They might not have latest Russian weaponry, but MiG-35 is not that big of an improvement to keep it a br higher. But they have a good chance to fit other nations tech trees, if one of them would need a 13.7 multirole fighter
I think ultimately it comes down to what radar and weapons they add/withhold from them that’ll determine the BR. If they add a “theoretical capability” aesa option (like the aesa tornados, even though no aesa tornado sees service outside of Kuwait and Qatar at this time), and 77-1s, I believe that’s likely 14.3, in line with other light aesa fighters like J-10C, PoBIT and Gripen E. If it gets only 77-1s, then it’d be 14.0 since better than regular 77s. If it gets just regular 77s, then it’d be 13.7 like KR.
I’m mentioning the withholding of armament as a way to determine the plane’s BR since we have the F-2A ADTW. Many people have bug reported for AAM-4 capability, but devs have insisted on keeping it to a sparrow-only loadout so it can stay at 13.0. I’m uncertain if this will apply to any upcoming MiG-29 variant, but it’s something I find interesting to keep in mind.
All in all, Russia right now has 14.3 (and a very good one at that) but kinda lacks 14.0, and this makes me believe that we get MiG-35 with Zhuk-M and R-77-1s at 14.0 with potentially MiG-35 tech demo with AESA Zhuk, R-37M and maybe R-77M later down the line for top tier. MiG-35 9.15D might be added as an event jet, with AESA radar but older loadout of R-77s and R-27s at 14.3
So far it seems like only the domestic Russian version of the N010M Zhuk-M (Sometimes called N041R) has received newer stuff like R-77-1 integration, not so far seen anything on the export FGM-129 or FGM-129Cs Zhuk-MEs. Although this is more probably up to the fact export countries not having purchased newer missiles than the RVV-AE.
It was the 9.41S put at display at MAKS
MiG-29M 9.41S with R-27
(yes i know it says MiG-35 on it but its just for promo its still a MiG-29M)
3 Likes
Thoughts?
MiG-29 to USA
- Yes
- No
0
voters
3 Likes
3 Likes
Dog, difference between MiG-29M and MiG-35 is pretty much in the name. Same airframe, same avionics (or at least 80-85% of it). MiG-29 just sounds so 70s that MiG decided to change the numbers.
iam sorry but it clearly says Mig-35
the russians would never put “Mig-35” onto a Mig-29M
just like they would never put 941 on the 9.31
2 Likes
+1
cant wait to get the MiG-29M2 with the Su-57 HUD just for it to have the old 9-12 HUD symbology lol
6 Likes
and this entire MFD will just be an RWR page stretched to ungodly level
Also isn’t it a MiG-35 airframe?
4 Likes
shaped like a oval race track
its bort 747 so its technically a MiG-29M2 9.47S but its kinda whatever with the naming on the MiG-29M/35 like you said yesterday lol
1 Like
Yeah, that’s true. Especially with this one, considering that it’s a testbed airframe. It can have whatever the hell they put inside at the time, engines, FCS, avionics… It could have some Su-57 tech for all we know, considering that HUD looks like a Su-57 one (doesn’t mean that it is, it might be one-of-a-kind model specifically designed for a testbed)
1 Like
True, but there is one thing unique only found on the 9.41S/47S and that is the lack of IFR probe. Unlike on all other MiG-35/29K and MiG-29M 9.41SM/47SM which has one
Huh, i never paid attention to that. Well, you don’t really need an in-flight refuel for a testbed, so picking this airframe makes sense, with current MiG ideology of not wasting any resources. There is also a slight difference in a radome, you don’t have the signature teeth of mechanical Zhuk radomes of 9.41 airframes
the thing is they were not originally destined for being testbeds lol, so who ever bought these had configured these without IFR capability (Most likely Syria before their whole civil war thing happened)
If they were ever bought. Egypt and Algeria got SM version with IFR, S could be just a showcase model that was purchased with a condition of fitting an IFR and making it SM
that is what media and gordons book says atleast, i added a pic from it in the message above