GGTharos Posted February 16, 2007 Posted February 16, 2007 Okay, but this really means squat until the missile is in use. Besides, AMRAAM has a pretty smart fuze too - this isn't new. The METEOR's /only/ distinguishing feature at this point is range, nothing else. [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
RvETito Posted February 16, 2007 Posted February 16, 2007 Well according to EADS "METEOR’s ramjet propulsion system provides no escape zones in excess of 100 km and speeds of more than Mach 4. Even when launched from extreme stand-off ranges, the missile has the energy in the end game to defeat fast and manoeuvring targets. To ensure total target destruction, the missile is equipped with both proximity and impact fuses and a fragmentation warhead that is detonated at the optimum point to maximise lethality. " I should be more specific. I meant the R-77M-PD or whatever..- 160km??? I've read several years ago about R-77M that also should have ramjet propulsion but I doubt that this has gone beyond the draw desk since the Vympel design bureau is located in Ukraine hence it's not well funded. I can say nothing about the Meteor though, just haven't come across any sources. "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=
Anytime Posted February 16, 2007 Posted February 16, 2007 Now I"m with you, I was more interested in the RCS values though, didn't know the F-15C and SU-27 were so large. I should be more specific. I meant the R-77M-PD or whatever..- 160km??? I've read several years ago about R-77M that also should have ramjet propulsion but I doubt that this has gone beyond the draw desk since the Vympel design bureau is located in Ukraine hence it's not well funded. I can say nothing about the Meteor though, just haven't come across any sources.
tflash Posted February 16, 2007 Posted February 16, 2007 Indeed, F-15C & Su-27 (RCS = 10~15m2): 450 ~ 600 km F-35A (RCS = 0.0015 m2): 50 ~ 60 km F/A-22 (RCS < or = 0.0002~0.0005 m2): < or = 30 ~ 45 km ... something to think about! [sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]
RvETito Posted February 16, 2007 Posted February 16, 2007 I can't comment the upper numbers. Only the big difference between the MiG-29(5m2) and the F-16(1.2m2) listed there seems suspicious to me. True the MiG is slightly larger but they both share similar aerodynamic layout and if we exclude any rumours about RAM applied to the latest Vipers the RCS shouldn't differ so much. The MiG company says that the newer frames based on the M(9-15) line have 5 to 10 times smaller RCS then earlier 9-12 and 9-13 due to new shape and RAM application. One thing I believe about RCS- it is the easiest to speculate with. "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=
GGTharos Posted February 16, 2007 Posted February 16, 2007 And then there's the problem that the usual RCS quoted is merely the head-on. [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
tflash Posted February 16, 2007 Posted February 16, 2007 I can't comment the upper numbers. Only the big difference between the MiG-29(5m2) and the F-16(1.2m2) listed there seems suspicious to me. True the MiG is slightly larger but they both share similar aerodynamic layout and if we exclude any rumours about RAM applied to the latest Vipers the RCS shouldn't differ so much. The MiG company says that the newer frames based on the M(9-15) line have 5 to 10 times smaller RCS then earlier 9-12 and 9-13 due to new shape and RAM application. One thing I believe about RCS- it is the easiest to speculate with. The Mig-29 has two engines, and the fans are clearly exposed. This is what gives an unfavourable RCS, just like this is the case with F-15 and Su-27. The F-16 has a very clever intake that rather conceals the turbine fan from frontal aspect. [sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]
RvETito Posted February 16, 2007 Posted February 16, 2007 The Mig-29 has two engines, and the fans are clearly exposed. This is what gives an unfavourable RCS, just like this is the case with F-15 and Su-27. The F-16 has a very clever intake that rather conceals the turbine fan from frontal aspect. I'm aware of that but that still doesn't explain to me such big(eventual) difference. Like GG pointed- is this a head-on RCS? What happens then with rear hemisphere RCS, 3-9 o'clock line and especialy up&down projections? Besides, I've put my head inside in a block 50's inlet duct- I saw the fan ;), though it's indeed pretty good shaped from almost eleptical at the inlet to circle at the end. "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=
GGTharos Posted February 16, 2007 Posted February 16, 2007 It doesn't matter if the fan is hidden - yes, the fan has a HUGE RCS, but so does a properly shaped inlet. This can really go either way ... you could potentially expect it to act as an amplifier facing forward (because of back-scatter/signal bouncing around inside the inlet itself, and then back out) Note, for example, that F-22, F-35, and F-18E all have specially designed inlets to prevent such things. In addition, the F-16 /appears/ to have a few corners pointing forward more or less. That ain't good for RCS either. [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
Pilotasso Posted February 17, 2007 Posted February 17, 2007 And then there's the problem that the usual RCS quoted is merely the head-on. Worse, they estimate range from simple formulas calculated on the kneepad notebook. I've seen Radar range VS RCS figures before and they are very far from reflecting real world perfomance because not only the specs that come to light are off the real thing (classified) but also because signal processor affect the range, and its never taken in account. Multi hundred Kilometers detection ranges are all bogus. Not even for APG-77 mounted on the F-22. .
Pilotasso Posted February 17, 2007 Posted February 17, 2007 Indeed, F-15C & Su-27 (RCS = 10~15m2): 450 ~ 600 km F-35A (RCS = 0.0015 m2): 50 ~ 60 km F/A-22 (RCS < or = 0.0002~0.0005 m2): < or = 30 ~ 45 km ... something to think about! We still dont know if the export F-35's will have RCS as favourable as US examples. .
GGTharos Posted February 17, 2007 Posted February 17, 2007 That's part of the deal! [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
Pilotasso Posted February 17, 2007 Posted February 17, 2007 Well...knowing americans policy atitude torwards things like trusting nobody fully I bet export machines will have certain safeguards. .
tflash Posted February 17, 2007 Posted February 17, 2007 It doesn't matter if the fan is hidden - yes, the fan has a HUGE RCS, but so does a properly shaped inlet. This can really go either way ... you could potentially expect it to act as an amplifier facing forward (because of back-scatter/signal bouncing around inside the inlet itself, and then back out) You're right about the inlet, but either way it DOES matter if the fan is hidden: a fan essentially plays tennis with the incoming radar signals and smashes them back right at you. But the rather good F-16 frontal RCS also has a lot to do with its extremely small shape. The F-16 was a wonder of efficient design, with lots of fuel and electronics crammed in very little space. But, IRL, most F-16's carry one to three BIG fuel tanks, a couple of HARM missiles, an external ECM pod, a HTS pod and/or a Lantirn pod and sometimes even 4 mavs on LAU-88. In that case you get a pretty huge RCS. [sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]
Anytime Posted February 17, 2007 Posted February 17, 2007 Those ranges were for an AWACS platform. RCS is just one of a many parameters that predict the radar range performance. That's why the Mig-35 brochure quoted headon tail on/tail on performance using a fixed RCS value. See here http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/LANCER/idr00012.htm Not too far off :P a normal single pulse radar algorithm may use:- SNR, peak rms transmitter power, antenna direction gain, rx antenna area, RCS, range to tgt, system load factor to determine the probabilty of detection for the given range/rcs values. Pulse doppler radar adds may more parameters to those and most equation will determine the probability of detection using a random number for the RCS value. Also phased array radars can improve the detection performance over traditional pulse doppler radars for small RCS tgts (for the same antenna area and tx power) by spending more scan time to filter out the clutter from the side-lobes, etc. A tgt trying to beam will still be seen if the seen on a modern radar if the power is greater than received clutter even with no doppler shift. Worse, they estimate range from simple formulas calculated on the kneepad notebook. I've seen Radar range VS RCS figures before and they are very far from reflecting real world perfomance because not only the specs that come to light are off the real thing (classified) but also because signal processor affect the range, and its never taken in account. Multi hundred Kilometers detection ranges are all bogus. Not even for APG-77 mounted on the F-22.
Alfa_Kilo Posted February 19, 2007 Posted February 19, 2007 I was at the 'aeroindia 2007' airshow in Banglore recenty where the MiG-35 made its 'international debut'. It was converted from the MiG-29M2 airframe (no. 154). The MiG-29OVT was also there, demontrating its 3D TVC system, but the MiG-35 flying display was the one that really impressed me. This prototype w/o TVC was performing some very tight low speed barrel rolls (and other maneuvers) at what looked like pretty high alphas. It seems that MiG has reconfigured the flight control system, as the 35's maneuverability seems to be better than the 29M2, which had the same airframe and engines. PS. the new gen MiGs dont smoke! I think you guys will be interested in this....... MiG-29K brochure: http://myimgs.net/images/srwu.jpg http://myimgs.net/images/erqj.jpg http://myimgs.net/images/fpvn.jpg MiG-35 ECM brochure: http://myimgs.net/images/rcnu.jpg The 'spikes' below the rudders on MiG-29M/K seem to be RWR receivers. These are absent on the IN MiG-29K as the Russian system is replaced by an indigenous RWR called ‘Roshni’, (Naval version of ‘Tarang’) which has different antennae. This system is also found on IAF Su-30MKI, Jaguar with DARIN II upgrade, MiG-27L upgrade etc. IN MiG-29KUB no 1: http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/NAVY/Galleries/main.php?g2_itemId=2480 Image of tail w/o 'spike' antenae: http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/NAVY/Galleries/main.php?g2_itemId=2519
RvETito Posted February 19, 2007 Posted February 19, 2007 PS. the new gen MiGs dont smoke! [/url] First, welcome to the forum!:thumbup: About time of getting rid of the smoke! But do you mean that the MiG-35 doesn't smoke? I believe it is still powered by the the RD-33K engines which are pretty smoky as well. The Rd-33MK with smokeless combustion chamber and FADEC are intended for the naval MiG-29KUB. They have powered the 35 with them as well? "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=
Alfa Posted February 19, 2007 Author Posted February 19, 2007 First, welcome to the forum!:thumbup: About time of getting rid of the smoke! But do you mean that the MiG-35 doesn't smoke? I believe it is still powered by the the RD-33K engines which are pretty smoky as well. The Rd-33MK with smokeless combustion chamber and FADEC are intended for the naval MiG-29KUB. They have powered the 35 with them as well? The MiG-29M and MiG-29K were sort of two sides to the same aircraft from the beginning and in their latest incarnations the commonology between them is even greater :) . As you know the RD-33K engine was originally developed for the MiG-29K, but shared by the MiG-29M, so I would be surprised if a new version of the RD-33K wouldn't power new MiG-29M versions as well :) . JJ
Kusch Posted February 19, 2007 Posted February 19, 2007 Phazotron radar Zhuk AE http://rs59.rapidshare.com/files/16699210/PhazotronMagAI07_full.pdf Give me "flying telephone pole" (SA-2)!
Anytime Posted February 19, 2007 Posted February 19, 2007 Nice brochures. What determines whether a fighter can be classified as a 4+ generation? To me its gotta be fitted out for NCW.
RvETito Posted February 19, 2007 Posted February 19, 2007 The MiG-29M and MiG-29K were sort of two sides to the same aircraft from the beginning and in their latest incarnations the commonology between them is even greater :) . As you know the RD-33K engine was originally developed for the MiG-29K, but shared by the MiG-29M, so I would be surprised if a new version of the RD-33K wouldn't power new MiG-29M versions as well :) . I agree but from what I read about the 35 still no word about new engine while for the KUB they said it's powered by the new version of the 33K. Of course in terms of airframe they are interchangeable but the MK features a new FADEC system which needs more than just airframe changes. And while the 29KUB is a brand new prototype we all know the 35 is actualy the '154' M, later modified into the two-seater M2. But since Alfa_Kilo says he has witnessed a smokeless 35 it's another story, hence my questions:) "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=
RvETito Posted February 19, 2007 Posted February 19, 2007 What determines whether a fighter can be classified as a 4+ generation? It's manifacturer.: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=
Alfa_Kilo Posted February 20, 2007 Posted February 20, 2007 First, welcome to the forum!:thumbup: About time of getting rid of the smoke! But do you mean that the MiG-35 doesn't smoke? I believe it is still powered by the the RD-33K engines which are pretty smoky as well. The Rd-33MK with smokeless combustion chamber and FADEC are intended for the naval MiG-29KUB. They have powered the 35 with them as well? Thanks :smilewink: well, the 35 smokes as little (or as much?) as the Su-30MKI if not less, even in extreme slow speed maneuvers. The 35's specs in a nutshell (from an article published in a Russian monthly called 'Take Off') MiG-35 (MiG-35D) Crew: 1 (2) Overall length: 17.3m Wingspan: 11.99m Height: 4.5m Weights: MTOW: 23500kg Normal TOW: 17500kg (17800kg) Max Landing Weight 16800kg Payload: 6500kg on 11 stations <increased from MiG-29K/M's 4500kg on 9 stations> Max Speed: Sea Level: 1400 km/h Altitude: 2100 km/h <this figure seems to be understated, as the 29M/K could do 2400km/h> Service Ceiling: 17500m G limit: 9 Range: <are these figures for a clean a/c?> w/o Drop Tanks: 2000km (1700km) 3 Tanks: 3000km (2700km) 3 Tanks + 1 IFR: 6000km (5700km) Powerplants: 2xRD-33MK/MKV turbofans with 9000kgf thrust on reheat, TBO 1000 hrs <big improvement from base model 400 hrs> and FADEC (called BARK-42), upgraded accessory GB KSA-33M with VK-100 turbine starter. <The engines are same as the IN MiG-29KUB> Sensors: Zhuk-AE AESA, tracks 30 targets in TWS, engages 10. Detection range against 'fighter' target 130-140km OLS-UEM IRST in nose. OLS-K IRST/ground target designator/recce system in conformal pod under starboard engine naccle. MiG calls this a/c 4++ gen! ...........whatever the marketing people feel like.
RvETito Posted February 20, 2007 Posted February 20, 2007 Thanks, that's pretty much answering my question. So the 35 is a much deeper modernisation, including new engine. But there's another question comming up- what' that MiG-35D? From the specs(bigger weight and shorter range) it leads to a two-seat version but it's already a two-seater so go figure... "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=
Alfa_Kilo Posted February 20, 2007 Posted February 20, 2007 The MiG-35 is the single seater, 35D being the twin. The prototype converted from MiG-29M2 no.154 is not the full standard a/c, but technically its a 35D prototype. Both will have similar front fuselages with the same canopy, as in the IN 29KUB. In the single seaters, the rear compartement will be housing a fuel tank (right behind the pilot, not a nice feeling) or extra avionics. The 35 will most probably loose its spine airbrake, its function will be performed by deflecting the rudders inwards.
Recommended Posts