http://www.janes.com/article/68801/ukra ... ew-fighter

Ukrainian aeronautical design teams have already produced what has been described as a "sketch outline" of a platform for a new fighter, which has been given the programme name of Legkiy Boiviy Litak, which is Ukrainian for "Lightweight Combat Aircraft" and abbreviated as LBL. The aircraft is supposed to bear a strong resemblance to the Soviet-designed Mikoyan MiG-29 in its external appearance, but the aircraft's onboard systems will be of non-Russian origin.

One of the main differences between this new Ukrainian design and the original MiG-29 will be its engines and electronics. Reports from Poroshenko's visit to the Ivchenko facility stated that the two engines would be "a design based on the AI-322F and the avionics would be of both Western and Ukrainian manufacture".

So a westernized and re-engined development of the MiG-29. Sounds interesting, maybe Poland, the Baltic nations and Bulgaria should look at joining this program? Poland already cooperates with Ukraine on the MiG-29, and is also working with them on tanks.

Would Ukraine be allowed to integrate western missiles such as the AIM-120, Meteor, IRIS-T or AIM-9X on this jet? With precision AGMs it could even replace the Su-22, Su-24 and Su-25s of Poland/Ukraine/Bulgaria.

seahawk wrote:

So an illegal copy of the MiG-29 with no engines, no avionics and no weapons, from a country in a civil war and with a dead economy? Yeah, sure seems like a good idea to invest into that product...

What's up your ass? Putin?
You're saying Ukraine should just sit back and not try to move it's military forward?

Damn UkrainianNinja, calm down.....I think the point seahawk was trying to make is the fact that Ukraine has nowhere near the industrial capability to develop a modern tactical jet fighter. Little interest in foreign investment for the beleaguered Ukrainian aviation industry, serious problems with the ability of the current government to function (http://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-news-from ... e-39077631), and the fact that with a war currently ongoing in the east of the country, there are other things the military and government need to be focusing on. Besides, the basic Mig-29 airframe doesn't have much in the way of space for development, the Mig-29S is about as far as it goes. It would be like the Russians making an aircraft based on the F-16 airframe and outfitting it with their own avionics, engines and weapons. Not only is it difficult to improve on, but basically impractical given the effort required for minimal gain.

UkrainianNinja wrote:

seahawk wrote:

So an illegal copy of the MiG-29 with no engines, no avionics and no weapons, from a country in a civil war and with a dead economy? Yeah, sure seems like a good idea to invest into that product...

What's up your ass? Putin?
You're saying Ukraine should just sit back and not try to move it's military forward?

Military Ukraine won't win from Russia. So diplomacy is the solution. The Crimea will be a frozen conflict, unfortunately. Eastern Ukraine can be salvaged, but not by a warmed over MiG29.

Your rhetoric is quite pointless and even might be damaging to your cause, the rhetoric, if you are not with me, you're against me, is old.

seahawk wrote:

So an illegal copy of the MiG-29 with no engines, no avionics and no weapons, from a country in a civil war and with a dead economy? Yeah, sure seems like a good idea to invest into that product...

Why would it be illegal? I think mutual agreements between Ukraine and Russia are essentially nullified.

Military equipment are not patented and are not covered by international IPR laws and agreements. Anyone getting the blueprints of F-35 can start making those in their garage with no fear that patent attorneys of LM come at the doors to make claims, unless having signed some explicit agreement before. I do not guarantee, however, that you would not have any other problems, some of which may be even more serious than money.

seahawk wrote:

I am saying that is is a bad idea for NATO nations to invest into this product at the current stage. If it flies, is in production, has a certified weapon load with NATO systems fully ready and has a working industrial support infrastructure, it would be interesting, until that time, a F-16MLU is the safer bet.

The MiG-29 is a very well-known quantity in Poland and Bulgaria. Poland already burnt its fingers on the F-16, and both have so far failed to come up with affordable solutions to replace the old MiG-29s. They both have infrastructure in place to handle the type, and are all looking at more independence in the void of the US in the Trump era. A westernized MiG-29 actually makes pretty good sense in this case, assuming they can keep it affordable.

seahawk wrote:

I thought it was a Ukrainian rip-off of the mighty MiG-29, with different engines, different avionics, re.designed fuselage and no OEM support structure at all.

They never said anything about a redesigned fuselage. I doubt Poland, Ukraine or Bulgaria rely on OEM support currently, they all rely on each other to keep their Fulcrums airborne. They all currently use some sort of local avionics outfit in an effort to increase independence from Russia.

seahawk wrote:

Buying MiG-29s is something I strongly support, as Russian made fighters are of a proven and high quality.

Think of it as a MiG-29 made in Ukraine with Ukrainian (and possibly Polish) OEM support. Of course, Ukraine could leave some doubts as to the quality. It could either be as good as any Antonov, or completely horrible.

seahawk wrote:

Buying MiG-29s is something I strongly support, as Russian made fighters are of a proven and high quality.

Buying from who? Are you suggesting Russia will sell MiG-29's to Ukraine?

Aren't all of Ukraine's MiG-29's in the ballpark of 30 years old? I assume replacement is going to be an urgent matter soon, presumably long before they can count on smoothing things over with Russia, and even if Ukraine could afford and integrate their weapons on western aircraft like the Rafale or Typhoon, would Russia not strenuously object?

So a locally built fighter seems like a compelling option, and a clean sheet design is almost certainly beyond their resources. What's left but a domesticated MiG-29?

UkrainianNinja wrote:

What's up your ass? Putin?
You're saying Ukraine should just sit back and not try to move it's military forward?

Well, I dont see Ukraine surviving in its current form past the decade. Clear signs of the country imploding from within.

Putin is following a policy of "Death by a thousand cuts" wrt Ukraine, slowly chipping away at Ukraines territory - The secession of Crimea was just the first step in this direction. Ukraine can only survive as long as the West desires to see a buffer between itself & an resurgent Russian Republic. The economic case for that policy is getting harder & harder to justify!

seahawk wrote:

Not for the Ukraine but for other countries interested in a more affordable fighter and not needing full NATO interoperability. NATO members like Poland or Bulgaria would do better with used F-16s or Gripens, as they are fully certified with most important weapons systems.

They already tried with F-16s, and burnt their fingers on them. They are too expensive and maintenance intensive to operate compared to the MiG-29. There is a reason why Poland still hasn't gotten rid of its (by now antiquated) Su-22s and MiG-29s. They are quite simply dirt-cheap to operate.

seahawk wrote:

If you change the engine, you will have to re-work the fuselage, because different engines have different diameters, mounting points, dimensions and airflow requirements.

Some changes will be needed, but the design of the MiG-29 with its underslung engines means that it will be quite limited. And this is the country that managed to graft the nose section of an An-74 and engines of the Q400 onto an An-32 in just a few months.

seahawk wrote:

Afaik Poland is still using the old planes, because they do not have the money for buying new replacements. Anyway I see no point in investing into this theoretical Ukrainian Zombie-MiG for a NATO member, especially as they have no engines, no avionics and no weapons.

Poland's looking to retire the MiG-29 and Su-22's with new fighters; used F-16's are on the table:

http://www.janes.com/article/66925/pola ... r-aircraft

VSMUT wrote:

seahawk wrote:

Not for the Ukraine but for other countries interested in a more affordable fighter and not needing full NATO interoperability. NATO members like Poland or Bulgaria would do better with used F-16s or Gripens, as they are fully certified with most important weapons systems.

They already tried with F-16s, and burnt their fingers on them. They are too expensive and maintenance intensive to operate compared to the MiG-29. There is a reason why Poland still hasn't gotten rid of its (by now antiquated) Su-22s and MiG-29s. They are quite simply dirt-cheap to operate.

The reports I've seen indicate the opposite; F-16's require significantly less maintenance than the MiG-29 fleet. One example was the engines; by the time a F-16 needs an engine overhaul, the MiG-29 would need 3 overhauls and an engine replacement.

After 30 years of service, a F-16 would need two engine overhauls in that time period, but a MiG-29 would need 18 overhauls plus 6 new engines (assuming same amount of flight hours).



http://handle.dtic.mil/100.2/ADA448419

http://www.polishcimeeac.pl/Papers3/2014/002.pdf

ThePointblank wrote:

seahawk wrote:

Afaik Poland is still using the old planes, because they do not have the money for buying new replacements. Anyway I see no point in investing into this theoretical Ukrainian Zombie-MiG for a NATO member, especially as they have no engines, no avionics and no weapons.

Poland's looking to retire the MiG-29 and Su-22's with new fighters; used F-16's are on the table:

http://www.janes.com/article/66925/pola ... r-aircraft

96 a/c to be purchased as a stop-gab measure for the F-35. Quite a few to replace 32 MiG-29s and 32 Su-22s.

Back to the subject, how difficult would it be to design a new airframe? As I understand it, the airframe isn't the most difficult part of a fighter aircraft.

seahawk wrote:

, as Russian made fighters are of a proven and high quality.

Excellent aerodynamics for a 70s design. That is about it. Engine TBO is low, combat value so far is basically zero.

Best regards
Thomas

defence-blog.com has an article on the proposed LBL, with picture.



According to the article, the LBL would be a 2-seat subsonic aircraft, i.e., nothing like the Mig-29. It could do ground attack missions, but seems not suitable to replace the Mig-29 as an air superiority fighter.

Main specifications:

- Maximum true airspeed 1040 km/h
- Range 780 km
- Service ceiling 14,000 m
- Combat load 3,000 kg

http://defence-blog.com/news/ukraine-to ... craft.html

Looks more like a trainer.

Dutchy wrote:

Looks more like a trainer.

It looks like a twin-fin version of the Chinese L-15, which would explain the odd engine choice. The L-15 uses the same engine. Still doesn't explain that the Ukrainians describe it as a MiG-29 airframe with Ukrainian systems.

ThePointblank wrote:

Poland's looking to retire the MiG-29 and Su-22's with new fighters; used F-16's are on the table:

Looks like you were wrong as usual:

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/artic ... on-435508/

Even used F-16s are too expensive by Polish standards.