There is also a mig-35 Super Fulcrum in development.
Title: MiG-29? No, MiG-33!
Authors: Anatoly Belosvet, Mikoyan design bureau, deputy
general designer,
Yuri Polushkin, Mikoyan design bureau, branch manager
[Abridged translation]
Demonstrated for the first time at Farnborough-94, the MiG-33,
a new Russian fighter, is a deep modernisation of the MiG-29.
The main goals of the modernisation were:
- multifunctionality with further growth of air-to-air and air-to-
ground capability widely using high-precision weapons;
- considerable growth of combat range owing to an increase
in the internal fuel capacity;
- better pilot-to-aircraft interface in the cockpit;
- introduction of new-generation equipment.
The external changes between the MiG-33 and the MiG-29 are
negligable and confined chiefly to the following:
- Changes in the intakes' geometry including the removal of
the upper intake louvres, enlarging inlet dimensions for higher
airflow, installation of movable nets protecting the engines from
the ingestion of foreign objects during take-off and landing.
- The number of hard points has been increased up to nine and
this enables either suspension of a 4,5 tonne bomb load or
eight [Vympel] RVV-AE air-to-air missiles [Russian counterpart
to the AMRAAM]. The MiG-33 can carry same types of
missiles as the MiG-29 does, and many more. For instance, four
air-to-surface missiles such as laser-guided Kh-25ML and Kh-29L,
or TV-guided Kh-29T missiles or four KAB-500KR guided bombs
can be carried .
The number of changes invisible for the eyes of a spectator is
greater. The MiG-33 features more powerful, upgraded engines
and the quadraple-redundant fly-by-wire flight control system.
A new onboard radar with a reprogrammable signal processor
provides not only a greater aerial target detection range, but is
also capable of detection of sea and small-sized ground targets,
ground mapping, terrain following and alerting to avoid ground
obstacles.
A new electro-optical sighting system (EOSS) provides a growth in the
target acquisition range, all-aspect target acquisition and the
capability of illuminating a ground target with the laser laser beam.
It also can detect a "laser spot" being created by an external designator,
identify targets and track automatically ground targets with the help of
the TV-channel. Modern interior of the cockpit features EFIS [electronic
flight-instrumental system] (two multi-function displays, a head-up
display, a track-and-alert system indicator). Besides, the MiG-
33 has more effective computers, running new software along
with [modern] communication, friend-or-foe identification and electronic
warfare systems.
In an effort to reduce the weight and the number of
manufacturing hours as well as to achieve a higher level of
quality, the forward fuselage (including the cockpit section)
is made of aluminium-lithium alloy by means of welding. A
variety of systems and devices have been modernised, including
the landing gear.
The flight performance and the handling qualities either remain
the same [as those of the MiG-29] or boast an improvement, this
is due to the new engine and the fly-by-wire system. The combat
range saw a considerable increase owing to the enlarged fuel
capacity. For an aerial close-in engagement (five 360-degree turns,
load of two medium, two short range missiles, three drop fuel tanks)
the combat radius is 1,250 km. The subsonic interception mission
range (M=0.85, armament of four medium range missiles, three drop
fuel tanks) is 1,440 km, and for a ground target attack mission with
air-to-surface missiles (load of two air-to-surface, two short
range air-to-air missiles, three drop fuel tanks) the comabt radius is
1,190 km.
The overall combat potential was increased by a factor of 1.5 in
air-to-air missions and by a fcator of 3.4 in ground attack missions.
The aircraft has successfully undergone the manufacturer's flight
tests. Moscow Aircraft Production Organisation MAPO has produced the
initial batch of aircraft and is now preparing for mass
production. The Russian-built equipment can be replaced by or
added to western avionics if a customer wishes this. Containers
housing TV-aiming systems can also be fitted. The MiG-33 has good growth
potential to increase its combat efficiency.
The MiG-29/MiG-33/F-16C/F-18C Comparison
>From the authors' viewpoint, those articles and
brochures that sometimes appear in the West comparing the
modernised F-16C and F-18C with the first series MiG-29s,
which date back to 1982-1984, are incorrect. It would be more correct to
compare these [F-16C and F-18C] aircraft with the MiG-29s built
in the last [few] years and the MiG-33. We did this in the attached
tables.
Among others, there are the following advantages of the MiG-29
and the MiG-33 over the F-16C and the F-18C:
- The MiGs feature more complex aiming systems, incorporating
the radar, the OESS and the helmet-mounted sight meanwhile the
American fighters have [only] radars and visual aiming at
targets.
- The MiGs have radars with wider scan and track angles in
azimuth: +/-60 degress for the F-16C, +/-70 for the
MiG-29 and the F-18C, +/-90 for the MiG-33.
- The MiGs have wider zones of target had-off designation for short
air-to-air missiles suspended under pylons: +/-28 degrees for
the AIM-9 [Sidewinder] and +/-45 degrees for the R-73 [NATO code name
Archer] as well as wider target-tracking angles after launch 45 deg for
the AIM-9 and 75 deg for the R-73.
- The Russian aircraft's assigned calendar lifetime is longer (25
years). This has been proved by the operational experience
of the previous models (the MiG-21, the MiG-23 and the MiG-29).
- The MiGs have more effective, in terms of accuracy, methods
of gun firing which are coupled with the larger calibre of the
cannon (30-mm against 20-mm).
- The twin-engine MiG-29 has better flight safety compared with
the single-engine F-16.
Economical factors are of great significance when it comes to
choosing what type of aircraft to buy. Their influence is the key to
understanding why the majority of nations (about 80 countries)
prefer to buy only light-weight fighters like the MiG-29, the
F-16, the F-18, and the Mirage 2000. Heavy-weight fighters, the
F-15 and the Su-27, can be found in service only in the CIS,
the USA, Saudi Arabia, Japan, Israel and China. Furthermore, in
these countries their share is less than that of light-weight
fighters. Economical characteristics, i.e. the acquisition cost
and the maintenance cost, are also favourable to the MiG-29 and
the MiG-33. After 20 year service life, the economical benifit,
generated by a MiG-29 in comparison with an F-18C would have
generated an equivalent sum equal to the acquisition cost charged
for a new MiG-29.
According to authors' opinion - we are employees of
ANPK Mikoyan Mikoyan design bureau - data shown here
is in favour of the MiG-29 and the MiG-29M (MiG-33). The advantage
of the MiG-29 and the MiG-33 over the Mirage 2000-5 can also be
demonstrated in the same way. New designs, the Rafale and the EFA,
will merely be able to get nearer to the MiG-33 or its further
modifications in terms of tactical characteristics, albeit both
will be much more expensive.
Basic Performance
MiG-33 MiG-29 F-16C F-18C
Take-off weight (full fuel, AAMs), kg 15,300 15,700 12,004 16,800
Thrust with afterburners, kgf 2*8,300 2*8,800 1*12,518 2*7,620
Max. speed at sea level, km/h 1,500 1,500 1,470 1,300
Max. speed at high altitude, km/h
2,450 2,500 1,890 1,900Range w/out drop tanks at low level, km 710 900 800 950
Range w/out drop tanks at altitude, km 1,500 2,000 2,000 2,200
Thrust-to-weight ratio 1.09:1 1.15:1 1.04:1 0.86:1
Max. g load 9 9 9 9
Rate of climb, m/s 252 234 194 210
Turn rate, degree/s 23.5 22.8 21.5 20
High-speed interception range, km 345 410 389 370
Low-level penetration mission range, km 340 385 400 372
Radar aerial target detection range
(RCS=3sqm), km 60-70 80 50-60 60-65
Maximum AAM launch range, head-on 60 50 45 48
tail-on 27 20 18 18
Number of weapons hardpoints 6 9 9 8
Bomb load, tonne 4 4.5 ... 4.3
Combat readiness coefficient 0.9 0.9 0.8 0.85
Maintenance man-hours per flight hour 11.3 11.0 1 8 16-18
Mean time between failures
in the air and on the ground, hour 13.6 7.3 2.9 3.7
Airframe lifetime, hours 7,000 7,000 8,000 8,000
Relative cost 0.7 0.8 0.7 1.0
