Talk:Mikoyan MiG-35

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

AVIATION This article is within the scope of the Aviation WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
Aviation Portal
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
MILHIST This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
Russia Portal
This page is within the scope of WikiProject Russia. If you would like to participate, please join the project and help with our open tasks.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the assessment scale.
??? This article has not yet received an importance rating on the assessment scale.

Contents

[edit] MiG-29 images

http://www.migavia.ru/im/photo/62b.jpg Would not this picture be better? Does not MiG-35 refer more to the MiG-29OVT (M1 with TVC) than to the twin seat M2?

Yes, the mig-35 is actually mig-29 OVT, it was changed to mig-35 when it became apparent that the amount of modifications made changed this plane to a new one. Starcraftmazter 11:43, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't think we should post MiG-29 images. This topic is about MiG-35. im gonna add a MiG-35 pic.

the last picture was for a MiG-35, fyi MiG-35 doesn't have canards.83.244.101.221 17:40, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Malaysia have not confirmed or even have approached MRCA for MiG-35. Therefore, it should be removed from the article.

The MiG-29M OVT is still being referred to under that name in official publications (source: RIAT 2006 programme). It definitely does not have canards (source: personal observation, and none of the photos here shows them). Perhaps the -35 is a "production model" 29M-OVT which is not yet in physical existence? More evidence is needed. Airdrake 21:41, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, OVT has nothing to do with 35. It is a VT 29M. I suggest we delete all the pictures until someone load a appropriate one. ChowHui 17:15, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi! Is there a Wikipedia page about the MiG-29-OVT? NO! So why not just publish a MiG-29-OVT picture along with a notice, that's it is a very similar predecessor of the MiG-35? A 'similar' picture is much better than no picture. What do you think? --149.225.78.179 (talk) 00:29, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

The "is a very similar predecessor of the MiG-35" was a prediction of many, but after the unveil of the actual sample, apparently it is a wrong guess. The fact is, nothing on the OVT model to have any relation to the MiG-35. Note that MiG-29M-OVT is a MiG-29M equipped with a pair of VT nozzles, however MiG-35 doesn't adopt the VT concept as default. Nonetheless we do not post M model pictures here, same reason goes to the OVT pictures. You might want to suggest it on the MiG-33(MiG-29M) page. ChowHui (talk) 04:54, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

You are right! I've seen the 'Smotr' video documentation about the MiG-35 ( click ), they have mentioned a lot of specs of the fighter but not a single word about OVT :( —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.185.164.234 (talk) 13:46, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Infobox

We need one. --80.63.213.182 09:52, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

You got one. :-) - Aerobird Target locked - Fox One! 01:15, 14 January 2007 (UTC)


Why delete Mig-35 info??? I inserted a link to Janes article on the Mig-35 AESA and it got deleted? Also the pictures I posted were not copyrighted? Whats going on? and why does Mig 35 link to Mig 1.44 while Mig-35 links to Mikoyan Mig 35???

SOMEONE FIX THIS

also need to put in more specs especial the difference between Mig35 and Mig29

India has not decided on purchasing the mig for the 126 plane order.Arborius 16:33, 3 February 2007 (UTC)arborius

[edit] Completely misleading article, need rewrite.

Completely misleading article, need rewrite.ChowHui 04:54, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

That's really helpful. Thanks. - BillCJ 05:19, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Hoho, sorry if I offended you. I am organizing info on my hands, later will try to be "helpful" to the article. Regards ChowHui 10:08, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

  • Not offended, just confused. WHat part of the article is misleading? How is it misleading? What does it say that is wrong, and what should it be changed to? What portions need to be rewritten, and why? I have no problem with the fact that you criticise, but you need to be specific, and address your concerns so that others no wha tthe problems are. I'm sorry I wasn't more specific myself. - BillCJ 15:18, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
OK, my bad. The article, before Fnlayson moved some the info from MiG-29, was attempt to mislead people to believe MiG-33 is an independent and later abandoned project. Further more, it mess up with OVT and throwing information that are either myth or no citation support (I cant even get a result from google, not at all). For example, the aircrafts do not have VT engines, only OVT has and was demonstrated under OVT designation. Regards ChowHui 15:36, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The MiG-35 is not the MiG-29M-OVT

The MiG-35 is a completly different beast. It is a two-seat multi-role fighter. Combat Aircraft just had a full report about it in their latest issue. I have not had a chance to read it yet but I will do so soon and incorportate all the actual changes to the article that needed to be done. Once again, it is not the MiG-29M-OVT, which still maintains that designation. Also, I believe the MiG-33 designation has been brought out again for the upgraded MiG-29K, but I will have to double check. Those pictures need to be removed as they are extremely misleading.SAWGunner89 18:51, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

  • Looks like the images what you're referring to. If not where else? -Fnlayson 19:09, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
    • We had this topic on top, both, for OVT issue and picture issue. Mind join us there? Regards ChowHui 20:10, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
      • Ah, OK. My question about where else still stands. -Fnlayson 20:30, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

The external links sections still has a link to a page about the MiG-29M-OVT. I was mainly referring to the pictures. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SAWGunner89 (talk • contribs)

  • OK, I removed the -29OVT video link. -Fnlayson 18:18, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Global Security tech spec is not appropriate

Global Security had long time outdated for many post Soviet assets. Russia with a Greater transparency and wider of diplomatic relations give them access to many western tech and thus great improved in recent years, which GS is not aware of. On other hand, some of the exaggerated data(eg. 16 pylon, Mach 2.5+, AL-41F...) seems to be residual of Cold War mentality. I recommend to leave the unknown blank than to fill them with GS's unreliable figures. Regards ChowHui 05:00, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

  • Most of the data was already there. I used the GS page to check. I changed the engine/thrust and switched the order of the units so metric units were the main ones. Compare the edits. Fix that and any data that does not seem correct. Any idea on the hidden data below the spec template? -Fnlayson 13:11, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
    • Honestly, I have no idea too. But since it is still a new aircraft, my predict is that specific specs will not reveal in near future (IMO, at least 5 years) not to mention it is still a prototype. What GS offer was outdated prediction or so call analyst from when the project was still a myth, which could had been another project that was not materialized. At least from my knowledge, the present 35 is actually one of the MiG-29M2 airframe with improved parts and pieces, far from what GS article describe. And as I mention it is still a prototype, before it goes into serial production, fact may vary. Therefore I suggested specifications should leave it blank, fill only what ever is confirmed would be the best for readers. Regards ChowHui 15:55, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
      • OK, I'll look at news releases and such and add/removed info as best I can. I'll add a prelimianry note to the Specs section to make that clear. Help from others would be great too. -Fnlayson 17:42, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
        • That would be great! See if I can can any info too. Regards ChowHui 17:47, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
        • FYI: I got OVT (thrust vectoring) for the RD-33 engines from the Aero India article. -Fnlayson 05:09, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
          • Or, you can try this? RD-33MK article. I am still looking for a better source. Regards ChowHui 09:05, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 35 ton MTOW?

I'm certain that the Max. Takeoff weight of the Mig-35 would not be more than 24 tons. And yet, the article misleadingly shows an MTOW of 34.5 tons (which is the MTOW of the Su-30, which is much larger).

this needs to be changed. Unfortunately, there is no proper info available. Does anyone have accurate specs?? Sniperz11 18:42, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

  • Thanks for pointing that out. Not sure where that loaded weight data came from. Switched to manufacturer's MiG-29M2 data for MTOW. -Fnlayson 05:07, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] GSh-301 w/ 950 rounds?

That seems to be a rather extravagant number of 30mm shells for a tactical fighter's on-board cannon. I've looked through the sources, one of which mistakenly lists the specs for Mikoyan Project 1.42 rather than the current MiG-35, and haven't seen anything confirming this number. Should this be changed, or does the spec hold up?

  • Somebody changed it to 150 rounds earlier today. That matches what the MiG-29 carries, so it is reasonable. -Fnlayson 01:00, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Externally or Physically or Exterior OR Vitually

The sentence:

"While the exterior of these were the same, designation and color scheme were changed, together with new engines and avionics."

Actually, the origin editor whom wrote this sentence used "physically", it was then changed to "externally" then by "exterior". However, what I wanted to express was that no matter M2 or MRCA or 35, they are actually the exact same aircraft. They were gradually upgraded, and given designation after every modification. Earlier i was considering between "virtually" and "physically", then i found not much difference of two, so revert to origin as respect to the editor. Regards ChowHui 06:27, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

I think the best thing for us to do at this point is to check the original sources, and then rewrite the sentence to better express the idea, and thus avoid the ambiguity. - BillCJ 06:55, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
  • They can't be physically the same if the engines, avionics, etc on the inside changed. I believe the point is the airframe is basically the same. If it said physically the same except for new engines, avionics, etc. then that'd be fine. -Fnlayson 13:07, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
    • So, any suggestion to write the sentence to give the correct meaning? As long as it could clearly tell that it is the same aircraft with upgraded equipments. Hah, my English is not up to that standard. Regards ChowHui 13:15, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
      • Yes, exactly. Sorry for any confusion on this... -Fnlayson 13:26, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Designation

Why did you revert my edit? I provided a perfect source, from one of the best Russian news agency. The news article clearly says that the MiG-35 is the export version of the MiG-29OVT. So, are you telling me that one of the most prestigious news agency in Russia is wrong, and you are correct? However, where's the thrust vectoring of the MiG-35 mentioned in this wiki article? I've just been at the Paris-Le Bourget Air Show and the MiG-35 impressed by making a complete stop in the air (0 km/h). You should stop making such edits in the article without providing clear sources. --Eurocopter tigre 13:54, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Citing:The MiG-29M OVT (Fulcrum F), a highly maneuverable air superiority fighter, was unveiled for the first time in August 2005 during the MAKS Air Show outside Moscow.

The single-seat fighter, which is also marketed for export as the MiG-35, is powered by RD-33 OVT thrust vectoring control engines. The RD-33 OVT engines provide superior maneuverability capability to the aircraft, enhancing its performance in close air-to-air engagements.

Further down changes are described including citing a RD-33MK engine. The changes should be described together at least. -Fnlayson 14:37, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Well, cool down Eurocopter. Don't get me wrong,
1. I didn't say there it is impossible for VT engine.
2. Did you see OLS on OVT? If not, hell would it be a 35?
3. I have no comment to RAIN, but if they can't even differs the number of seat in the cockpit, should you trust :100%?
4. Paris only showed OVT, nothing to prove OVT is 35.
5. Please do respect others, read source other provide before you criticize it.

Regards ChowHui 15:05, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I know that in Paris the OVT was presented - so, does that mean the OVT is actually competing for the Indian MRCA, instead of the MiG-35? Are you sugesting that both the OVT and 35 are competing for the Indian MRCA? - I wouldn't believe that. Maybe the 35 is the two-seat version of the OVT...? --Eurocopter tigre 15:16, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

At least for now with things a bit uncertain, I think the MiG-29 variant entry should simply say the "MiG-35 is a mature development of the latest MiG-29" and leave off the OVT or M designator. Nevermind. That wouldn't work. You wouldn't know how mature that'd be with just -29. -Fnlayson 17:03, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

    • OVT was a tech demonstrator, I wrote it clearly. What i meant was OVT has nothing to do with 35, OVT in the past still OVT in the present. 35 was the so call MiG-29MRCA, later MiG-29M2 then now 35. OVT was one of the pre-built 29M before 1991 whom later received VT. The purpose i showed you the pic above is to tell you they are totally different a/c, you will not see any cockpit layout nor externally similarity they share. Read tho' the whole project before you did your blitz edit. Regards ChowHui 16:22, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

So, I'm asking you, which one is the candidate for the Indian MRCA? The OVT or the 35? --Eurocopter tigre 16:44, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

    • It was 35. ChowHui 17:07, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Incorrect, the OVT was, until the 35 made its appearance. So, that means OVT and 35 are quite similar aircraft. Am I wrong? --Eurocopter tigre 19:43, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

The Russians have a penchant of giving an annoyingly large number of designations to their aircraft. So, that alone should not be an indicator of difference. Technically, the Mig-29OVT actually should be Mig-29M2. But since it is powered by the RD-33OVT Thrust vectoring engine, it is usually called the Mig-29OVT, even by the Russians as well.
secondly, the Mig-29OVT was a prototype model of the Mig-35. Like many other Russian prototype aircraft, it was deemed acceptable for combat service (Even the Su-47 was offered for combat service), which is why it was given a proper combat designation. This was obviously done to aid in foreign sales (ie, offer the OVT for the time being, and 'upgrade' to Mig-35 later). A few tweaks, as in most development programs, and the Mig-35 is ready.
I quote from Mikoyan MiG-29#Variants about the Mig-29OVT:

The aircraft is one of the six pre-built MiG-29M before 1991, later received thrust-vectoring engine and fly-by-wire technology. It served as a thrust vector engine test bed and also the technology demonstrator in various air shows to show future improvement in the MiG-29M. It has an identical avionic characteristic as the MiG-29M. The only difference in the cockpit layout is an additional switch to turn on vector thrust function. The 2 RD-133 thrust vector engines, each features a unique designed round turning nozzles which can provide thrust vector deflection in all direction. However despite its thrust vector engine, other specifications were not officially emphasized. The aircraft is being demonstrated along with the MiG-29M2 in various air shows around the world for potential export. The aircraft demonstrates aerobatic flight for most of the time.

I think that basically sums it up. Obviously, the Mig-29OVT will only remain a tech demonstrator for the Mig-35, and should be stated as that. As for the Indian MRCA Competition, unless you are making a detailed report, it shouldn't be a biggy to just state that the Mig-35 was offered. Considering the similarity between the two, such an omission is minor. Sniperz11 20:50, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Thanks for explaining. So MiG-35 offering to India is totally accurate. They are using the MiG-29M2/OVT a demonstror (maybe prototype too?). The MiG-35 is most likely a derviative of the M2/OVT. -Fnlayson 21:14, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
Bingo! Actually, the Mig-35 is less a derivative of the OVT. Rather, its more like the Production version of the OVT, which was a Tech. demonstrator. Normally, in most aircraft programs, the TD aircraft are not given a separate designation. But, in case of the Russians, it is not so, especially since the Mig-29 family is in service for a long time. Commercial compulsions also dictated their decision. Sniperz11 21:50, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Sniperz, which are the differences between the MiG-29OVT and the MiG-35? Can the MiG-35 be considered a two-seat variant of the MiG-29OVT? --Eurocopter tigre 21:48, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

      • OK, I am not an arm chair warrior, just can't agree with statement above.
Sniperz, OVT is actually MiG-29M OVT, and 35 is an upgraded MiG-29M2, there is no official comment to confirm it is indeed a prototype of 35. The M standard of two seater development end up with MiG-29KUB, does this means OVT is also a "prototype for MiG-29K"? Not to mention you assumed 35 was VT-ed. At the end please respect the Russians, they have their ways to manage their work.
Eurocopter, the OVT supposed to demonstrate "future improvement in the MiG-29M", but specifically it demonstrate the "future VT and flight control in the MiG-29M". OVT was display in Aero India just as it previous did, showed outstanding maneuverable, thats all, non of the official comment it was a runner. If you followed the news, in the past, M2(MRCA) still the main demonstrator of full combat capable aircraft. And I did say earlier, 35 was equipped with RD-33MK, thats explain the existence of OVT. M2 was gradually upgraded while OVT has been OVT for years, does this give you a sense? Can not understand why you keen to relate OVT and 35, to make sense of you logic?
And Now, I show video of both aircraft nozzles. See carefully whats the difference between VT nozzles and conventional nozzles.
OVT http://www.aviapedia.com/videos/fighters/Mig-29/MiG-29OVT_Smotr.wmv
35 http://www.aviapedia.com/videos/fighters/Mig-35/MiG-35-Lukhovitsy.wmv

Regards ChowHui 05:10, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Peace. I certainly did not diss the Russians.... they have a very efficient way of working and designating stuff. Its we uneducated people who dont understand, and find it annoying. Sniperz11 20:02, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately Sergey Kuznetsov, whom you may see touching OVT nozzles on Klimov plant here, in this material: http://www.aviapedia.com/fighters/klimov-fighter-engines-video-rd-33 Doesn't know English, so I have to be his advocate here. Directly from Klimov plant it is known that it was two pairs of OVT nozzles produced (don't mess OVT nozzles with RD-33 or RD-33MK engines. Nozzles are nozzles and engines are engines). First pair already worked out it's life cycle on MiG-29OVT demonstrator and was replaced with second - the last one. So there are NO OVT nozzles for MiG-35 in world today. Besides, as you know, MiG-29OVT has NO warfare - which means NO at all - no radars, no weapons systems, nothing. MiG-35 - is complete combat-ready aircraft. How can MiG-35 (two-seater) be export version of non-combat MiG-29OVT demonstrator - I don't know. Besides, it is said in the same material from Klimov plant (it's in Russian, I've made a translation by myself, who doesn't believe me and knows Russian - can double-check) MiG-35 use RD-33MK engines, not the original RD-33 (which MiG-29OVT uses). MK - 'Morskaya osa' is marine modification of engine with special jet flow surface resistant to the maritime environment. Besides, it has more powerful afterburner mode (for best carrier take-offs and landings).

Guys, I just really don't know from what media you may find confirmation of this, because Sergey's materials are really fresh. I agree with ChowHui that mass media can't be trusted in technical details (remember case with Russian Knights group of Su-27 flying through the cave?). Aviapedia 14:17, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Designation Part Deux

The previous section had become too long, so I'm creating the new section. Sniperz11

OK, after reading the posts above, let me see if I've got this straight. Correct me if I'm wrong.

1. Mig-35 is actually Mig-29M2 MRCA (As is confirmed by MiG in first picture in this link.

2. Mig-35 does not have Thrust vectoring yet. (Qn: Do they plan to have OVT in the future?)

3. Mig-35 uses a Klimov RD-33MK engine (See Link), while the OVT uses an RD-33 with the "OVT" Thrust vectoring Nozzles (See Link).

4. Mig-29OVT should be correctly called Mig-29M OVT.

5. the OVT was never combat capable, but was only a tech. demonstrator. The 35 is combat capable.

Sniperz11 20:53, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Would the MiG proposed for the Indian MRCA, have thrust vectoring? I'm still very surprised that Ria Novosti was so misinformed in that article... --Eurocopter tigre 21:41, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Sniperz11, Thank you. Sum up every thing clear and correctly.
Eurocopter, The VT of a light weight aircraft is still not popular. From my observation, this current VT still undergoing final test, means until Aero India it was not ready. But I see them coming soon in the future.
So, I propose to tune it back? Regards ChowHui 02:30, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] How should we present it?

In the article, the engine is RD-33MK "Morskaya Osa" (Russian: Морская Оса). The Морская Оса official translate is "Sea Wasp". So, how should we present it in the article?

I think the best way would be Klimov RD-33MK "Morskaya Osa" (Russian: Морская Оса: "Sea Wasp" ) engine for the first mention, and RD-33MK 'Sea Wasp' or just RD-33MK for later mentions. (I have based this on the naming for HAL Tejas, Mig-21 and others). Sniperz11 10:45, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Ok then. I change it that way.

[edit] Pictures

Need help with some high resolution pictures for MIG 35...wallpaper purpose...googled it but could not find any .Yourdeadin 13:25, 8 September 2007 (UTC)Yourdeadin

[edit] 4++ Generation Designation

It is worth mentioning in the article than the MiG-35 is widely considered a 4++ generation fighter aircraft, or at least that's the early consensus between western & eastern experts, so I added that in the intro. I also took advantage of the edit to correct some grammar and syntax errors... HyeProfile 16:31, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Range

Are the figures given for the range accurate? They are considerably larger than those of comparable European and American fighters, and comparable to long-range bombers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Axeman (talk • contribs) 03:31, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Good question! As I am the one overhaul the article, I have no idea where the 4000Km came from. ChowHui (talk) 06:37, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Tag & Assess 2008

Article reassessed and graded as start class. --dashiellx (talk) 17:06, 21 May 2008 (UTC)