Posted on 01/04/2017 7:35:28 AM PST by C19fan
A decade after the MiG-35’s first flight, the Kremlin’s new warplane will finally begin testing with the Russian air force in January 2017, according to Russian Deputy Prime Minister Dmitry Rogozin. The fighter should be fully operational in 2020.
(Excerpt) Read more at warisboring.com ...
must have
True. I guess it's propaganda to make it look like totally new hardware when in fact it's just a new “block” of MiG-29.
I’ve always found MiG’s designs to be good airplanes but aesthetically ugly. This one is no exception.
I would say the exact same for the A-10 Warthog.
On the flip side the best looking “plane” to me is the B-1 bomber.
They don’t always excel in combat. The earlier MIG’s were very good but never up to par with us. Russia has always ascribed to the tenet “Quantity has a quality of its own” which works if you have an endless amount of resources.
29 isn’t ugly.
B-1 is gorgeous. I have always wished to see a Blue Angel or Thunderbird type air show of ALL B-1 BOMBERS in tight formation simply for the massive thundering sound it would make. A single B1 flyby on full afterburner is an amazing feeling. Imagine a diamond formation of them. :)
Oh yeah, I know it’ll never happen. But I’m one of those guys at air shows that wants it louder. At a fireworks display I want it BIGGER!
Though interestingly enough, at a concert I usually wish they’d turn it down. :)
I said that from watching several flybys at the Reno Air Races many years ago.
Yes...it is.
Again, it's not my personal favorite for aesthetics, It's OK, and a fine airplane. In a purely aesthetic sense I like the Northrop F-5E. It's just a pretty looking airplane.
Saw a B-1 do a full routine years ago. Not just a fly by but a whole demo. They are almost as maneuverable as a fighter. Yeah a diamond formation of those would be incredible.
“True. I guess it’s propaganda to make it look like totally new hardware when in fact it’s just a new “block” of MiG-29.”
How dare they assign different names to different projects! Actually, our system was also created for shady reasons. Its incredibly hard to get congress to approve a new fighter program, but very easy to get approval to “upgrade” an existing design. So we pretend its the same plane.
the most egregious example of this is the F-18 Super Hornet. Although it is shaped to resemble an original F-18, it is a completely different aircraft. It is much larger and has different fuselage, engines, wings, tail, hardpoints, and avionics.
But the Navy called it the F-18 E/F rather than go to congress and ask to build the new F-19 or whatever. Its barely more similar to the original than a Hellcat was to a Wildcat.
” I have always wished to see a Blue Angel or Thunderbird type air show of ALL B-1 BOMBERS in tight formation “
I would too, from a hilltop very far away. That’s not a show I would have full confidence wouldn’t fall out of the sky in tons of flaming metal. Id be nowhere near, but I sure would watch!
Lots of hype regarding Riussian aircraft.
SU-model discussed here, but this applies universally to ALL Russian aircraft: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b2siH9W5P4E
Kinf of like the F-15 vs the F-15E.
Basically same airframe but totally different internals.
Maybe Trump should buy some MiG 35s and improve on them! Cheaper than the F-35?
On the other hand, US practice these days seems to intentionally obscure the development of new aircraft types. Thus three markedly different aircraft are all called F-35s, while a new naval fighter/attack aircraft is called the F/A-18 as if it were simply an enlargement and updating of the predecessor F-18. In all these cases the commonality in appearance means little in the way of savings in development and production costs.
Of course, while the Russians aim to impress their adversaries by making enhancements to their military aviation seem more potent than they are, the US military seeks to want to make its military aviation innovations seem smaller than they are in order to slip them past their most tenacious and effective enemies -- the budget hawks!
“Russia has always ascribed to the tenet “Quantity has a quality of its own” which works if you have an endless amount of resources.”
Historically true, but there is something of a reversal recently. The Armata tank is designed with a lot of concern for crew survival, almost as much so as the concepts for the Israeli Merkava. The mass doctrine is being applied in robotics, however. Makes sense with a relatively small population with hungry Chinese on one border, and degenerate EUniks and their Moslem pets on the other.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.