Seaeagle

Not sure what you are refering to here, but if its the AMRAAM, then it was first inducted with the F-16 and F-15, while it was posponed for the F/A-18C until the AN/APG-73 was ready(introduced with Lot 16). The R-27 was from the start developed as a modular complex with the shortburn versions for the MiG-29 and the longburn ones for the Su-27. Availability aside, it is also "a known fact" that official "in service" status is something of an administrative peculiarity in the Soviet/Russian military - there are countless examples of something that has been used operationally for years before it gets the official stamp. Actually it did. It was officially adpopted by the MoD in 1994 - they just didn't acquire any. I guess in part because there weren't any money for it at the time and in part because they didn't have any aircraft compatible with it. It could also be that it was given official Russian IOC status in order to support export orders for the RVV-AE(e.g. in connection with the Su-30MKI for India). At any rate, this is just another indication of what I said above about the relevance of the official "in service" status.....some things were used operationally without it, while other weren't available despite having it.

What? - the R-27 entered service in 1983 along with the MiG-29, while the AIM-120A entered service in 1991-2 on F-16s and F-15s and in 1993 on the F/A-18C......some ten years after the R-27. No but the IOC of ~ 1990 often stated for it in western media is nonsense. It came out a little later than the shortburn -27R, but IIRC it was something similar to that of the AIM-120A to AIM-120B - i.e. a matter of a year or two. I think you are confusing it with the R-77, which is contemporary with the AMRAAM. Yes but the contemparary AIM-7M was nevertheless a very different missile than the initial versions. MiG-31/Zashlon radar and R-33?

IIRC the Soviet and the Warsaw pact export versions of the MiG-29 had two selectable power settings for their engines(to be set by ground crew before flight) - "normal" or "combat", where the latter came with some rather strict limitations in terms of much it could be used(only a few procent of the flight hours). This(the "combat" mode) was removed on the MiG-29B non-warsaw pact export version - i.e. always running in "normal" mode. The East German MiG-29s were the warsaw pact export version with both power settings, but after having "inherited" them, Luftwaffe changed the power output of the settings, so that the "combat" mode now corresponded to "normal", while "normal" became a "reduced" power setting instead. So the full power was still available on the "MiG-29G" - they just ran the engines on the reduced setting most of the time in order to extend their service life.

Yes its a good idea. However, the devil is in the detail both in terms of variation and pricing. IMHO there would need to be a sufficient degree of differences between variants for it to be interesting - either technical ones or at least in terms of timeframe(for mission potential).....preferably both. As for pricing, I agree with M4ti that it should depend on the work involved.

Even the first MiG-29K version had a digital fly-by-wire flight control system and the center of gravity was moved further back for "relaxed stability".

Which was pretty much the opposite of what it should be :) .

Not necessarily, but they usually are. Partly because the electronic beam steering means that the antenna can be mounted in a fixed positon and doesn't need room around it to move - thus the entire diameter of the radome can be exploited for a larger antenna area. Anyway, IIRC the comparative figures for the detection of a "figher sized target" is stated by Niir to be ~ 120 km for the Zhuk-M, while for the Zhuk-AME its some 160-180 km ......so a pretty big range advantage for the AESA. Of course it provides benefits for a2a as well, but the primary reason for installing them is nevertheless short range IR SAM threats. The main source of detection is heat generated by the missile plume, which is something you will only be able to detect for a missile launched at relatively short range - like a Manpad or short range AAM. No the type I was refering to has missile approach sensors, ECM or CM dispensers installed inside a weapon pylon - not hanging from it. So they don't worsen the flight characteristic nor do they occupy a pylon - its still available for weapons. Yes they do. There are two types of pylons - one(PIDS+) with 3 missile approach sensors and a built-in CM dispenser(well two blocks actually) and another(ECIPS+) with 3 missile approach sensors and built-in ECM - carried on either side of the aircraft and thus providing 360 degree view and protection. See attached image. I disagree. I don't know that system or the rationale behind it - I was refering to pod mounted vs. internally installed mission equipment in general. PIDS+ on F-16AM:

Thanks for the link. I hadn't heard about that. Anyway, what I meant was that a "MiG-35 updated" version of the MiG-29K wouldn't necessarily need to adopt the MiG-35 system complex in its entirety. The two primary tasks of the MiG-29K is to control the airspace over a naval taskforce and conduct anti-ship strike missions, for which you need a good radar - the MiG-29K/KUB's current Zhuk-ME is a very capable set for both types of missions, but the AESA part of a -35 style upgrade would boost this capability considerably in terms of increased range and versatility. A missile launch and approach warning system, on the other hand, is something you typically fit to tactical aircraft with which you expect to conduct low level attack missions over terrain with lots of potential for concealed SAM threats like MANPADS - i.e. short range IR homing missiles that are hard to spot, gives you a short time to react and for which you don't have any other means of detection. You could argue that a MiG-29K should be able to undertake such missions as well, but the ship on which its currently based(Admiral Kuznetsov) wasn't designed for this sort of thing and has a limited capability for supporting it. Besides, Russia has lots of other assets for such missions. I am not saying that there couldn't be challenges in backfitting the MLAWS of the MiG-35 to the MiG-29K, just that it should be doable considering that its the same basic airframe. But IMHO the question is rather whether such a system would be considered necessary for the MiG-29K - and if it is, then there are other ways of applying it. E.g. our F-16s use weapon's pylons with integrated missile warning sensors(+ ECM or CM dispenser). Well I don't know, but I think this has as more to do with philosophy than difficulty - with pod mounted equipment, you only need to carry it if a paricular mission requires it rather than drag it along internally at all times. I can also imagine it makes maintaining it easier. Exactly.

Sure but.. Says who? :) - IMHO the radar would be the main item of interest. But why.. ....do you think this would be insurmountable?. I mean thats what they did with the MiG-29M to turn it into the -35 - why not the -K?.

Sorry if it came across like that - not my intention. Yes it is a unified design, which in turn was initiated by the contract with India for the MiG-29K/KUB. There was also a high degree of commonality between the old MiG-29M and -K, but with the new versions it is much higher. The MiG-35 is really just a MiG-29M with the latest in radar and optical technology. Yes and apart from those and the AESA radar, there is also the missile approach warning system - I wouldn't call those differences miniscule, but the airframe is pretty much the same. That is not my understanding. Russia's intitial order for MiG-35 involved the same radar as on the MiG-29K/KUB(the Zhuk-M planar slotted array), but AFAIK they intend to purchase the AESA for them later.

Right but an RFI(Request For Information) is the first step in a tender. But was that what they did with the Rafales?. IIRC they ran the longest tender in history and chose the Rafale in the end - only to run into all sorts of disagreements with Dassault concerning the conditions for the part of the tender concerning local license production of the majority of the aircraft. So they just scrapped the tender and instead of the 126 aircraft it concerned, just bought 36 aircraft directly from Dassault.

Then why run a tender for more foreign supplied deck fighters now? - with previous Indian tenders in mind, it could easily end up passing that date before it comes to a conclusion :) .

It wasn't really. Weights and performance was practically the same for the M and K - the exception being the K having a little lower G-rating due to the larger wing area(wing loading). I think you could do better than that for a wallpaper :) - e.g. like this one:

LOL what? - well thats probably because its a MiG-29K with an AESA radar and a new name :D . See above. Its really amusing - first they "mod" the MiG-29K/KUB into the land based MiG-29M/M2....basically by removing the refuelling probe. Then in turn they modded this into the super "MiG-35" by putting the refuelling probe back on and install a new AESA radar(and other "bling").........and now it would be a big deal to mod this back into a MiG-29K?! I think you guys got lost in the designation circus there - a "carrier capable MiG-35" would be a case of installing an AESA radar on the MiG-29K.....which in turn shouldn't be a problem since the AESA radar in question - the Zhuk-AME- is based directly on the MiG-29K's current Zhuk-ME.

Are they - where did you get that idea?.....they only just bought them AFAIK what it is, is that they have yet another tender in the works - this time concerning 57 additional deck aircraft for their aircraft carriers. They have a new one in the works(should be just about ready) and intend to operate a third in the future, but so far only have the 45 MiG-29K/KUB for them - i.e. less than half the requirement. You might think the tender is because they are dissatisfied with the MiG-29K/KUB, but its more likely a simple matter of playing potential suppliers against each other in order to get the best deal. Besides, in many countries, a state procurements must be subject to a tender - by law.

Sure but I was only refering to the specific question of the OP - "pitbull range" of the R-77.

Well technically only the first one(no 151) was a prototype, while the remaining five were test aircraft and the standard was the same - the last one(no. 156) had a different cockpit layout though. No its not the same thing - the MiG-29M and K went through state acceptance trials and were actually ordered for production, but were cancelled due to the break-up of the Soviet Union and lack of funds in the aftermath. The Su-47, on the other hand, was an experimental aircraft for testing forward sweapt wing design - i.e. similar in nature to the US X-planes.

Indeed, but there is much more to it - many airframe refinements, new wings(improved airfoil), sharp lerxes, different elevators, etc. Yes RD-33K engines with digital control system, more power(8800 kgf vs 8300 of baseline RD-33), a lower specific fuel consumption and more responsive to throttle input etc. Much bigger internal fuel capacity - in part due to the redesigned FOD protection system. Yes OLS-M with deep cooled IR sensor, TV camera and new laser rangefinder/designator(with twice the range of the original) - the TV camera could be used for air-to-air as well as air-to-ground targets. Well IIRC the radar(original N010 "Zhuk") could prioritise four targets for engagement, but only engage 2 at a time - the later upgraded Zhuk-M can engage all four simultaneously. No the R-77 was fully integrated into the N010 radar as its primary air-to-air BVR weapon, while the 9.13S had a modified version(N019M) of the original N019 radar, for which the R-77 was backfitted via an extra add-on "TWS-2" mode for the purpose. There were so many trump cards, that its hard to single out a particular one - aside from the wide range of A2G armament, increased payload capacity(up to 4500 kg of external ordinance) on 9 stations(compared to 7 on the baseline MiG-29) and operational range, it had much more modern radar with air-to-surface modes, RWS system with support for ARMs, more modern navigation system(not as sophisticated as on the K though), and modern datalink system etc etc. So yeah - would be really cool......but the MiG-29K would be better yet though .

You can find some pretty good accounts for the MiG-29M development history with descriptions of its design and construction and also some indications about its handling characteristics compared to the "baseline" version - not enough for a PFM of course, but you get some ideas about the level of difference.

Pretty sure that was a hoax.. There were no MiG-29M with a 1992 production date - the six test aircraft(9.15) were built between 1986 and 1991. Heh yeah, but these aircraft are still considered "secret", so I seriously doubt that MIG would sell one with the complete system's complex in place back then.

Ok - sounds about right then :)

I am not sure about DCS, but the real missile's ARH seeker can acquire a target of RCS=5m2 at around 16 km.

Yes thats what I meant :) .

Indeed, but my point was that the presence of two phalanx mounts isn't because they modelled an earlier Flt. IIa with upgrades, but rather... ...that the model is a "hodge podge" of variants. I obviously don't know the reason - maybe they got a model of an early Flt. IIa and decided to make it "more modern" by removing the funnels and assign hull numbers of later ships without paying attention to various other differences.

No look at the stacks - no visible funnels. DDG-89(USS "Mustin") was the first ship with this integrated funnel design.