Jump to content

OT: MiG-35 presentation and first ugraded MiG-29 for Russian Air Force [pics]


Kusch

Recommended Posts

Looks like passive array, Bars-29?

 

No - the "Bars-29" is a small version of the N011M Bars(by NIIP) fitted to the Su-30MKI and one very characteristic feature of this(the Bars) is that the antenna has a hydro-mechanical drive in addition to the electronic scanning.

 

The Zhuk-MF does not - scanning is all electronic and the antenna is mounted in a fixed position.....just like the one in the above pictures :) .

 

- JJ.

JJ

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 149
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Just noticed, one of the migs has a normal mechanical array radar. Wich one is that?

 

The radar or the aircraft?

 

The aircraft is the MiG-29SMT-2, which has the Zhuk-M planar slotted array radar. The original -SMT(9-17) had an upgraded N019 radar called "N019MP" with added air-to-surface modes.

 

- JJ.

JJ

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Rgr that. Do all these radars have a better reputation than the ordinary radars on the mig-29S? I would like to have a measure by comparison.

No it is not an "AESA" (active phased array), but clearly the Zhuk-MF(by Phazatron-NIIR) passive phased array.....a smaller version of the Zhuk-MSF recently installed in the Su-27KUB prototype.

 

- JJ.

[sigpic]http://forums.eagle.ru/signaturepics/sigpic4448_29.gif[/sigpic]

My PC specs below:

Case: Corsair 400C

PSU: SEASONIC SS-760XP2 760W Platinum

CPU: AMD RYZEN 3900X (12C/24T)

RAM: 32 GB 4266Mhz (two 2x8 kits) of trident Z RGB @3600Mhz CL 14 CR=1T

MOBO: ASUS CROSSHAIR HERO VI AM4

GFX: GTX 1080Ti MSI Gaming X

Cooler: NXZT Kraken X62 280mm AIO

Storage: Samsung 960 EVO 1TB M.2+6GB WD 6Gb red

HOTAS: Thrustmaster Warthog + CH pro pedals

Monitor: Gigabyte AORUS AD27QD Freesync HDR400 1440P

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Rgr that. Do all these radars have a better reputation than the ordinary radars on the mig-29S? I would like to have a measure by comparison.

 

Well you cannot really compare the N019 to the Zhuk radars - they are entirely different tech and at least 2 generations ahead. The Zhuk-M is generally similar to the AN/APG-73, while the Zhuk-MF is an electronically scanned phased array version - i.e. yet further advanced technology.

 

As far as "reputation" goes, there isn't much to draw on as they have yet to enter operational service :) .

 

- JJ.

JJ

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Man I want to fly one of these in Lock-On :D

 

And it just comes to my attention... a cockpit like that would be must easier to build, as in a home cockpit. All you need to 3-4 LCD's, maybe Touch Screens and v'oila!!! (don't know how to spell French) :D

No longer active in DCS...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No. MiG-35 is new construtcion. MiG-29 SMT is modified MiG-29

 

Ps;

Look like new part:

 

8ed8e81c3b520094med.jpg

 

 

 

note also the new vertical fin assembly...the leading edge does not continue forward like in previous versions..the one pictured goes into a steep angle when joining the airframe..take a look..

| 8700k @4.9 | Gigabyte Gaming 7 | 32gb Tridentz @3000 | EVGA 1080 TI SC2 | CV1 | VKB MCG PRO

 

[sigpic]https://drive.google.com/file/d/1FeLGqKyJ3K08k3z-7XaegWgRuGRGkKUs/view?usp=sharing[/sigpic]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Regarding MFD (glass) vs. Analogue

 

Glass displays have proven far more reliable than "steam guages". This is one reason why modern airliners use glass. In fact, LCD displays are now so reliable that the B777 uses a small LCD as the single standby instrument in case of a total electrical failure. Prior to this, even "Glass" cockpits used analogue for standby attitude, altitude, and airspeed. Don't get me wrong, I love steam guages and when I finally buy my own plane it will use strictly round dials if they are still available--(I fly glass for work, I don't want to do so for play). But the assertion that LCD multifunction displays are somehow less reliable is simply untrue.

 

I've flown nothing but glass cockpits since 1995 and have only had one failure. That was on one of the older A320s and the failure was not the CRT itself but rather a symbol generator (SG). And even then it was no biggy because all glass cockpits (certainly including the one in this thread) have display switching capabilities. An impossible feature with "steam guages".

 

Smokin' Hole

Smokin' Hole

 

My DCS wish list: Su25, Su30, Mi24, AH1, F/A-18C, Afghanistan ...and frankly, the flight sim world should stop at 1995.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Look what we'll get in that new F-16/smt sim...

IMG_5653_sm.jpg

 

What? The russian minister of defence? :D

"See, to me that's a stupid instrument. It tells what your angle of attack is. If you don't know you shouldn't be flying." - Chuck Yeager, from the back seat of F-15D at age 89.

=RvE=

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Glass displays have proven far more reliable than "steam guages". This is one reason why modern airliners use glass. In fact, LCD displays are now so reliable that the B777 uses a small LCD as the single standby instrument in case of a total electrical failure. Prior to this, even "Glass" cockpits used analogue for standby attitude, altitude, and airspeed. Don't get me wrong, I love steam guages and when I finally buy my own plane it will use strictly round dials if they are still available--(I fly glass for work, I don't want to do so for play). But the assertion that LCD multifunction displays are somehow less reliable is simply untrue.

 

I've flown nothing but glass cockpits since 1995 and have only had one failure. That was on one of the older A320s and the failure was not the CRT itself but rather a symbol generator (SG). And even then it was no biggy because all glass cockpits (certainly including the one in this thread) have display switching capabilities. An impossible feature with "steam guages".

 

Smokin' Hole

 

Of course, if the LCDs were not reliable they wouldn't be so popular nowadays. But some instruments that are completely autonomous(don't use any power) should never be removed IMO, namely the magnetic compass, mechanical artificial horizon(provides with attutide data for few minutes after loss of power of the gyro) and the aneroid instruments like airspeed indicator, altimeter and variometer.

"See, to me that's a stupid instrument. It tells what your angle of attack is. If you don't know you shouldn't be flying." - Chuck Yeager, from the back seat of F-15D at age 89.

=RvE=

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Of course, if the LCDs were not reliable they wouldn't be so popular nowadays. But some instruments that are completely autonomous(don't use any power) should never be removed IMO, namely the magnetic compass, mechanical artificial horizon(provides with attutide data for few minutes after loss of power of the gyro) and the aneroid instruments like airspeed indicator, altimeter and variometer.

 

I think you are making the mistake of seeing a mechanical device, say for instance an airspeed indicator, and you are claiming that the gearing, pointers, and other "clockwork" within are somehow more reliable than a screen displaying the same data. Remember, both types of instruments (analog or LCD/CRT) are receiving the data from the same source. And that source is usually dependent on electrical power. I can't speak for Russian fighters, but I can speak for Boeing, Airbus, Douglas, and Embraer designs because I've flown planes built by all four. And their sourcing for speed, altitude, attitude, and heading are all electrically generated. These machines (unlike 172s, Cherokees, and sailplanes) don't have simple pressure sensors from the pitot and static systems to expand belows and turn gears within the instrument. They use Laser Ring Gyros, and Airdata Computers to process the raw data. There is no path for this raw data to reach an instrument in the cockpit without the associated electrical processor--with a couple of exceptions. So a loss of all power, including batteries, on a complex modern plane means you are sh!t out of luck--i.e., you are now an occupant of a big lawn dart with a nice window with which to watch the last show you will ever see. With that knowledge, I want the most dependable display to convey data that is already computerized and electronic anyway. That dependable display is an LCD, not a steam gauge.

 

Smokin' Hole

Smokin' Hole

 

My DCS wish list: Su25, Su30, Mi24, AH1, F/A-18C, Afghanistan ...and frankly, the flight sim world should stop at 1995.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think you are making the mistake of seeing a mechanical device, say for instance an airspeed indicator, and you are claiming that the gearing, pointers, and other "clockwork" within are somehow more reliable than a screen displaying the same data.

 

Mistake? Me? Would you be so kind to point where I said something like that? You are the one who claims this and that. Again:

Of course, if the LCDs were not reliable they wouldn't be so popular nowadays...

 

Remember, both types of instruments (analog or LCD/CRT) are receiving the data from the same source. And that source is usually dependent on electrical power.

 

I'm aware of that. I was refering to autonomous instruments that don't need any power to operate. I'll quote myself again:

namely the magnetic compass, mechanical artificial horizon(provides with attutide data for few minutes after loss of power of the gyro) and the aneroid instruments like airspeed indicator, altimeter and variometer.

 

I can't speak for Russian fighters, but I can speak for Boeing, Airbus, Douglas, and Embraer designs because I've flown planes built by all four. And their sourcing for speed, altitude, attitude, and heading are all electrically generated.

 

I'm neither working on russian fighters and one doesn't have to in order to know that it's all the same for both military and civil a/c in terms of how systems works. I work with Ka-32 and Bell-407 helicopters. The Kamov is a modern helicopter with a lot of sophisticated equipement but it still has essential backup autonomous instruments. And it's hard for me to understand how come you as an airline pilot don't realise or appreciate how valuable these simple gauges could be sometimes.

 

These machines (unlike 172s, Cherokees, and sailplanes) don't have simple pressure sensors from the pitot and static systems to expand belows and turn gears within the instrument. They use Laser Ring Gyros, and Airdata Computers to process the raw data. There is no path for this raw data to reach an instrument in the cockpit without the associated electrical processor--with a couple of exceptions. So a loss of all power, including batteries, on a complex modern plane means you are sh!t out of luck--i.e., you are now an occupant of a big lawn dart with a nice window with which to watch the last show you will ever see. With that knowledge, I want the most dependable display to convey data that is already computerized and electronic anyway. That dependable display is an LCD, not a steam gauge.

 

See my point? In case of a total power loss in a multimillion $ modern a/c, lets say A380 or F-22(may be a 1/1000000000 event or even less, but still...) instruments costing few bucks could prevent you, your crew and the passengers be "...an occupant of a big lawn dart with a nice window with which to watch the last show you will ever see".

"See, to me that's a stupid instrument. It tells what your angle of attack is. If you don't know you shouldn't be flying." - Chuck Yeager, from the back seat of F-15D at age 89.

=RvE=

Link to comment
Share on other sites

AirTito,

 

Didn't mean to offend you or mis-state your posts. I too like simple, reliable, and redundant systems. The modern airplanes with which I am familiar do not have the basic instrumentation that you describe (other than a wet compass). Everything that I have flown in the last 14 years has been equipped with either round dials or display screens that convey electrically generated information. Until your post, I had no idea the modern eastern fighters and combat helicopters used such simple instrumentation, even as backups.

 

Modern airliners (and by modern, I mean MOST airliners built since 1970) are completely dependent on at least one source of electrical and/or hydraulic power. Loss of both would mean disaster. But wait! Why hasn't this been a problem? Because these systems are so redundant and now so dependable, that almost no one is looking back. Airliners fly 15 hours a day. Most fighters would be considered busy to fly that much in a week...or even a month. But despite the heavy use these systems hold up. And I believe they hold up better than "simpler" systems which are more subject to mechanical wear and tear.

 

Honestly, I love the Su25 in Lock-On. (And if I could get close enough to my targets to destroy them before being destroyed myself, I'd fly it more online.) But I thought even that old crate used more complex inertial and air-data sourced instrumentation. The fact that it is perhaps closer to the Cessnas I once flew astounds me.

 

I'll stand down Tito. BTW, I used to fly in Europe with several Bulgarian pilots--including the president of BULALPA. Great guys.

 

See you online.

 

Smokin' Hole

Smokin' Hole

 

My DCS wish list: Su25, Su30, Mi24, AH1, F/A-18C, Afghanistan ...and frankly, the flight sim world should stop at 1995.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No offence taken. Frist of all the Ka-32 is not a combat helicopter;) And that's bring me to a conversation I had with a former vice president of the serial plant in Kumertau, Russia. I asked him why the newer certified versions don't feature glass cockpit like the korean 32's(israeli avionics). He said- "What for? This helicopter needs only a pilot!":D And he had a point because the Ka-32 flies mostly external load sling operations where the pilot flies leaning on the left bubble-windshield with his eyes constantly on the load.

 

Actualy as you can see at those pictures the '154' prototype of the MiG-29M is lacking any backup instruments, so the russians are naturaly taking the same line. The cockpit of a russian modern airliner like the Tu-204 is quiet similar to the A320 for example. I have experience with both russian and US a/c and I can tell you that russian and american a/c from one generation are quiet similar in terms if functonality and capability. My area, the maintenance stuff, is totaly different case. A lot to desire from the russian side...

 

I know how safe and secure are the systems of a modern a/c because I'm doing a maintenance for living;) Still I don't see a good reason why modern a/c shouldn't have aneroid airspeed indicator, variometer and altimeter which needs only clean static line to work. BTW, I have a question about the A320- are the instruments(airspeed and altimeter) on the right of the PIC displays at this picture electro-mechanical or purely aneroid with direct static line to them?

open.file?id=0176187&size=L&width=1024&height=697&sok=&photo_nr=

 

About the Su-25 in LO. IRL the Su-25 has two navigation subsystems, both use ground equipement(beacons). Those are the RSBN, analogue to the american TACAN radionavigation system, and an ADF. This has not been modelled so far. We'll have to wait for Black Shark where the navigation is supposed to be modelled pretty good. Only for the Ka-50 though.

"See, to me that's a stupid instrument. It tells what your angle of attack is. If you don't know you shouldn't be flying." - Chuck Yeager, from the back seat of F-15D at age 89.

=RvE=

Link to comment
Share on other sites

...BTW, I have a question about the A320- are the instruments(airspeed and altimeter) on the right of the PIC displays at this picture electro-mechanical or purely aneroid with direct static line to them?

 

They are aneroid and receive pitot and static data directly from their own ports. (Yes, I know, that isn't quite what I previously said, but I lied :megalol:). The standby Airspeed and Altimeter do not need electrical power but the standby attitude indicator and RMI do. None are very accurate and I'd hate to have to rely on standby instruments to get me down in low IFR conditions. Newer designs (which I haven't flown) must still get their data from the same direct feed from the ports but use LCD displays (I assume with internal battery backup).

 

BTW, the best instrument by far is still the little tuft of yarn on the canopy (yaw string).

 

Smokin' Hole

Smokin' Hole

 

My DCS wish list: Su25, Su30, Mi24, AH1, F/A-18C, Afghanistan ...and frankly, the flight sim world should stop at 1995.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest IguanaKing

The reliability of a glass display, in my experience, is directly proportional to how much it cost. If you spend $27,000 dollars on a PFD/MFD combination, you can count on at least 1 failure per year...which is fine when it is still under warranty, but after that...sucks to be you. Then there is down-time on the aircraft to consider. Some of these manufacturers of glass displays can't even keep up with the demand for exchange units, and aircraft sit on the ground for weeks, not generating any revenue. Now, if you spend over $100,000 on a ProLine IV or AZ-241 system, then you will actually get something that is more reliable than a $700 altimeter. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You two are so old school !! :)

 

You won"t see analogue guages on many new jets/helo's these days. The 2 I work on, one being fbw, simply have no need for them.

 

nh90-gallery-12.jpg

http://www.australianaerospace.com.au/Portals/3/Tiger/Gallery/9.jpg (count the joysticks in the Battle Captains seat)

 

AT

 

I couldn't agree more. :thumbup: MFDs, when they actually work, are pretty to look at, but that's about it. :D I see the pit has a standby attitude indicator in the upper RH corner. I wonder if it has its own ADC inside it too.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

They are aneroid and receive pitot and static data directly from their own ports.

 

Ahaaa...:D That's more like it;)

 

Now seriously, the whole idea of the LCD is natural evolution in the avionics area and there is no question that they will be the backbone of any modern a/c. EFIS are now getting more and more popular even in the general aviation, for example this Cirrus SR-22

Cirrus0001Medium.jpg

 

and this Diamond DA-42

DSC00034Medium.jpg

 

They are good but IguanaKing said something very important and unfortunately very true- they are very expensive. As for reliability I could trust the words of another person involved with maintenance since I don't have any experience with avionics. Sure, the word 'multifunctional' is the key but the question is: is it worth paying 100 times more money for something that is not 100 times more functional?

"See, to me that's a stupid instrument. It tells what your angle of attack is. If you don't know you shouldn't be flying." - Chuck Yeager, from the back seat of F-15D at age 89.

=RvE=

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is that AESA? I don't see any T/R modules - in fact, the whole antennae looks rather flat, instead of being "bumpy," like the APG-79:

 

APG-79-AESA-1A.jpg

 

versus "smooth"

 

IMG_5619_sm.jpg

 

There's no official word on what type of radar this is, but IMHO there's a good chance that it's the Zhuk-MAE AESA. Several clues point in this direction:

 

- Phazotron made an announcement in autumn 2006 that they were planning to fly a full scale AESA prototype on a MiG-airframe before the end of the year.

 

- The hexagonal distribution of transmitter elements seen here looks nothing like any published passive Zhuk variant to date (all of them either have a 'non-equidistant' distribution or look totally different altogether).

 

- The above does match the Zhuk-A AESA mock-up seen at MAKS2005 however. What's more, the differences between the array shown in the photos and the Zhuk-A demonstrator agree well with the changes described in various articles (non-slanted antenna, reduced diameter, fewer elements).

 

- The Zhuk-MAE is part of the MiG-35 configuration that is being submitted to India's MRCA competition.

 

Whether the radar is flat or not depends on the type of radiating elements used AFAIK, so this does not automatically mean that it's not an AESA.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Coolest cockpit here has got to be the EH101 Merlin:

 

eh2.jpg

 

Not much analog instruments there either

[sigpic]http://forums.eagle.ru/signaturepics/sigpic4448_29.gif[/sigpic]

My PC specs below:

Case: Corsair 400C

PSU: SEASONIC SS-760XP2 760W Platinum

CPU: AMD RYZEN 3900X (12C/24T)

RAM: 32 GB 4266Mhz (two 2x8 kits) of trident Z RGB @3600Mhz CL 14 CR=1T

MOBO: ASUS CROSSHAIR HERO VI AM4

GFX: GTX 1080Ti MSI Gaming X

Cooler: NXZT Kraken X62 280mm AIO

Storage: Samsung 960 EVO 1TB M.2+6GB WD 6Gb red

HOTAS: Thrustmaster Warthog + CH pro pedals

Monitor: Gigabyte AORUS AD27QD Freesync HDR400 1440P

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...