced devices.
        PS: No new engines, no new radar, no weapons .. No software .. Do you need this dinosaur?
    2. Andrey Yuryevich
      Andrey Yuryevich 18 March 2016 07: 28
      +1
      Quote: VP
      I would like to understand why it is needed. Well, in addition to supporting the MiG.
      What are its advantages over Sushki, what tasks will it perform better?

      http://topwar.ru/index.php?newsid=64207
      1. kos2910
        kos2910 18 March 2016 07: 38
        +3
        Yeah, got it. Su-35 is a heavy fighter 4 ++, and therefore more expensive. The Mig-35 is a lightweight 4 ++ fighter, which means it should be cheaper. Well, there’s something in it. Let there be two options for a 4 ++ fighter
      2. VP
        VP 18 March 2016 07: 59
        +1
        Quote: Andrey Yurievich
        http://topwar.ru/index.php?newsid=64207

        I do not agree with everything in that article, but the point is not in it.
        I'm interested in a few points
        1. And can MiG produce them of sufficient quality and enough series?
        2. Compare with Typhoon which has long been in the series: - less combat load, fewer suspension points, 30-40% smaller combat radius, ceiling 2 km lower. Of the advantages of 3 points: higher speed, AFAR, controlled thrust vector. But most likely they will put AFAR on eurofighter. And what do we have? What has not yet gone the plane does not stand out against the background of rival aircraft that are already mass-produced. And with Rafal even worse - there is an AFAR in the base, and the combat load from the suspension point is even greater, and the radius is already 80% different.
        It turns out that the aircraft will be produced not in advance but in pursuit of? Do you need to do this? Maybe let them finish on the future?
        1. EvilLion
          EvilLion 18 March 2016 08: 31
          -2
          Does he have a smaller radius? Almost the same aircraft and the masses, including fuel and flight data.

          Rafale as a fighter is clearly dull. Because an aircraft with an empty weight in 9.5 tons cannot carry more cargo than an aircraft with an empty weight in 11 tons and it is even better to fly. Physics is against this, a large payload requires very high strength and just a huge wing, which Rafale has with corresponding consequences for dynamic performance. Spinning turns in close combat is good, catching up with someone, or getting out of combat, and Typhoon and MiG-35 should have an advantage.
          1. VP
            VP 18 March 2016 09: 13
            0
            Quote: EvilLion
            Does he have a smaller radius? Almost the same aircraft and the masses, including fuel and flight data.

            According to available data, a radius of 1800 for rafal and 35 for MiGa-1000
            The mass of empty rafal is less than one and a half tons, the load for rafal is 9500 against 6500 at the 35th, 14 suspension points against 10
            1. Muvka
              Muvka 18 March 2016 09: 59
              +2
              Quote: VP
              Quote: EvilLion
              Does he have a smaller radius? Almost the same aircraft and the masses, including fuel and flight data.

              According to available data, a radius of 1800 for rafal and 35 for MiGa-1000
              The mass of empty rafal is less than one and a half tons, the load for rafal is 9500 against 6500 at the 35th, 14 suspension points against 10

              And why didn’t you indicate the speed, rate of climb and most importantly the cost of these machines? Can complete the picture?
              1. VP
                VP 18 March 2016 10: 27
                +1
                Above, I wrote about the pros that still exist.
                And the general conclusion is that the aircraft that they are only going to produce, in general, is no better than those that have already been produced for a long time. Approximately the same level if assessed not by any one parameter but by a set.
                The same eurofighters have already released fifty thousand and a hundred and a half rafals, they have been flying in series for ten years now.
                The point of putting such an aircraft on the conveyor? If you develop, then only one that will be better than those that potential opponents have for a long time.
                1. EvilLion
                  EvilLion 18 March 2016 14: 56
                  +3
                  The question can be posed differently, is the MiG-35 better than the absence of any aircraft at all, since the MiG-29s have been decommissioned, and 2 factories producing "crackers" are physically unable to rivet more than a certain limit without a radical increase in production capacity , in the form of building workshops, purchasing equipment, hiring and training people who will use it all.
            2. adept666
              adept666 18 March 2016 10: 12
              +8
              According to available data, a radius of 1800 for rafal and 35 for MiGa-1000
              Here, as always, the magic of numbers and simple craftiness. 1800 without PTB and with what load? That's how it turns out with RD-33, the maximum mode consumption is 0,77 kg / kgf · h, while the Snecma M88 has 0.87 kg / kgf · h and such a difference in combat radius? smile At the same time, the glider is even heavier for the MiG, but the maximum takeoff weight for the Raphael is almost a ton more ... Magic? Alas, just an advertising booklet for 1800 is with two PTBs, which is automatic minus maneuverability and speed, minus two pylons and ... minus 6700 kg from the payload fellow laughing What is left of 9 tons? wink And now let's say there is no PTB ... so he has 4700 ... 4700 + 6700 = 11400 kg of fuel for this, which is enough for 1800 km, i.e. without PTB, it has only 41% of the fuel needed to have a radius of 1800, and without PTB it is about 740 km lol Nothing personal is just mathematics ... And this is without taking into account the load and type of ammunition (what is their bottom resistance, etc., etc.). And the MiG honestly write 1000 because they have a payload of the type of less than 6 tons, but it is honest, and the fuel is almost 1,5 tons more than its own, and there is also refueling, which generally limits the radius of the life of the car and the pilot))))
              1. VP
                VP 18 March 2016 10: 35
                0
                Are you sure that with PTB?
                If so then the 35th in the radius is really better.
                1. adept666
                  adept666 18 March 2016 11: 39
                  +2
                  Are you sure that with PTB?
                  If so then the 35th in the radius is really better.
                  I’m sure the laws of physics ... 1800 is probably just the radius of action without the PTB (the range is one-way flight, and then most likely without load).
              2. EvilLion
                EvilLion 18 March 2016 14: 51
                0
                A person lives in a world of fairies, where you can fly further with more expense on a smaller margin.
                1. adept666
                  adept666 18 March 2016 17: 02
                  +3
                  A person lives in a world of fairies, where you can fly further with more expense on a smaller margin.
                  Well, rafal, as you wrote below, an ala shock machine with the ability to conduct air combat like our Su-34 in light weight only. With a typical load (I made a mistake above, there are not two PTBs, but 3) -3 pylons for cans of 2000 liters each. it carries about 3 tons of net load with a maximum range of something 1400 km ec, but without any active maneuvering and combined trajectory, the high-altitude marching is a short low-profile combat mission. This is approximately at such a load as in the figure below. 3 PTBs 2000 l each (total weight ~ 6700 kg), 4 * MICA (112 kg each) + 2 * Meteor (165 kg each) + 6 * AASM (most likely the base 250 matches 340 kg each). Total net weight of buns 2820 kg. That's all the magic smile The better the rafalka is the fact that it is serial, is in service, took part in low-intensity conflicts, it has a used AFAR (well, of course not ultra high tech, but AFAR) and it has a very wide range of weapons, well, plus for the price the French deceived therefore he won the tender.
            3. EvilLion
              EvilLion 18 March 2016 14: 50
              +1
              Damn, where did you get so stupid? The radius can be different, Rafale has a ferry radius without PTB, which will be around 2000 km for cars of its class. And this is without discussing such a matter as a flight profile, for example, the Su-34 can fly at low altitude to 1000 kilometers with 8 tons of bombs and go back, for a machine with an empty weight of about 10 tons, this is basically impossible.

              Or do you seriously think that Rafale is some great magical miracle and can fly on 4.7 tons of fuel 1.8 times further than MiG-25 on 4.8 tons? I admit that the combat radius of Rafale can be brought to 1800 km at high altitude, but for this it will be necessary to suspend the PTB with a fuel supply of no less than in the internal tanks, if not more. Aircraft are all of one generation, one technical level and one purpose, they cannot have a serious variation in parameters. Fluctuations in the direction of decreasing one thing will inevitably lead to subsidence in the other.

              And where does this come from, so take this sign of yours from the Wiki about the Indian tender and see the value of the wing area, 45.7 sq. m from the French against 42 from the MiG-35. Typhoonchik has 50, I admit that the MiG-35 saves some space due to the supporting fuselage. But in general, it is significant if the 11-ton MiG-35 and the "typhoon" have max. takeoff 23.5 tons, then 9.5 tons of Rafale has 24.5 tons.In principle, it is obvious that the value of 9.5 tons of combat load is exactly the same, max takeoff, minus empty weight, minus fuel weight, about 800 kg more for pilot weight, ammunition for a cannon, oil and whatever else needs to be poured / uploaded / loaded, ... into the plane so that it can fly.

              And so that a relatively small aircraft could have takeoff weight at, or even slightly above, larger competitors, it should:
              1) Increase wing area.
              2) Increase structural strength.

              All this translates into a decrease in flight data. Accordingly, the max. the speed, and the ceiling and climb rate of the Rafale are lower, there is no data on the acceleration dynamics, for example, from 600 km / h to 1000, but most likely the MiG-35 and Typhoon will have a noticeable advantage in this indicator. And the Su-35, with its not too high relative, but excellent absolute indicators of carrying capacity, should, with equal loads, do them.

              In general, there is a different ideology in the design, Rafale is a kind of French F-35, and strive for greater versatility than competitors.

              PS The flu is also bullshit written, this little one with some payload on 1300 km cannot fly and return home without the suspension of the PTB, it has a ferry with max. using PTB total 3200 km.
            4. silver_roman
              silver_roman 18 March 2016 16: 33
              0
              Quote: VP
              According to available data, a radius of 1800 for rafal and 35 for MiGa-1000

              There can be no such difference in radius and under equal conditions. I think the paddlers are cheating or just a light radius is taken.
              Quote: VP
              According to the masses of empty rafal, it’s one and a half tons less, the load for rafal is 9500 against 6500 for the 35

              Westerners typically have a higher combat load, but at the same time their aircraft are no longer turning into fighters, but flying cows. Ours, while reducing the combat load, retain at least some possibility of maneuvering, etc. Everything written by IMHO, though confirmed by many hours of discussion of these issues in the early topics at our VO.
            5. Sergei1982
              Sergei1982 20 March 2016 08: 17
              0
              According to available data, a radius of 1800 for rafal and 35 for MiGa-1000
              And for what they did not check the data, the Rafale radius is indicated with PTB, and the Mig-35 without PTB and why it is not indicated with what load, at what height.
              the ferry range without Rafal’s PTB is 2300 km, with Mig-29K = 2000 km, with Rafal’s PTB 3800, Mig-29K = 3300 km, the difference is not big.
      3. Alexez
        Alexez 18 March 2016 09: 28
        +5
        The MiG-35 is a light front-line multirole fighter. Designed for "defensive" battles in the air, i.e. on its territory, it does not need to fly far, but in case of a combat alert, it should quickly rise (rate of climb 330 m / s). Su-35 is a heavy front-line multipurpose fighter. Its tasks include superiority in enemy airspace in offensive operations - he has to fly far to fight on enemy territory, so he does not need to take off quickly (rate of climb 280 m / s) - we will quietly descend from the mountain ... Both aircraft together reflect the military the doctrine of the Russian Federation, and we have it defensive. It is difficult to estimate the cost, since contracts sometimes include many additional items, such as - technical maintenance, the possibility of technology transfer, etc. BUT the MiG is still cheaper. From the point of view of small states, the MiG is more interesting in terms of price and tasks exclusively within the radius of its own borders, for large SUs in terms of possible tasks outside their borders.
        1. vv3
          vv3 18 March 2016 15: 07
          0
          Excuse me, where is the easy one? This is an average fighter at a heavy price! You have to be objective. The new-old MIG-29 has two drawbacks: a small radius — it was called the plane of gaining dominance over the short-range drive; the old engine will not work for the MIG-35.
    3. Bayonet
      Bayonet 18 March 2016 07: 50
      +5
      Quote: VP
      I would like to understand why it is needed.

      The “heavy” fighter is assigned, first of all, the tasks of ensuring the actions of other types of aviation, and the “light” - the tasks of covering.
      1. FID
        FID 18 March 2016 08: 23
        +4
        Quote: Bayonet
        The “heavy” fighter is assigned, first of all, the tasks of ensuring the actions of other types of aviation, and the “light” - the tasks of covering.

        A true comment ... And yet, it is not necessary to compare DIFFERENT classes of aircraft ... And then, sometimes, they begin to try on the tasks of the Tu-95MS and Tu-160, to the Tu-22M3 ...
        1. yehat
          yehat 18 March 2016 15: 36
          0
          Well, in some ways they are right, and they both have the task of flying and carrying a bunch of ammunition
      2. VP
        VP 18 March 2016 08: 40
        +1
        Quote: Bayonet
        The “heavy” fighter is assigned, first of all, the tasks of ensuring the actions of other types of aviation, and the “light” - the tasks of covering.

        Perhaps I misunderstand what cover tasks are, but it seems to me that such a plane should have a larger radius. Otherwise, a purely objectual, local cover is obtained.
    4. EvilLion
      EvilLion 18 March 2016 08: 26
      0
      Even not so much cheaper as the fact that it can be produced at a separate plant, KNAAZ and Irkut do not physically pull the riveting of machines at such a speed that they can re-equip and export themselves in a reasonable time. Now Russia, in connection with the decommissioning of almost all MiG-29 series 9-12 and 9-13 (remained in Armenia), hardly more than 400 fighters in service.
  • Igor39
    Igor39 18 March 2016 07: 04
    0
    I would invest all the money in the T 50.
    1. VP
      VP 18 March 2016 07: 11
      +2
      Quote: Igor39
      I would invest all the money in the T 50.

      Will not work. A 50 aircraft is not cheap, it will not become a mass one in the foreseeable future. A few squadrons at maximum.
    2. Viktor fm
      Viktor fm 18 March 2016 07: 59
      +2
      T 50 is still "raw" and it will be at least another 5-6 years.
      1. silver_roman
        silver_roman 18 March 2016 16: 35
        +1
        Quote: Viktor fm
        T 50 is still "raw" and it will be at least another 5-6 years.

        Tooting. LA is already needed now, thank God that the Su-30cm was not allowed to destroy and put into production. Su-35 is also raw yet, PAK FA is generally not clear when it will stand confidently on the wing.
        1. adept666
          adept666 21 March 2016 11: 01
          0
          PAK FA is generally not clear when it will stand confidently on the wing.
          Will get up soon. Almost all the necessary competencies have been developed, only the engine is left ... See which beauty was launched into mass production:
  • Viktor fm
    Viktor fm 18 March 2016 07: 25
    +2
    MiG is a very good, reliable car, unpretentious and inexpensive to operate. Engines in the field are changing with a bang. In the 90s, we changed the engine in 6 hours at a field airfield.
  • crasever
    crasever 18 March 2016 07: 31
    0
    2,23 Mach - will fly great!
  • kos2910
    kos2910 18 March 2016 07: 31
    -4
    The plane is beautiful, there is no word, and the design bureau is famous, but how does it differ from the Su-35 already adopted for service? Does Russia need two similar 4 ++ fighters?
    1. kos2910
      kos2910 18 March 2016 07: 40
      +2
      I read http://topwar.ru/index.php?newsid=64207 it seems clear that the MiG-35 is lighter than the Su-35 and should be cheaper and more maneuverable.
  • McLuha-MacLeod
    McLuha-MacLeod 18 March 2016 07: 48
    +2
    MIGIs are needed even for healthy competition
    1. FID
      FID 18 March 2016 08: 25
      +3
      Sorry, competition to whom or what ??? We have a UAC, which ALL KB merged in the directorate ...
  • Papapg
    Papapg 18 March 2016 08: 00
    0
    Do not forget about drones, 21st century, however.
    1. VP
      VP 18 March 2016 08: 13
      +3
      Quote: Papapg
      Do not forget about drones, 21st century, however.

      And how do you imagine a drone as a fighter?
      Drones are needed for banana and counterguerrilla wars.
      1. kotvov
        kotvov 18 March 2016 13: 09
        0
        Drones are needed for banana and counterguerrilla wars,
        do not promise. I do not think that you are from the future love
    2. yehat
      yehat 18 March 2016 15: 38
      0
      do not forget, the production of parachutes is not idle)))
  • solovey
    solovey 18 March 2016 08: 01
    0
    It’s good that the range was increased wink
    1. EvilLion
      EvilLion 18 March 2016 08: 34
      0
      It was also increased on the MiG-29M, or rather corrected the dullness of the early MiG-29, which carried only 3.3 tons of kerosene versus 4.5 for the same Typhoon, which has the same empty weight.
  • Berber
    Berber 18 March 2016 08: 16
    +1
    As I understand it - sou is more expensive, instantly cheaper. Purely commerce for foreign buyers. We essentially do not really need it. Well, maybe an advantage in a shorter production cycle.
    1. kotvov
      kotvov 18 March 2016 13: 11
      0
      As I understand it - sou is more expensive, instantly cheaper. ,,
      I don’t think only in this. Different classes of machines are different tasks and applications.
      1. Berber
        Berber 18 March 2016 15: 11
        0
        Yes, the class of these fighters is different, but the tasks are similar, if not identical. In Soviet times, moment 29 (essentially the current moment 35) belonged to front-line fighter aircraft, and su 27 was to partially fulfill the functions of air defense. Now, there is essentially no such division, and if we start only from the tasks that are performed, then we don’t need a moment, especially since the Su 35 has better functionality. And based on the price of the aircraft, the cost of maintenance, the production cycle and the support of the Mikoyan battery, we need it. A division of tasks, rather a commercial move for those who can not afford su 35.
  • Zomanus
    Zomanus 18 March 2016 08: 26
    +1
    News is certainly a plus.
    But personally, I can’t understand, because I don’t think about it,
    Why do we need these MIGs and are important?
    Maybe explain the points?
    That's real, I don’t understand.
    1. st25310
      st25310 18 March 2016 08: 39
      +1
      The MiG-31 is very important as an interceptor.
    2. Alexez
      Alexez 18 March 2016 09: 39
      +3
      MiGs are cheaper, in addition, they can take off with a combat load on 1 engine, as well as from unpaved runways. He has these unique opportunities.
  • dvg1959
    dvg1959 18 March 2016 08: 30
    0
    With the use of composite materials, and with a perfect set of weapons, a very promising aircraft should be obtained.
  • Mountain shooter
    Mountain shooter 18 March 2016 08: 32
    +1
    The 35th is the export version of the 29th. In any case, he was "done so." It turned out well. Competes with Rafal and Eurofighter. The only restriction is that they do not want to buy an aircraft that is NOT in service with Russia (apparently, they know how seriously our aircraft are tested when they are put into service wassat ). The plane is good, it eats less fuel, costs less, and the "bite" can be no worse than a heavy Drying. Probably all the same more export version, IMHO.
    1. Alexez
      Alexez 18 March 2016 09: 54
      -1
      And there is. In addition, in operation it is cheaper than even the unpretentious MiG-29 2,5 times, which is also a competitive advantage!
  • Vladislav 73
    Vladislav 73 18 March 2016 08: 41
    +3
    I didn’t understand something .... From time to time, news about the MiG-35 flickered on VO .... then they were going to release it in 14g, then in 16g ... And the contracts with the Russian Ministry of Defense were already signed, and the terms were already set ! And photos from all kinds of air shows and air shows are uploaded. And here - // According to Sergey Korotkov, the first stage of the MiG RSK contract with the Ministry of Defense, which includes development work, has been successfully completed. // We completed the first stage of this work - sketchy - The technical project is protected and adopted by the Ministry of Defense. Today, the aircraft located here (Lukhovitsy) goes through all stages of assembly, and this year it will be assembled and presented to the customer for flight tests. // Moreover, the article on VO dated 28.06.2015/2016/XNUMX states that the purchase has already been prepared in XNUMX. A here ... OCD and flight tests! Some kind of misunderstanding! request
    1. VP
      VP 18 March 2016 09: 23
      +2
      Quote: Vladislav 73
      Some kind of misunderstanding!

      Everything related to the MiG is all incomprehensible.
      There is only one understanding - "the insidious enemies from Sukhoi are the reason for everything, otherwise we would wow! Damned Poghosyan!"
      Although the Moscow Region did not have much choice in those years who exactly to support, to be honest.
  • Romanenko
    Romanenko 18 March 2016 08: 45
    +1
    Beautiful bird, God grant good luck !!!
  • then
    then 18 March 2016 08: 53
    0
    I agree with a friend that the MiG-35 is an export option. And the MiGs have a niche, the one that was, this is destructive aircraft. This is for drones to fly and not to give in to the dryers. I hope the MiG understands this well. So - I wish you success.
  • Alex von Dorn
    Alex von Dorn 18 March 2016 08: 57
    0
    A light fighter is very necessary, primarily for aircraft carriers. Then, cheaper operation. Combat missions are different and it is not necessary to use heavy SU.
  • EvilLion
    EvilLion 18 March 2016 09: 00
    +3
    I don’t know, this year has been worn with this machine, like with a written shell. At the same time, they did not achieve anything in India and, it seems, did not do anything to push their native MO. In fact, Indians are rare eccentric people who are difficult to deal with, as a result, the French weren’t even able to earn a profitable useless regiment on Rafale, instead of which they could take 2 times more Su-30MKI and not take a steam bath with tactics or with servicing a unique small type. And this eccentricity is no secret to anyone.

    Then there were years of alteration to the requirements of the native Defense Ministry, while the "crackers" were successfully tested and introduced into mass production and combat units. Okay, the stump is clear that the Su-30SM could not help but take off, the same well-mastered MKI, but something tells me that it was possible to push through at least the MiG-29SMT while the trial and the case, since EMNIP was released for Algeria in 2008 batch, which was then returned due to the installation of the used parts. The perpetrators sat down, Algeria bought the Su-30, and the Ministry of Defense bought the planes and now in the 14th IAP. That is, there is experience in production and operation. In addition, a large batch of CUBs was released for the Indians and for the native Kuzi.

    Recently, they talked about the MiG-29M2, how it differs from the MiG-35 and the CUBA there, it’s even reluctant to delve into it, they say that it seems to be nothing. In any case, they would do at least something, the same MiG-29СМТ, of which the 16 pieces were ordered, although from the 90s, everything is still better than Soviet-made aluminum, crumbling from old age and somersaults in the stratosphere, especially since the range flight because of the ridiculous fuel supply and glider life in the early (before MiG-29M) series are dull to disgrace and it is not surprising that the Moscow Region was ready to modernize the Su-27 and even the expensive MiG-31, which, however, can, but not this stuff.

    Launching production by 2010 in the year with access to 12 + cars a year would make sense, now any mass production and accumulation of any noticeable number of machines will take so much time that there will already be a question about shelves on the PAK FA.
  • GEV67
    GEV67 18 March 2016 09: 21
    0
    Handsome man! Great car!
  • samoletil18
    samoletil18 18 March 2016 09: 56
    -1
    And what do we have in the light of the Syrian events? Remember about front-line aviation? Apparently, the modern embodiment of the advantages of 29-but would be a good solution for rearmament. Yes, when you return to the Arctic to cover important objects with Su or light MiGs, there is no big difference - the distances are huge, although less money and fuel are required.
    I hope the work on the MiG-35 is really promising and useful.
  • Neputin
    Neputin 18 March 2016 10: 03
    0
    Characteristics of MIG 35 SU 35
    Empty weight 11000 16500
    Curb Weight 17500 25500
    Thrust 2 × 9000 kg s 2 × 14500 kg s
    Suspension points 8 12
    Speed ​​at an altitude of 2560 km / h 2600 km / h
    Ground speed 1450 1450
    Maximum range 3100 km 4000 km
    Combat radius
    with combat load 1000 1500
    The range of weapons used is approximately the same

    There is still a difference. In the presence of a clear application concept, a light (medium) fighter is probably needed. In particular for carrier-based aviation, and on land ...
    1. EvilLion
      EvilLion 18 March 2016 12: 50
      +2
      The Su-35 has an empty weight at the 18900 level.
      There, the price is mainly determined by the filling, and then by the service, and in this regard, the twin-engine MiG-35 with the same equipment is hardly easier.
  • Ratmir_Ryazan
    Ratmir_Ryazan 18 March 2016 10: 09
    +6
    Quote: Jerusalem artichoke
    MiG-35 is preparing for flight tests

    After the Syrian diphile Su-30SM, Su-34 and Su-35S, the blinks are somehow not perceived ... Moreover, they do not have a coherent development program. We muddied this 35th, which in fact was simply upgraded to a non-Mig-29. Where is the 5th generation, at least in a draft version ???
    In general, I am not happy. Their Mig-35 is a lap on the Su-30SM.

    Are you out of your mind ?! What are you talking about?! MiG-35 is a light fighter, in the Su-from 27 to 35 heavy !!! It looks like they were developed in one country and at the same time !!! Yes, the Su-35 is better than the MIG-35, but it is several times more expensive and in operation too !!! Heavy fighter jets are used over long distances, while light fighter jets are more justified to use light ones ... Perhaps combined use ... These types of fighter jets complement each other, but do not exclude !!!
    1. Alexez
      Alexez 18 March 2016 14: 15
      0
      I will supplement it. The historically established ratio of light and heavy fighters in most armies of the world (meaning those who have both of them in service at the same time) is 3 to 1 with slight deviations. Probably not easy with such numbers.
  • drilled
    drilled 18 March 2016 12: 17
    +3
    I have not found tactical radius data anywhere. Increased? They used to joke that the MiG-29 is a plane for gaining superiority in the air in the area of ​​the short-range drive.
    1. Falcon
      Falcon 18 March 2016 12: 20
      +2
      Quote: Burieway
      I have not found tactical radius data anywhere. Increased? They used to joke that the MiG-29 is a plane for gaining superiority in the air in the area of ​​the short-range drive.


      A plane joked about protecting his airfield.
    2. marshes
      marshes 18 March 2016 12: 29
      0
      There was infa that engines were upgraded for 35, now they do not leave behind a black plume of unburned fuel, soot. Which is clearly visible in the air and from the ground.
    3. EvilLion
      EvilLion 18 March 2016 12: 50
      +1
      The fuel supply was brought to world standards.
  • Superblackbird
    Superblackbird 18 March 2016 12: 19
    +1
    Quote: samoletil18
    I hope the work on the MiG-35 is really promising and useful.

    So development is just for the good.
  • TSOOBER
    TSOOBER 18 March 2016 12: 33
    0
    http://www.1tv.ru/news/techno/304071
    If anyone is interested then the video!
  • Alexey-74
    Alexey-74 18 March 2016 12: 53
    +1
    How many specialists at once appeared. And I think it's just that the MiG-35 is also needed. Aircraft of the Su and MIG family are the pride of our aviation. The Americans have always been afraid to face the Russian MiG-mi .... even the film is with Tom Cruise .... so everything is fine and this is good news !!!
  • GAndr
    GAndr 18 March 2016 13: 18
    +1
    Migi oh how necessary.
    They are cheaper, which means more of them can be made. They certainly lose to Dryers, but not critical. Sometimes Drying is simply redundant. Migi are much better air defense planes. Look at the "partners" their mother, they do not refuse from Ф16 and have both Ф16 and Ф15 ...
    So they’re doing everything right, you can’t get far on heavy fighters alone.
  • Bradypodidae
    Bradypodidae 18 March 2016 13: 56
    -1
    In a crisis and all kinds of sanctions, the MiG-35 is the best option. Yes, I would like to see a completely new light fighter, but the reality is not the same for now. So it’s better to have a deep modernization of the Mig-29 \ 35 (whatever designers call it , but this is not a new aircraft, deep modernization, yes, but not new) than nothing at all. + mass production, will save personnel, and this is the most important thing.
  • Oml
    Oml 18 March 2016 14: 04
    0
    A variety of firms, and types, and classes is necessary. During the Second World War, about 20 types of our aircraft and 17 types of Lend-Lease fought from the USSR, and everyone found a place in the ranks.
    And the presence of competing firms leads to innovation, activity, improvement, and vice versa, monopoly - to stagnation.
  • xtur
    xtur 18 March 2016 14: 06
    -1
    how poorly they finance the MiG design bureau if an airplane, the conversation about which is ongoing, and which is rumored to be no different / slightly different from the deck version, has been preparing for testing for so long
  • Photon
    Photon 18 March 2016 14: 13
    0
    Quote: Maxom75
    Good afternoon! I apologize for explaining what MIG-35 is for if the army is switching to the SU-35 and SU-30. Function in the MIG-35 Air Force what? Support for the Mikoyan Design Bureau? And another question is whether we will make light fighter aircraft with a single-engine scheme or we finally abandoned their development and thereby killed the market for most of the small countries including Africa and Asia, because they have no long borders and they have an airplane with a radius of action 1500-2000km is not needed. just wondering.

    MIG KB support is a very important feature. Even in the most difficult times in the country, there were several KBs in each industry. Without competition, the same SU sooner or later degrades. Stalin understood this. Even Brezhnev understood. And now they understand this poorly.
  • serverny
    serverny 18 March 2016 14: 59
    -2
    Light fighter MiG VKS of the Russian Federation is not needed in any scenario - they will not be cheaper, the combat radius is ridiculous in comparison.
    If the MiG wants to sell a light fighter to the armed forces - let them first develop a really cheap single-engine light aircraft.
    it would be better to develop that competency. where they have no competition - interceptors. The evolution of the 29s is doomed to a small series and export.
    1. yehat
      yehat 18 March 2016 15: 44
      0
      why do you connect 2 engines and a big price?
      the cost of engines and their operation is not so critical.
      And there are examples: F-5 American, f-18 to some extent.
      the high cost of an instant is primarily associated with a complete disregard for the cost price! These are unique installation requirements, and much more, which unnecessarily increases the cost, and the lack of the necessary share of cooperation with competitors (and not only with Sukhoi)
      1. silver_roman
        silver_roman 18 March 2016 16: 42
        0
        our practice of using 1 engine did not go well. They walk around the Internet, either a bike, or it is really true that one of our senior leaders of the aviation industry said that something tia "if we had such a reliable engine as P&W, we would also make an aircraft with 1 engine . "
        I will not vouch for the veracity of this phrase, but probably there is logic.
    2. silver_roman
      silver_roman 18 March 2016 16: 40
      0
      Quote: serverny
      they will not be cheaper

      They will be cheaper as a single unit, as well as in flight hour.
      At the expense of the radius: it certainly will not reach the su-35, but will be significantly increased by reducing the weight of the airframe and improving the efficiency of the RD-33.
      For some reason, in the USSR they built both this and that, and at the same time there were no fools there.
      By the way, if I'm not mistaken, the proportion of light / heavy fighters should be about 2 to 1 in favor of the lungs. It seems like another Soviet standard. Correct if I am mistaken.
      1. EvilLion
        EvilLion 18 March 2016 20: 38
        0
        In the USSR, there were money air armies capable of devouring several types of aircraft. And how much is there why what is this complete nonsense, needs are determined under specific doctrines. The Union did not become and it turned out that there is more hemorrhoids with MiG-29 than saving kerosene from it, although even the expensive MiG-31s are actively modernizing.
        1. silver_roman
          silver_roman 18 March 2016 22: 05
          0
          Then why do Americans contain both light and heavy aircraft? Also because grandmas have nowhere to go?
          I think there is still logic. Let's say to guard the air borders, Drying is redundant.
          That and where did you get that with MiG a lot of hemorrhoids?
          It’s just that the difficult 90s crashed and the state failed to pay attention on time.
          MiG-31 is a completely different kind of bird. In fact, the strongest element of air defense. Neither the Su-35 nor the MiG-29 can be compared with it in its most powerful radar system. Too different tasks.
          1. EvilLion
            EvilLion 19 March 2016 16: 33
            -1
            Su-35 is already superior to the MiG-31, which is from the 70's.
            At the borders in conditions of rarefied air defense, drying will be just cheaper.
  • Ze Kot
    Ze Kot 18 March 2016 15: 04
    0
    Quote: Jerusalem artichoke
    We muddied this 35th, which in fact was simply upgraded to a non-Mig-29. Where is the 5th generation, at least in a draft version ???



    MiG 1.42 IFI.
    1. yehat
      yehat 18 March 2016 15: 41
      0
      And who will explain these metamorphoses with front wings on dryers? Then they appear, then disappear. Why China made a version with ext. wings, but did India need others?
  • bedinvlad
    bedinvlad 18 March 2016 15: 28
    +1
    Quote: Jerusalem artichoke
    Quote: tomket
    And MiG, unlike Su, practically did not change, and took off earlier.

    And as a result, it is technologically far behind. Look, R&D on a 6th generation aircraft is already underway at Sukhoi! And the flashers cannot attach all their wunderwales of the 4th anywhere, the current for sale in third countries and only because of the brand. I don't see anything new on this 35th. All this is already on the new STROEVYH DRYERS. Note, already combatants, and tested in Syria! And one more interesting point to note for YOU: There was not a single MIG in the entire air group in Syria! Well, you understand, right? Further, I think there is no need to explain. hi


    And when Dryings were tested in Syria, as fighters. Was there at least one air battle?
  • vv3
    vv3 18 March 2016 15: 33
    -1
    Here again, we came to the tactical issues. A clean fighter is neither light nor medium. A fighter-bomber is already a question. A light attack aircraft is said to be very necessary. Actually, everything is not so simple. Given the presence of portable systems with a strike height of up to 3 km for local conflicts, the attack aircraft does not work. Why book a plane that operates at an altitude of 5 km. Bearded stationary air defense missiles will not be pulled. Conclusion: we need a light fighter - a bomber. Example: SU-17M4, developed in the Sukhoi Design Bureau T54 / 55/56 or YAK-130. The latter exists and is produced as a combat training one. Where is the development of the MIG in this regard ? There is no such development. The niche is empty. Neither the SU-25 nor the outdated SU-24M2 are suitable. Moreover, they need to be protected in the air, as in Syria. Who is to blame for the MIG stagnation? Are they going to put the old engine on the MIG-35, have they pulled up the combat radius? Nobody needs an airplane to gain superiority over a short-range drive with an old engine. They will not buy it ...
  • Vitail
    Vitail 18 March 2016 18: 08
    +1
    Mig - 35 is needed and will be in demand not only by the Russian aerospace forces but also by other countries, at the same time, the Migovites have begun to develop a new generation aircraft, the competition should remain in the aircraft industry and then our aerospace systems will be replenished with modern machines, otherwise progress will slow down.
  • The comment was deleted.
  • VB
    VB 18 March 2016 18: 29
    +1
    Oh, in Syria, would run in!
    1. Vitail
      Vitail 18 March 2016 19: 44
      0
      I think in Ukurin run in
  • Hauptam
    Hauptam 18 March 2016 21: 45
    +1
    35 moment to flight tests, is it strange that then flew on a tender in India ?? and he successfully lost to the French Rafal, and not at all in flying qualities, but in official troubles.
    1. Torins
      Torins 18 March 2016 22: 23
      +1
      Quote: EvilLion
      In the USSR, there were money air armies capable of devouring several types of aircraft. And how much is there why what is this complete nonsense, needs are determined under specific doctrines. The Union did not become and it turned out that there is more hemorrhoids with MiG-29 than saving kerosene from it, although even the expensive MiG-31s are actively modernizing.

      You are fundamentally wrong because you don’t see the root of the whole problem)
      I will try to explain hi
      Let's look at our beloved Americans. They have two BASIC fighters, these are F-15 and F-16. Yes, they have the main ones for about 25 years (I’m taking not the year of production, but% of the aircraft in the Air Force). Why two? One is steeper and more expensive, and the second is simpler and cheaper. Yes, they have slightly different tasks, but one comes from the other. One is the king of the sky, and the second is his workhorse which suffers more losses, but these losses are easier to make up for. It was the same with the Su-27 and MiG-29. Mig-35 ideological continuation of 29 matches, isn't it? Or is the Su-35 worth as much as the MiG-35?
    2. tomket
      tomket 19 March 2016 00: 11
      0
      Quote: Hauptam
      35 moment to flight tests, is it strange that then flew on a tender in India ?? and he successfully lost to the French Rafal, and not at all in flying qualities, but in official troubles.

      We can say there were several stages in the formation of the MiG-35. This is a gradual alteration of the MiG-29M and MiG-29K. The one that flew in India was with an old wing. Which is now almost identical to a glider ship.
  • Zlovred
    Zlovred 18 March 2016 22: 24
    +1
    I wish I could send several MIG-35s to Syria for "state tests" !!! bully
  • complete zero
    complete zero 18 March 2016 22: 29
    +1
    Quote: Maxom75
    Good afternoon! I apologize for explaining what MIG-35 is for if the army is switching to the SU-35 and SU-30. Function in the MIG-35 Air Force what? Support for the Mikoyan Design Bureau? And another question is whether we will make light fighter aircraft with a single-engine scheme or we finally abandoned their development and thereby killed the market for most of the small countries including Africa and Asia, because they have no long borders and they have an airplane with a radius of action 1500-2000km is not needed. just wondering.

    let's just say ... fighters of the "Sukhoi" family are heavy fighters (somewhat different functions) well, for example, "dryers" are used as escort fighters (unlike the MIG), which was created for conducting air battles
  • Maxom75
    Maxom75 19 March 2016 01: 47
    +2
    Quote: silver_roman
    we really had problems with maintenance and the supply of components. In this, Westerners are ahead of us. I don’t know, maybe today something has changed for the better.

    I'm afraid nothing has changed since the other day Rogozin complained that we could not promote our Superjet in other countries because of the very slow delivery of necessary components to service locations around the world. Translating into Russian we have problems with the supply of spare parts, and as a result of simple equipment and financial losses. If I’m not mistaken, ours are used to selling equipment without taking into account subsequent maintenance for the entire period of the life cycle, for Westerners, on the contrary, they undergo subsequent warranty repairs and receive all the profit. Psychology is national however. So it turns out that the Bulgarians repair our MIGs from the Poles, and not from the MIG. The contract must prescribe all stages.
  • kartalovkolya
    kartalovkolya 19 March 2016 09: 02
    0
    How much "mud" has been raised because of the MiG-35! Do not worry, because in our videoconferencing there will be fewer fools than here, so they will figure out what is better and what is worse without you "preoccupied"!