SUBS17 Posted November 5, 2006 Posted November 5, 2006 Heres some interesting info on the German Mig29A by F4 pilot. http://www.aeronautics.ru/mig29site2.htm I read this on Frugals, very interesting it only has 3 steerpoints. [sIGPIC] [/sIGPIC]
Black_Hawk Posted November 5, 2006 Posted November 5, 2006 Note that the guy is talking about one of the earliest (and downgraded) variants of the Fulcrum. I'm sure that newer variants are better in technical aspect ;) 159th GAR LockOnFiles CAW Team
HRZ Posted November 5, 2006 Posted November 5, 2006 Note that the guy is talking about one of the earliest (and downgraded) variants of the Fulcrum. I'm sure that newer variants are better in technical aspect ;) Yeah, I think even the RuAF Mig29A's were somewhat more capable then the G versions.
tflash Posted November 5, 2006 Posted November 5, 2006 The R-73 must have been impressive, since it led the German government to pull out of Asraam and favouring the highly manoevrable Iris-T instead. It's an interesting chain of events: - In the 1982 Falkland war, the all-aspect AIM-9L made a decisive difference - same goes for Python 3 in the 1982 lebanon war - Since the Vietname era, most radar-guided missiles however fail in the end game - The Lima and Mike sidewinders become Nato standard weapons - The Russians complement their radar guided missiles with semi-long range IR missiles precisely to balance the AHM problems - Europe is surprised by R-73 performance and finally decides to develop the promised but long underfunded Asraam and Iris-T - It is only in the 1991 Gulf war that the Sparrow gaines maturity and performs as expected. It proves to be a very good missile The Amraam is on its way - Late Nineties the Amraam proves a deathray and BVR tactics finally become possible - With Amraam + stealth, the US both has the killer BVR weapon AND the answer to it. - Meteor is only part of the answer, addressing Su-30 threat but not stealth - The Russians wait and see: the many projects at the moment are underfunded because no-one has a clue about the right direction to take. [sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]
MBot Posted November 5, 2006 Posted November 5, 2006 - In the 1982 Falkland war, the all-aspect AIM-9L made a decisive difference Actualy the AIM-9L didn't make much of a difference at all. All Sidewinder kills in the Falkland war were achieved from tail aspect. In fact the missile failed to lock from head-on on several occasions. The british pilots themself say that the engagements wouldn't have been different using the older AIM-9G as all shots were taken from the rear. This might most likely be because of the training and habits of the Sea Harrier pilots ( the new AIM-9L missiles arrived on the carriers when the task group was already on its way south in the South Atlantic ), but as I said the 9-Lima failed when trying to use the new way. Most interestingly is that the only succesfull ( missile guiding altough missed ) front aspect shot has been taken by a argentine Dagger using a old Shafrir-2 heater ! Sorry for the smartass answer, but the Falklands are my pet subject :)
59th_LeFty Posted November 5, 2006 Posted November 5, 2006 About steerpoints: To increase the number of them, U have to change the navigation system. But its not "only" 3 steerpoints. As far as I know, it can be 3, 6, or 9, depends on the number of tapes you put in the plane. [sIGPIC]http://www.forum.lockon.ru/signaturepics/sigpic5279_1.gif[/sIGPIC] I could shot down a Kitchen :smartass:
nscode Posted November 5, 2006 Posted November 5, 2006 And the "inacurate" navigation system he's talking about would be the inertial guidance system.... the one that keeps working even if al your beakons get blown up and all your gps sattelites shot down.. or up or whatever :D Never forget that World War III was not Cold for most of us.
Starlight Posted November 5, 2006 Posted November 5, 2006 the report emphasizes the differences in concept between NATO and former Soviet planes. It's not just a matter of which one is the best, like if it was a Dragster race, it's just about tactical situations and concepts. NATO fighters were designed to give pilots more SA, Soviet fighters were designed with GCI structure in mind. NATO fighters look sophisticated, technologically advanced, but sometimes fragile, while Russian fighters look rough and very limited but deadly at short range. A kinda modern version of the "F86 vs Mig15" and "F-4 Vs Mig-21" duels. Anyway what many articles fail to describe (but not this one) is that combat in general is not just decided by some technical parameters as missile range, or turning rate. sometimes there are equally important factors, which sometimes slip ignored... In this report Fulcrums are depicted as point fighters, with very limited capabilities under many aspects, and a very good ability to fight at knife range. But there are also many aspects of a fighter that are also important in a major war: low engine durability, non-LRU radar.... in a major war these issues count a lot, because when an aircraft is no longer serviceable, is just a mere target sitting on the ground. Then, also in the air combat arena, poor nav system, no HOTAS, poor SA avionics, are really important. Not all fights involve furballs which emphasize turning rate. And, even there, 28 against 26 degrees/sec make difference only if both pilots have about the same skills and training. That is not always the case. Anyway the report highlights also that it was about an early export version of the Fulcrum (though East German armed forces used to receive top notch export weaponry, you can't compare that with those bought by other Warsaw Pact allies or, even worse, by other 3rd world countries). Now Fulcrums are mostly C version and are still going through upgrades
SUBS17 Posted November 5, 2006 Author Posted November 5, 2006 The R-73 must have been impressive, since it led the German government to pull out of Asraam and favouring the highly manoevrable Iris-T instead. It's an interesting chain of events: - In the 1982 Falkland war, the all-aspect AIM-9L made a decisive difference - same goes for Python 3 in the 1982 lebanon war - Since the Vietname era, most radar-guided missiles however fail in the end game - The Lima and Mike sidewinders become Nato standard weapons - The Russians complement their radar guided missiles with semi-long range IR missiles precisely to balance the AHM problems - Europe is surprised by R-73 performance and finally decides to develop the promised but long underfunded Asraam and Iris-T - It is only in the 1991 Gulf war that the Sparrow gaines maturity and performs as expected. It proves to be a very good missile The Amraam is on its way - Late Nineties the Amraam proves a deathray and BVR tactics finally become possible - With Amraam + stealth, the US both has the killer BVR weapon AND the answer to it. - Meteor is only part of the answer, addressing Su-30 threat but not stealth - The Russians wait and see: the many projects at the moment are underfunded because no-one has a clue about the right direction to take. The Aim 7 and Aim 54 had already proved themselves long before the Gulf war in several conflicts. [sIGPIC] [/sIGPIC]
tflash Posted November 5, 2006 Posted November 5, 2006 You mean in the Iran-Iraq war, with 23 kills. Of course the Sparrow also has a lot of kills in the Vietnam war itself already, but with the older types, you needed to fire a lot of them to have a hit. In the incidents with Libian planes in 1981, many Sparrows missed. I think it is generally accepted that only with the AIM-7M, introduced since 1982, it became a very good weapon. AIM-54 doesn't seem to me very combat proven: the Iran-Iraq engagements are not well documented. (But we should discuss this in another thread maybe) [sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]
GGTharos Posted November 5, 2006 Posted November 5, 2006 The 54 was a good weapon for what it was designed to do, but it was getting old both in terms of airframe and hardware (basically material fatigue, vibrations, sloppy maintenance etc were starting to cuase issues) so at this point 54's probably wouldn't be working at peak efficiency. [sIGPIC][/sIGPIC] Reminder: SAM = Speed Bump :D I used to play flight sims like you, but then I took a slammer to the knee - Yoda
MBot Posted November 5, 2006 Posted November 5, 2006 The Aim 7 and Aim 54 had already proved themselves long before the Gulf war in several conflicts. Only partialy. The AIM-7E used by Iran had quite a bad record, altough about twice as good as the USAF managed to get in Vietnam with the same missile. Udoubtfully this is because the iranian aircrews during their training in the USA could benefit from USAF lessions learned in Vietnam. The AIM-7E was so unreliable that it was often preferred to close to AIM-9P range or, if the situation was dangerous, fire valiuable AIM-54As instead.
Pilotasso Posted November 5, 2006 Posted November 5, 2006 - The Russians complement their radar guided missiles with semi-long range IR missiles precisely to balance the AHM problems This interpretation of yours is wrong. R-27E and ET's have so much cooling time for their seekers. They are good for catching up targets where traditional short range IR missiles would fall short but still a WVR weapon. Any further out and the seeker stops being colled anymore and cant see but the hotest exaust, or the sun. .
Pilotasso Posted November 5, 2006 Posted November 5, 2006 Actualy the AIM-9L didn't make much of a difference at all. All Sidewinder kills in the Falkland war were achieved from tail aspect. In fact the missile failed to lock from head-on on several occasions. The british pilots themself say that the engagements wouldn't have been different using the older AIM-9G as all shots were taken from the rear. This might most likely be because of the training and habits of the Sea Harrier pilots ( the new AIM-9L missiles arrived on the carriers when the task group was already on its way south in the South Atlantic ), but as I said the 9-Lima failed when trying to use the new way. Most interestingly is that the only succesfull ( missile guiding altough missed ) front aspect shot has been taken by a argentine Dagger using a old Shafrir-2 heater ! Sorry for the smartass answer, but the Falklands are my pet subject :) One of the things that made falklands a hard war was the weather, no IR missile can see through clouds or fog unless your very close in not very dense vapour. You could only achieve that from close range rear aspect, never frontaly. The shafrir shot may have been done in a rare sunny day or away from the cloud layer. .
tflash Posted November 5, 2006 Posted November 5, 2006 This interpretation of yours is wrong. R-27E and ET's have so much cooling time for their seekers. They are good for catching up targets where traditional short range IR missiles would fall short but still a WVR weapon. Any further out and the seeker stops being colled anymore and cant see but the hotest exaust, or the sun. You are right they are not meant to replace the SAHM missiles, but the tactics was to keep the bogey busy with some SAHM shots - that probably would miss - and then follow on with an R-27ET shot, just like we do in Lockon. The maddogging "feature" in Lockon was of course never meant to be. [sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]
HubMan Posted November 6, 2006 Posted November 6, 2006 Only partialy. The AIM-7E used by Iran had quite a bad record, altough about twice as good as the USAF managed to get in Vietnam with the same missile. Udoubtfully this is because the iranian aircrews during their training in the USA could benefit from USAF lessions learned in Vietnam. The AIM-7E was so unreliable that it was often preferred to close to AIM-9P range or, if the situation was dangerous, fire valiuable AIM-54As instead. Hi, :) You are right MBot. By "modern" standards, the AIM-7E was a piece of junk . A "kill" in CAC traning was granted to a shooter below 10,000ft, only when the background was a deep blue sky... Until the mid seventies and the AIM-7F (used for the development of Aspide and Skyflash missiles) the Sparrow could only be used only very specific conditions ie it's firing envelop envelop was very small, and unknown to most of the pilots (no HUD with min/max range at this time = most of the shots outside the proper parameters = missed shots) :) Ciao :) Hub. - [sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]
tflash Posted November 6, 2006 Posted November 6, 2006 One of the things that made falklands a hard war was the weather, no IR missile can see through clouds or fog unless your very close in not very dense vapour. You could only achieve that from close range rear aspect, never frontaly. The shafrir shot may have been done in a rare sunny day or away from the cloud layer. Which is exactly why the AIM-9L, with its cooled seeker, DID make a difference. ;) The tactics might not have been adapted yet, but the far inferior AIM-9G seeker would most probably have had big troubles to lock onto anything in these conditions. [sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]
Ardillita Posted November 6, 2006 Posted November 6, 2006 The R-73 must have been impressive, since it led the German government to pull out of Asraam and favouring the highly manoevrable Iris-T instead. It's an interesting chain of events: - In the 1982 Falkland war, the all-aspect AIM-9L made a decisive difference - same goes for Python 3 in the 1982 lebanon war - Since the Vietname era, most radar-guided missiles however fail in the end game - The Lima and Mike sidewinders become Nato standard weapons - The Russians complement their radar guided missiles with semi-long range IR missiles precisely to balance the AHM problems - Europe is surprised by R-73 performance and finally decides to develop the promised but long underfunded Asraam and Iris-T - It is only in the 1991 Gulf war that the Sparrow gaines maturity and performs as expected. It proves to be a very good missile The Amraam is on its way - Late Nineties the Amraam proves a deathray and BVR tactics finally become possible - With Amraam + stealth, the US both has the killer BVR weapon AND the answer to it. - Meteor is only part of the answer, addressing Su-30 threat but not stealth - The Russians wait and see: the many projects at the moment are underfunded because no-one has a clue about the right direction to take. Excuse, you may be bad informed about the Malvinas war ("Falkland"). R-73 made a decisive difference: Argentinian pilots force the naval forces to mount giards on decks because their radar nor the harriers patrol could never detect on time argentinian mirages and A4 because they were flying too low. The difference you are talking about, was on the very few air to air combats, not combats really, since the harriers engage argentinian fighters while they were returning to base after bombing missions. And in this "engagements" the argentinian fighters were not carrying A-A missiles because of a simple reason: they hadn´t. So what difference did the english fighter got from the r-73? Sorry: a correction here. I have checked my notes, argentinian fighter had SOME, A FEW aa missiles , don´t remember exactly the name, shariff cames to my mind related to the actor but for sure the name is different. And I have an interesting note here: all the aim9 kill were from a rear aspect when argentinian fighters were returning to base and trying to escape from the harriers. THE ONLY rear head to head kill is from... and argentinian fighter not from an aim9 from the british
tflash Posted November 6, 2006 Posted November 6, 2006 Hello Ardillita, you must refer to the Shafrir 2 missile, the only missile credited with a head-on engagement, and an excellent missile for its time. The only thing I claim is that the AIM-9L performed much better than previous generation IR missiles. Much, much better. It' not so much a matter of all-aspect, it's mainly a matter of much more sensitive (while cooled) seeker. This is an advantage also in a rear aspect shot. I only mentioned it to put the importance of the Mig-29A/R-73 combo in perspective. That it proved far superior to AIM-9L was a real shock for Nato. [sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]
MBot Posted November 6, 2006 Posted November 6, 2006 Sorry: a correction here. I have checked my notes, argentinian fighter had SOME, A FEW aa missiles , don´t remember exactly the name, shariff cames to my mind related to the actor but for sure the name is different. And I have an interesting note here: all the aim9 kill were from a rear aspect when argentinian fighters were returning to base and trying to escape from the harriers. THE ONLY rear head to head kill is from... and argentinian fighter not from an aim9 from the british If you are interested, the argentines had the following missiles: For the Mirage III: -Matra R550 Magic 1, rear aspect IR missile -Matra 530, very poor SARH missile -IAI Dagger Shafrir-2, rear aspect IR missile -A-4Q: AIM-9B -A-4C: Possibly Shafrir-2 ? The Mirage III didn't have much success in the war. On the first day of Air-Air combat several R550 ( and possibly 530 ) were fired, all head on and without lock. No missile guided. After the loss of two Mirage III on day one, they avoided combat for the rest of the war and simply acted as CAP decoys. The Dagger carried Shafrir-2 at the start of the war on escort missions. Altough the missile was reported to be poor ( AIM-9D generation ), atleast one Shafrir-2 was fired head on wich guided and forced a Sea Harrier defensive. The SHAR evaded. His wingman downed the Dagger. After the this the Daggers carried only bombs. The A-4Q were armed with AIM-9B for air defense missions while based on the 25 de Mayo carrier. No weapons were ever fired and after the Squadron switched to a land base only bombs were carried. There are rumors that some A-4C did carry Shafrir-2 on escort missions at the start of the war, altough this is unconfirmed. So much for argentine A-A missiles during the Falkland war :) Sorry for going so OT.
Recommended Posts