Talk:Mikoyan MiG-35/Archive 1

Archive 1

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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?

• http://www.myaviation.net/search/search.php?view=&airline=RSK%20MiG

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.

• http://visit.salon-du-bourget.fr/visitors/aeronefs_LeBourget2007_aircrafts.xls

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)

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)

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.

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

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)

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)

does the mig 35 in military service? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.172.139.179 (talk) 15:07, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

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)

If it is a 4++ generation aircraft why does the article claim it is a match for 5 generation aircraft? 91.128.24.73 (talk) 22:28, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Maybe thats meant to mean, "in certain circumstances the Mig-35 is a match for 5th generation aircraft." because in terms of radar & WVR combat it is ... in terms of low observability it is not.--Senor Freebie (talk) 12:30, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

What is the difference betwen Gen 4+, Gen 4++, and Gen 4.5? (Rhetorical Question) These are just designations given by some groups for convenience. They have no standard meaning and are generally sources of debate here on the talk pages. I feel that it is probably a better practice describe the systems the aircraft has and leave it at that. "Gen 4++" has no innate meaning that adds value to the article, IMO. -SidewinderX (talk) 19:10, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Tag & Assess 2008

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

Comparable aircrafts. Should F-16 and J-10 be included in the section?

Recent versions of F-16 definitely belong here. Even article states: "The MiG-35 is a contender with the [skip] F-16 Falcon for the bid [skip] to be procured by the Indian Air Force.". Furthermore, F-16 have higher combat load, better range, and recent versions also have updated avionics. I'm not so sure of J-10, but still feel slightly in favor of inclusion. TestPilot^{talk to me!} 14:29, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

F-16 is just a contender that does not make it equal. In terms of weight,payload,avionics Mig-35 is much more advaced and is surely not comparable to f-16 block 50/52, atleast block 60 is a valid comparison(because of its AESA radar).j-10 does not belong here because both are different kind of aircraft.I feel there is no need to include these aircraft because both these aircraft are light-weight where as Mig-35 is Medium role aircraft . Daredevil555 (talk) 08:46, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

There is no two equal aircraft out there. But both F-16 and MiG-35 designed for similar roles/purposes and that let them compete against each other for procurement contracts by third parties. Second - max take off weight is irrelevant in this case, since F-16 can carry similar amount of armament by weight(5,400 kg vs. 6350 kg for MiG-35, as article claim) and have better range. Payload more advanced? Questionable, plus there is a chance that NATO version will eventually be produced/or current fleet upgraded, like it was with MiG-29. As for "avionics Mig-35 is much more advaced" - any source other then advertisement materials? Plus avionics is a thing that is constantly upgrading during lifespan of aircraft.

PS. Where info for "Up to 14000 lb of bombs" claim about MiG-35 was taken? It sounds very unlikely, that MiG-35 could carry substantially more then 4 tons, not speaking of 6. MiG-29M was able to carry up to 3.5 tons of armament. They haven't changed engines and airframe changes was not that huge. TestPilot^{talk to me!} 13:57, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, I agreed that the F-19 Block 50/52 is comparable to the MiG-35. As of the J-10, the current development is focus on building a air superior fighter, its strike capability is very limited. ChowHui (talk) 15:11, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

well this source claims Mig-35 can carry a weight of 6 tons.[[1]].Lockheed martin has pitted f-16 block 60 and no 52+ for Indian MRCA competition which I feel should convince you that f-16 block is more of comparable to mig-35.You cannot compare an aircraft with thrust vectored engine, AESA radar to an aircraft without having one.Not to forget Mig 35 is twin engine.Systems such as OlS make Mig-35 more advaced in terms of avionics because this system is pesent only on two aircraft in the world Mig 35 and sukhoi-30 MKI. I think instead of f-16 block 52+ it must be changed to block 60 or f-16IN if chosen by Indian air force.j-10 is out of question which must be removed. Daredevil555 (talk) 05:05, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Should we place J-11 instead of J-10? Just kidding:) I remove J-10. TestPilot^{talk to me!} 13:50, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

The western counterpart of the OLS/OIS is called IRST. It’s not a sophisticate concept in the military aerospace industry. It’s more like a give and take. For example new gen American fighters do not adopt this design. You might argue they are the only one to do so. However, they are also one of the most important players in the military aerospace industry. As of the VT and the engines, they are just different design in the same category. If you do notice, Taiwan ROCAF's AIDC F-CK-1 aka IDF has a twin engine configuration but these engines only sum up a thrust which is roughly equals to a F-404 on the F-16. ChowHui (talk) 17:48, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

And sure, there also Chinese counterpart, J-10's electro-optical system. And it is way more advanced, then Russian technology(at least that is what China claim). As for trust vectoring, you know F-16 can be/was fitted. And there was mentioning of vectoring tech for J-10 too. And, don't forget, trust vectoring was never actually build into MiG-35. Feel the difference with F-16 :P TestPilot^{talk to me!} 17:58, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

You are getting it wrong somewhere. If it is cliamed by MIG that thrust vectoring engine can be fitted into MIG 35, that means it means that thrust vectoring is incorporated into the design. The OLS does not only include IRST but FLIR. OLS reduce the need to carry a saperate pods.Thus reducing the drag eventually a reduction is RCS.F-16 block 60 has an embedded IRST/FLIR making it comparable to OLS.F-16 vista was the one fitted with thrust vectoring which is somewhat different from the original design. Daredevil555 (talk) 10:46, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Thrust vectoring is just not an issue. You are making up your own logic. As of the OLS, you seemed to have little knowledge of it. Have you even noticed that 35 has 2 OLS, one on the traditional position and an additional at the belly? And if an aircraft does not have an internal weapon bay and was assign to a strike mission, how significant can it be to have a less loading object on the wing/belly? And do you aware the size of the belly’s OLS in comparison to other comparable targeting pods? Regards ChowHui (talk) 21:24, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't get your point.All that I was talking about was reduced cross section.I do know there are two OLS.I never meant to say anything about it.I was just comparing 35 RCS to f-16 that's it.May be you should update yourself about the new OLS.The OLS acts as an eye of the plane.It carries new features like tv channel lacked in previous one, integration of IR and laser ranging systems, can move 360 degrees to identify both air as well as ground targets and there are no emmissions so it can't be detected.A new glass used which has a better lifespan.Fibre-optics cables used for the first time in history of OLS.And its not two OLS.OLS is right in front in the traditional position as you say.Besides that there are other two stations, one on the right intake other the downward looking. It neither uses IRST nor FLIR to detect targets.where as FLIR/IRST systems are used practically by used by all 4.5 generation aircraft thus leaving a drag which can be detected by enemy radar.F-16 block 60 carries Integrated FLIR Targeting System reducing this supersonic drag. regards Daredevil555 (talk) 05:29, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Mate, you clearly lost yourself. OLS is not a new design. And this design is not adopted by the American in their 3rd-4th gen aircraft. Much of the new gen electro optical targeting pod can output tv images. The TV feature is emphasized in the OLS-UE/K, simply because the previous OLS-29 does not offer such function. As of those Fiber optic wiring, new galss and whatsoever are statement in compare to the OLS-29 ONLY. Probably you did not aware that the OLSs are not identical devices but they are pretty much the same thing. The head mounted one is the OLS-UE which acts like the OLS-29, but it accomplished the same task with new tech. The one on the belly called OLS-K, which had some difference to optimize ground searching function. Let alone the OLS-UE as IRST (which you do not aware it is the same thing) was under debate by the American AE engineers and led no comparison between the MiG-35 and the F-16 variants. The OLS-K just acts the same as any of the FLIR sys. The only difference is that the NATO members preferred an external pod while lacking a counterpart for most of the time, the MiG-35 instead, made it an inbuilt feature. This does mean that the OLS-K contributes to aerodynamic nor RCS. If you really take good care of what you post, you will realized that the OLS-K does not offer any significant advantages over the Sniper XR nor the the LITENING in term of physical measurements. As a built-in design, the main advantage is to relief a pylon for more munitions. Regards ChowHui (talk) 17:16, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Now all the while I was saying that Mig 35 OLS is comparable to f-16 FLIR/IRST.I still believe that the elimination of targeting pods will reduce the RCS of Mig 35 to a certain extent because there is no radiation and emission . I never spoke about aerodynamics because it really dosn't make any sence.well, we debating about the thing which we agree.just a misunderstanding I suppose. regards Daredevil555 (talk) 05:57, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, no offense, but I do not think that you are clear of the situation. OK I make it in a point form:

1. OLS-UE is an IRST. 2. OLS-K is a FLIR. 3. OLS-K is simply a fixed design FLIR pod. 4. In terms of RCS, MiG-35 is inferior to an air-to-air configuration F-16. Thus MiG-35 is not comparable to F-16 according to your logic. 5. Thermal imaging is done in a passive way. This is common in every electro optical device. 6. BUT when an electro optical device were task to take aim of an object, very precisely, it needs coordinates. 7. Coordinates comes from range measurement. 8. Range is measured via the feedback of a infra-red pointer. 9. In this particular usage of the infra-red pointer, it is known as FLIR. 10. Infra-red can define as an emission or a radiation. Hope you will have a clue what mistake you made. Regards ChowHui (talk) 07:27, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Got your point. But tell me will not those FLIR pods create radiation to be picked up by other radars?. Infact to reduce the drag aircraft like F-22/F-35 have internal loading. Since mig-35 OLS has no such radiation/emmision wont it reduce this supersonic drag? Just clearing my doubt. regardsDaredevil555 (talk) 11:09, 5 July 2008 (UTC) Oh ya. the drag thing, thats the point I missed.

1. First of all you need to do some research on what is the definition of drag, radiation and emission.

2.Infrared warning device can pick up radiation and emission from a FLIR/IRST device.

3.Both radiation and emission will not create drag in a macro way that will physically affected an object, thus it will not affect the aircraft's aerodynamic.

4. OLS-K is fitted in such a way that an external pod would have been adapted to that position. Therefore I suggest you to refer as many pictures as you can to make it clear and thus understand that your doubt is indeed a funny thought.ChowHui (talk) 16:49, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

I did a bit of research but and found that Internal FLIR System of f-16 block 60 does reduce the supersonic drag but not completely eliminate, because at supersonic speed everything besides the aircraft will only increase the drag.This drag will not be due to the radiation because as you said they are passive.Similarly it will reduce the drag of Mig 35.one more thing the OLS may be similar but developed by two different companies. Anyways thanks for insight. regards Daredevil555 (talk) 11:11, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, you still making the same mistake here.

1. Radiation is an output, is has nothing to do with passive or active.

2. OLS-K is mounted on the fuselage, not in the fuselage, it is not a "internal" design. This is how Jane's described: OLS-K is installed inside a conformal pod that is 1.98 m long and weighs 110 kg, suspended under the starboard engine air trunk. And do some research on pictures!

3.OLS-UE/K is developed by the same company, while the OLS-27/29/35 are from another company.

Regards ChowHui (talk) 17:37, 8 July 2008 (UTC)