Russian MFI

Originally posted by GrOuNd_ZeRo
I had a friend who's father worked for lockheed martin...

He claimed that they are working on an active camoflage for it that will render it virtually invisible...Something with LEDs acting like a chameleon's skin...

Only for Bond's plane though

Originally posted by Trent
... So since the Mig 35 is a newer plane than the F-22 it stands to reason that it would be close to being on par with it.

Newer? The Mig 35 is based on the -29. Hardly newer than the F-22, unless you are confusing the 35 with the MFI.

Shall we do a comparison of the combat records of the Mig 29 and the F-15?

F-15: 104 kills, no losses.
Mig-29: 1 kill (the Mig pilot shot down his own wingman), let's see, 18 combat losses?

[edit on 26-11-2004 by engineer]

Originally posted by engineer

Originally posted by Trent
... So since the Mig 35 is a newer plane than the F-22 it stands to reason that it would be close to being on par with it.

Newer? The Mig 35 is based on the -29. Hardly newer than the F-22, unless you are confusing the 35 with the MFI.

Shall we do a comparison of the combat records of the Mig 29 and the F-15?

F-15: 104 kills, no losses.
Mig-29: 1 kill (the Mig pilot shot down his own wingman), let's see, 18 combat losses?

[edit on 26-11-2004 by engineer]

Umm... the Mig 35 is the MFI, have you looked at any info on the plane at all? (see link) Anyway i wouldn't be surprised if the F-22 is based on what they learnt from the F-15, but that doesn't mean their capabilities are similar. Some aspects of the design would be though. Also i don't find those stats hard to believe since the US has been in a lot more wars and against countries that have dodgy training and updated equipment. Plus I mentioned the Su-27, not the Mig 29.

www.fas.org...



[edit on 26-11-2004 by Trent]

Originally posted by engineer
Shall we do a comparison of the combat records of the Mig 29 and the F-15?
F-15: 104 kills, no losses.
Mig-29: 1 kill (the Mig pilot shot down his own wingman), let's see, 18 combat losses?
[edit on 26-11-2004 by engineer]

F-15: x kills, 1 loss
MiG-29: 1 kill (F-16)

Explanation: USA atacks small countries, with poor equipment. Russia doesn't attack. MiG kill, the F-16 was over FR Yugoslavia. And one F-15 was lost over FR yugoslavia, as well. X stands for kills of F-15's. I don't know the number and won't argue, but you have the explanation why.

Not only does he think that his mother Russia has an answer to the Raptor, but he thinks they were ahead of us.

Dima is NOT Russian!!! He claims to support us, but e isn't helpful.

Originally posted by Trent
Umm... the Mig 35 is the MFI, have you looked at any info on the plane at all? (see link) Also i don't find those stats hard to believe since the US has been in a lot more wars and against countries that have dodgy training and updated equipment. Plus I mentioned the Su-27, not the Mig 29.

www.fas.org...

Well Trent, I wouldn't put much stake in F.A.S. if I was you. They are just about the most unreliable source you could find..

And yes, I have looked at the MFI. I compared the Mig 29 to the F-15 because you were comparing a Mig 29 derivative to the F-22, which is the replacement to the F-15. I assumed you knew what a Mig 35 was.

From F.A.S.
The project has been under development since 1986, is variously designated the 1.42, the 1.44, I-42 and I-44 - the "MiG-35" and "MiG-39" designations are informally applied by some observers.

Well it's true that some people apply the Mig 35 designation to the MFI, but it's not true that they are the same AC. That's why I asked you if you had them confused.

In 1995, Klimov developed two advanced thrust-vector-control (TVC) engine designs for use with the MiG-29M, the RD-133 and the RD-333. This became very important after the Su-27 evolved to the Su-35 and then on to the vectored-thrust Su-37 and was successfully displayed in Moscow and at Farnborough. The RD-133 is based on the RD-33 fitted with axis symmetric nozzles while the RD-333 is a new fifth-generation engine. Flight testing with the MiG-29"M" (MiG-33) was to begin in late 1997 with the RD-133 as a flight demonstration program. The RD-333 would require R&D money which has yet to be forthcoming. The Sukhoi TVC program was in part funded by the additional purchase of Su-27's by the PRC. The new MiG-29"M" derivative will be called the MiG-35. Rumors are that this aircraft will be previewed at the Moscow Air Show (MAKS-97).

www.sci.fi...

The MiG-35 is an enlarged and more advanced development of the MiG-29/MiG-33 family seen as a potential replacement for the MiG-29 and Su-27. However, the Russian Air Force does not appear to be interested in the concept and it is now aimed primarily at the export market.
The MiG-35 is often confused with the Multifunctional Fighter (MFI), but it now appears that these are two separate projects. An updated entry on the MiG-35 will be compiled as information becomes available.

www.aerospaceweb.org...

Need more??

Originally posted by khruschev
Explanation: USA atacks small countries, with poor equipment. Russia doesn't attack. MiG kill, the F-16 was over FR Yugoslavia. And one F-15 was lost over FR yugoslavia, as well. X stands for kills of F-15's. I don't know the number and won't argue, but you have the explanation why.

Well, I agree it's poor equipment compared to the US's. I have links to all of my sources on the known Mig 29 kills by US AC. 18 is a conservative estimate, and doesn't count the ones that were destroyed on the ground by air strikes. There was also a Mig 25 shot down in Iraq by an F-16. I would be happy to provide the sources if you like.

But AFAIK no Eagle has been lost in air combat, so if one was shot down, it was a SAM. Do you have a link?

Originally posted by khruschev
Dima is NOT Russian!!! He claims to support us, but e isn't helpful.

Yes, yes, you have already pointed that out. My apologies to the Russians on the board.


[edit on 26-11-2004 by engineer]

LOL I wouldn't call your links that convincing. The key word here is "APPEARS", anyway lets not fight over what it's called. There are plenty of sites that list it as being the Mig 35, all you have to do is a google search for evidence of this. Which you obviously did to get your links... but picked the few rather than the many.

"The MiG-35 is often confused with the Multifunctional Fighter (MFI), but it now appears that these are two separate projects. An updated entry on the MiG-35 will be compiled as information becomes available."

Originally posted by Trent
LOL I wouldn't call your links that convincing. The key word here is "APPEARS", anyway lets not fight over what it's called. There are plenty of sites that list it as being the Mig 35, all you have to do is a google search for evidence of this. Which you obviously did to get your links... but picked the few rather than the many.

"The MiG-35 is often confused with the Multifunctional Fighter (MFI), but it now appears that these are two separate projects. An updated entry on the MiG-35 will be compiled as information becomes available."

Actually all I did was ignore sites that were outdated or were for video games. Here's a few more, the last one is for a book from Janes.

www.military.cz...

www.kitsune.addr.com...

www.thebestlinks.com...

www.aeronautics.ru...

www.royfc.com...

www.suchoj.com...://www.suchoj.com/andere/MiG-29/home.shtml

www.aeroworldnet.com...

www.rollmodels.net...

Still need more proof?

There is no Mig 29 varient that is offically called the Mig-35. Look i conceed that the MFI is not offically called the Mig 35 (since it's a prototype) but is a commonly used name for the MFI 1.42 prototype. However you saying that I have the Mig-35 confused with the MFI, is like me saying you have the Mig 35 confused with the Mig-29 M2 since there is no plane that has been offically designated the Mig-35. Unless Mig are no longer the ones that name their own aircraft... so rather than posting all the ones of google that favor my designation and there are many for any willing to look i will just post a link to Migs offical site.

www.migavia.ru...



[edit on 26-11-2004 by Trent]

Excuse me, Trent, but you were the one that brought up the Mig 35. I was just trying to figure out which AC you were referring to.

But to say that there was no 29 variant known as the 35 is like saying there was no variant called the 33 just because MAPO chose to stick with M and M2. Mikoyan's own Design Bureau used the designations. The fact that they dropped it and went with M2 or MCRA or whatever doesn't mean the number was never used to identify the variant.

Here was a report from during the development phase:

Two programs that have long been considered dead seemed somehow to have been magically resurrected during the press conference. The highly-anticipated MiG 35 model is currently in the testing phase, according to MAPO, but officials would not say when they expect to publicly unveil the aircraft. In traditional fashion, representatives stated that, for upcoming projects, "When they are ready, you will see them.

Similaryly, MiG MAPO's Ivan Boutko told journalists that MiG's Article 1.42 aircraft has already flown, despite persistent reports from within Russia that the program is doomed due to lack of finances and domestic demand. The most any report has ever suggested before this was that the aircraft was completing ground testing with fast taxiing. It has been widely expected that the aircraft would someday join the Buran in a theme park near Moscow.

So MAPO officials obviously had no problem referring to the Mig 35 separately from the 1.42, as did many other credible sources. It was you who was trying to apply the designation to the MFI.

Here is an article where Anatoly Belosvet, the Deputy General Designer of the Mikoyan design bureau repeatedly refers to the Mig 29M as the Mig 33:

www.aviation.ru...

Odd, I didn't see any Mig 33 listed on their website either.

My original point stands. The Mig 29M2/35 is not competitive to the F-22. The 1.42/1.44 would have had a better chance, but that project is dead. So people will have to wait until the Pak-fa comes out if they want to claim that Russia has an AC competitive to the Raptor.

The entire X vs. Y argument is a joke anyway, because that is not how fighter jets are fielded.

Now maybe I am biased to the Raptor, probably because of my small contribution during my years in aerospace (retired in 1994). But maybe I have a small idea what the hell I'm talking about also.

And now I'm done with this discussion, as it's giving me a headache.



[edit on 26-11-2004 by engineer]

"The entire X vs. Y argument is a joke anyway, because that is not how fighter jets are fielded."

Maybe so but considering how little is known about the MFI it is perhaps the most accurate way to compare them. Even if you were the lead designer for the F-22 than you would still need to know info on the MFI to compare them and vice versa. Until they meet in combat or more detailed specifications are released it will be impossible to know or even have an informed guess. X vs Y at least has some logic, where as pure speculation does not.

Originally posted by Trent
X vs Y at least has some logic, where as pure speculation does not.

X vs. Y is pure speculation. In the first place, the F-22 is a production AC. The 1.42 is not.

Comparisons can be made on the technical merits of the platforms, but unless the overall doctrine is taken into consideration, it means nothing. Fighter AC do not operate without support.

Neither one was developed to counter the other. Both programs began in the same year. The F-22 was developed to respond to the decreasing advantage that the US had in the teen series AC when Russia came out with the Flanker and Fulcrum families.

Russia recognized that a different approach would be needed when the F-22 was unveiled. That's why the SU-47 and 1.42 ideas were scrapped in favor of the Pak-fa. To put it bluntly, they saw the futility of trying to counter the Raptor with a traditional airframe.

[edit on 27-11-2004 by engineer]

Originally posted by khruschev
F-15: x kills, 1 loss
MiG-29: 1 kill (F-16)

Explanation: USA atacks small countries, with poor equipment. Russia doesn't attack. MiG kill, the F-16 was over FR Yugoslavia. And one F-15 was lost over FR yugoslavia, as well. X stands for kills of F-15's.

Do you have any credible evidence of this? AFAIK, the only allied fixed wing loss during the 11 weeks of Operation Allied Force was the F-117. There was one Apache crash with 2 fatalities, but it was not in Yugoslavia.

There were 5 Mig 29 shootdowns by US planes, 4 from F-15C's and one from an F-16CJ. All were AIM120's. On the first day of operations, a Royal Dutch Air Force F-16 MLU also shot down a Mig 29, also with an AIM120

There are tons and tons of exagerrated claims, 47 NATO AC shot down, numerous helicopters, etc, but no proof.

If there was an F-15 and F-16 shot down, it would have been reported. There are way too many people in the US that know where all our AC are for them to just disappear without explanation and no questions asked.

[edit on 27-11-2004 by engineer]

Originally posted by engineer

Originally posted by Trent
X vs Y at least has some logic, where as pure speculation does not.

X vs. Y is pure speculation. In the first place, the F-22 is a production AC. The 1.42 is not.

Comparisons can be made on the technical merits of the platforms, but unless the overall doctrine is taken into consideration, it means nothing. Fighter AC do not operate without support.

Neither one was developed to counter the other. Both programs began in the same year. The F-22 was developed to respond to the decreasing advantage that the US had in the teen series AC when Russia came out with the Flanker and Fulcrum families.

Russia recognized that a different approach would be needed when the F-22 was unveiled. That's why the SU-47 and 1.42 ideas were scrapped in favor of the Pak-fa. To put it bluntly, they saw the futility of trying to counter the Raptor with a traditional airframe.

[edit on 27-11-2004 by engineer]

So historically you would say that it's incorrect that aircraft from developed nations that are produced around about the same time are generally on par with each other? The widest gap ever was probably the Germans in WW2 but even then the technology was not that much ahead of other nations. Stealth like all technolgies will be countered and that is probably why other countries are not going to such great lengths to make stealth aircraft. The cost would be too great if the technology is countered by advanced radar. In fact according to this article i have linked at least one company has made a great deal of progress doing this. If you think it's because they couldn't attempt such a thing as stealth aircraft yet just think about how soon the rest of the world had nuclear weapons after the US used the first bomb. Stealth planes have been common knowledge for a long time and no one besides the US has developed an aircraft that fully incorperates stealth at the cost of overall design and affordability. Not even nations that could afford the cost if they wanted to like the UK and Germany.

biz.yahoo.com...



[edit on 27-11-2004 by Trent]

Originally posted by Trent
The cost would be too great if the technology is countered by advanced radar. In fact according to this article i have linked at least one company has made a great deal of progress doing this.

Vera-E is not really a new system. For some reason, journalists love to make claims about systems they don't understand. Then everyone starts panicking about the "new anti-stealth radars" Lol. Forbes magazine is not exactly what one would consider knowledgable in these technologies.

The US is no stranger to ELINT, look up the Navy's "White Cloud" system sometime. We do from space what Vera-E does from land. The US blocked the Vera-E sale to China and purchased a system from the Czech government as a standard policy move, both to allow us to analyze the system, and to keep the tech away from China.

The Russians have a similar system called "Kolchuga". Its an array of passive sensors which can be combined with S-300/400 SAM installations. The system is produced by Topaz in the Ukraine.

It's not a radar system at all. It operates by scanning for electromagnetic emissions from things like transponders, com links, etc. By dispersing the sensors geographically, the system can triangulate on an emitting target.

To assume that the US is not aware of these systems, and hasn't developed countermeasures, is a bit naive. Raptors in hostile airspace use tight beam communications between other AC and satellites, it doesn't broadcast an omnidirectional signal like a radio or a transponder does. It really doesn't need to be emitting anything, as it can rely on satellites for data relayed from AEW&C platforms operating beyond the hostile airspace. It's very unlikely that Vera-E or a comparable passive system will pick up a com link from a Raptor.

The US and Australia are co-developing an even more advanved system which uses ionosphere jumping in the same way to detect distortions in the radio emissions in flooded airspaces. This doesn't rely on emissions from the target like Vera-E and Kolchuga does, it can detect disturbances in emissions from sources like television and radio broadcast antennas, cell transmitters, etc. This works well in dense areas where there are a lot of these types of emissions, but in desert or sparsely populated areas it is less effective. Of course it can still pick up emissions from an aircraft that is transmitting em from radar, radios, etc.

Naturally no AC will be untouchable forever. Eventually the systems like the one that the US and OZ are developing will become commonplace, and the stealth characteristics of the Raptor will be rendered less effective.

But todays ELINT systems are not effective against the Raptor or the B-2, because those platforms manage their emissions. It's part of the overall stealth picture. Being stealthy is much more than just having a low RCS.

There are tons and tons of exagerrated claims, 47 NATO AC shot down, numerous helicopters, etc, but no proof.

Maybe but I am not saying there were 47 aircraft shot down. And even though I don't trust either side in this war I am quite sure that an F-15 was shot down, and fell somewhere in Bosnia and Herzegovina. The F-16, well do you want photos?

Originally posted by khruschev
...I am quite sure that an F-15 was shot down, and fell somewhere in Bosnia and Herzegovina. The F-16, well do you want photos?

Yes, if you don't mind, and any details you care to offer as to dates, locations, etc. Were these US planes or were they from a NATO ally?

The reason I am sceptical is because your assertions go counter to my own experience wrt losses by the US. I don't pretend to know how things work in Russia, but in the US we have public databases that detail every AC we've built, excluding black projects. So we can look up the serial number of any AC and find out where it is, if it's in service or not, the reasons, the AC's history wrt crashes, repairs, service history, upgrades, etc. This includes AC sold to foreign governments.

The US taxpayer, not to mention Congress, takes a dim view if one of our warplanes disappears without explanation. So if the military covered up a loss of a 15 or a 16 in Op. Allied Force, it would be quite a scandal.

Why would I mind?






I can get more if you need, but I don't really see someone flying it back to base without canopy not mentioning the tail fin.

this discussion has become idiot, how many f15 have been shootdown???, how many mig23-29?????, stupid...in korea war the mig15 was an superior plane, the north korean pilots didnt do it well, but the "honchos" guys had the best performance and the greater amount of aces, now we must take a look of the propaganda, with sabres kill ratio of 10:1, but an objetive investigation only put an kill ratio of 4-3:1, also there reports of f15 shutdowned by mig23s, also we must consider the lack of BVR combat of the exported soviet planes (by the comunists leadership paranoia).

the raptor is very overrated, people look those vectorial controls and scream...ITS SUPERMANEUVERABLE, or watch those W parts and scream....ITS SUPERSTEALTH, watch an stupid AoA display and scream ....IT HAVE AN UNBELIEVED TURN RATE....(but btw aoa is important in combat situations-pointing capacity), but the true is that the people believe in which they wants to believe, the raptor is an good design (although very conservative) but very overrated.


now, returning to the thread ,wich is better concept, 1.44 or s47????

Originally posted by khruschev
I can get more if you need, but I don't really see someone flying it back to base without canopy not mentioning the tail fin.

That's enough on that one, that is a USAF F-16C Block 40 from the 555FS, Aviano markings. The serial number is 88550. It was reported crashed on May 1, 1999 during operation Allied Force. I will see if I can dig up more detail, but this was the news brief:

NATO lost its second warplane in combat in five weeks of raids on Yugoslavia on Sunday but once again the pilot was picked up just hours later in a dramatic night-time rescue. NATO military spokesman Colonel Konrad Freytag said the U.S. F-16CJ suffered engine failure as it returned from a mission over Yugoslavia and the cause was being investigated. Serbian media said the aircraft had been shot down. The F-16 came down in Serbia 18 km (11 miles) east of the town of Kozluk on the border with Bosnia. The pilot ejected at around 2:20 a. m. (0020 GMT) and he was rescued by NATO forces two hours later.

Got a pic of the -15?

[edit on 27-11-2004 by engineer]