Mig-29A vs Mig-29S in game ?

[Azrayen]

Ahem, in game the only real player fliyable carrier capable plane is the Su-33.

 

The Rafale project (currently under developpement) is announced to replace the Su-33 (for the navy version).

 

++

Az'

 

PS : R.a.f.a.l.e. I don't know why, but many (non-French) people misspell that name. :huh:

By the way, a rafale is a gust (of wind) in French. ;)

[Pilotasso]

Since the F-15 had no such ability itself at the time, it seems that assumptions about western aircraft weren't much better. :)

 

-SK

 

It was capable but the missile was delayed a long time. There were test firings in 1982 of the AIM-120A. ;)

 

EDIT: I know WIKIpedia is sometimes a shady referrence for accurate info but I found this:

 

The baseline MiG-29B has a Phazotron RLPK-29 (Radiolokatsyonnui Pritselnui Kompleks) radar attack system which includes the coherent pulse-Doppler N019 (Sapfir 29; NATO reporting name 'Slot Back') look-down/shoot-down coherent pulse-Doppler radar and a Ts100.02-02 digital computer. The original N-019A radar unit, which was supposed to put the MiG-29 on par with its Western counterparts, was a disappointment to the Soviet VVS. It had serious shortcomings in beyond-visual-range (BVR) engagements. Tracking range against a fighter-sized target was only about 70 km (38 nm) in the frontal aspect and 35 km (19 nm) in the rear aspect. Range against bomber-sized targets was roughly double. Ten targets could be displayed in search mode, but the radar had to lock onto a single target for semi-active radar-homing (SARH) missile guidance. The signal processor also had trouble with ground clutter, and ranges in the look-down mode were consequently further reduced. It was also quite susceptible to electronic jamming. These problems meant the MiG-29 was not able to reliably utilize the new Vympel R-27R (NATO reporting name AA-10 'Alamo') long-range SARH missile at its maximum ranges.

 

 

MiG-29UB on display, showing gunportThe N-019 was further compromised by Phazotron designer Adolf Tolkachev's betrayal of the radar to the CIA, for which he was executed in 1986. In response to all of these problems, the Soviets hastily developed a modified N019M Topaz radar for the upgraded MiG-29S aircraft. However, the VVS was reportedly still not satisfied with the performance of the system and demanded another upgrade. The latest upgraded aircraft offer the N-010 Zhuk-M, which has a planar array antenna rather than a dish, improving range, and a much superior processing ability, with multiple target engagement capability and compatibility with the Vympel R-77 (or RVV-AE) (NATO reporting name AA-12 'Adder') air-to-air missile. A useful feature the MiG-29 shares with the Su-27 is the S-31E2 KOLS, a combined laser rangefinder and IRST in an 'eyeball' mount forward of the cockpit canopy. This can be slaved to the radar or used independently, and provides exceptional gun-laying accuracy.

 

Wich definatly seems to support what I and GG have been saying all along. I need to dig my aviation bible when I get home from work.

 

Cheers!

[4c Hajduk Veljko]

It was capable but the missile was delayed a long time. There were test firings in 1982 of the AIM-120A. ;)

 

EDIT: I know WIKIpedia is sometimes a shady referrence for accurate info but I found this:

 

 

 

Wich definatly seems to support what I and GG have been saying all along. I need to dig my aviation bible when I get home from work.

 

Cheers!

COOL! I can now use WIKIPEDIA for EA missille references!!!!

 

BTW, Pilotasso, F-15's had to go throug upgrades before they could use AMRAAM. And that info is not from Wikipedia. I referenced the book and author in my earlier discussion on this subject.

[Pilotasso]

COOL! I can now use WIKIPEDIA for EA missille references!!!!

 

No, thats just you Im afraid... ;)

 

BTW, Pilotasso, F-15's had to go throug upgrades before they could use AMRAAM. And that info is not from Wikipedia. I referenced the book and author in my earlier discussion on this subject.

 

Such update was possible on F-15's that soon, it was the missile that was late.

 

BTW, my book corroborates my post above, Mig-29S has N019M radar, wich is a modified version of the N019 that existed in the A version.

 

Source: Great book of modern warplanes, by Mike Spick and Bill Gunston.

[GGTharos]

YEs, the F-15C had gone through MSIP 1 (IIRC) which gave it TWS, in 1984 etc etc - later they had to add datalink and software for AMRAAM, again IIRC. But by then the stage had been set.

I may have messed up my dates though.

[SwingKid]

It was capable but the missile was delayed a long time. There were test firings in 1982 of the AIM-120A. ;)

 

Against multiple simultaneous targets, with the APG-63?

 

I'll take that bet. :)

 

-SK

[Pilotasso]

YEs, the F-15C had gone through MSIP 1 (IIRC) which gave it TWS, in 1984 etc etc - later they had to add datalink and software for AMRAAM, again IIRC. But by then the stage had been set.

I may have messed up my dates though.

 

SK this is of secondary importance in this thread, but AMRAAM was to be in service in 1986, with the MSIP 1 as GG mentions it COULD be that the radar was already prepared, just not reliable missiles to go arround by that time. But then again this is going off topic. My main point here is to know if the Mig-29S radar was suposed to perform differently than the A version.

[SwingKid]

SK this is of secondary importance in this thread, but AMRAAM was to be in service in 1986, with the MSIP 1 as GG mentions it COULD be that the radar was already prepared, just not reliable missiles to go arround by that time. But then again this is going off topic. My main point here is to know if the Mig-29S radar was suposed to perform differently than the A version.

 

GG seems to be having a bad fact week. The whole difference between MSIP I and II is that MSIP I was for F-15A and MSIP II was for F-15C. Therefore, no F-15C ever went through MSIP I at any time. Further, MSIP I was cancelled, and even if it wasn't, MSIP I did not yet include the AIM-120 or the AN/APG-70 - rather, it upgraded the ECM.

 

Concerning the MiG-29S, perhaps the most important thing to remember is that by the time of its development, the MiG-29M program with the far more advanced Zhuk radar was already well underway and testing with the R-77. The whole point of the MiG-29S program was to try to retrofit some of that new technology into older platforms at low cost - it was NOT a precursor to new development. Therefore, we should expect the difference between MiG-29S and MiG-29A radar to be minimal - basically, the cheapest minimum modification required, in order to fit the new missile to the older aircraft. Much like the APG-70 was a drop-in replacement for the APG-63 - which I don't think is far off-topic.

 

-SK

[504Goon]

Where are you hearing this? The look-down capability of the original N019 made the West abandon its Tornados, Lancers, Intruders and other low-altitude strikers practically overnight. Maybe you're thinking only of Medium PRF mode?

 

-SK

 

According to the 29A manual, the detection and lockon ranges are in fact practically identical in look up and look down situations. This really suprised me, as i have too heard and assumed that the aircraft had a "theoretical" look down/shoot down capability.. Apparently the biggest factor is the aspect of the contact rather than it's altitude. Also it seems that the radar will start jamming itself when flying below 3000m, depending on the surface.

[GGTharos]

I'm having a /horrible/ fact week, in fact. It's all related to some off-the-internet stuff that's happening. Really, where to find the time to check all those facts. ;)

[504Goon]

Really, where to find the time to check all those facts. ;)

 

Get unemployed and waste all your money to useless things so you won't need to go out to spend it. In the end, all you can do is sit at home and try find all the stuff. :D

[4c Hajduk Veljko]

No, thats just you Im afraid... ;)

 

 

 

Such update was possible on F-15's that soon, it was the missile that was late.

 

BTW, my book corroborates my post above, Mig-29S has N019M radar, wich is a modified version of the N019 that existed in the A version.

 

Source: Great book of modern warplanes, by Mike Spick and Bill Gunston.

If you can use WIKIPEDIA as a reference, we can use it as well, right? If not, then the post #27 should be editied and WIKIPEDIA references removed from it.

[Force_Feedback]

Wikipedia, man, after 6 years I still hate that crap, only difference is, 6 years ago only nerds (I admit) knew about it, and even then the info was unrealible at best. Nowdays it's infested by know it alls who don't have accurate facts. Not to mention everytime you try googling ('googling' became an official word in Dutch a few years ago) for something interesting you either get 100s of pages with all the same info CTRL+C/CTRL+V-ed all over the place, or some lomac-inspired "factz".

 

Sad thing is that certain Russian forum have become the main means for information gathering, and not websites. Same unreliability applies to globaldefense and in a lesser way to fas.org.

[4c Hajduk Veljko]

What is a negative? That radar's pretty blind looking down.

Quote ”The detection and lockon ranges in attacking the target in the free space and against the ground are practically the same and are dependent on the hemisphere …” End of quote.

 

Source:

MiG-29 Declassified Flight manual by Alan R. Wise, page 43.

[GGTharos]

Why do you think the MiG-29 needed GCI control?

 

Edit: A post by 'overscan' ... very detailed, but is it reliable?

http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php?topic=102.20;wap2

[4c Hajduk Veljko]

Why do you think the MiG-29 needed GCI control?

So as to guide MiG-29 to a R-27T launch solution and poor victim would not have a clue of what got him. Funny answer on funny question.

 

Why do you think Alan R. Wise wrote about radar ranges in MiG-29 Declassified Flight Manual?

 

Edit: A post by 'overscan' ... very detailed, but is it reliable?

http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php?topic=102.20;wap2

Internet forum as a reference? Where are the names behind the texts? So we can now use internet forums with authors that don’t use real names as references?

[GGTharos]

So as to guide MiG-29 to a R-27T launch solution and poor victim would not have a clue of what got him. Funny answer on funny question.

 

Here's a funnier answer: The poor MiG's radar pretty much sucked when it came to search.

Perhaps you should start thinking why the Soviet tactics were what they were; R-27T's and sneakiness mean diddly squat when those MiGs end up getting picked up by their opponents at twice the range they can possibly hope to detect anything.

Or perhaps it's that you thought US aircraft were flying completely blind, without AWACS; and that the MiGs had a free-roaming sneaky attack path - ah but wait! Their range sucked, and they typically trained to fly at medium or low altitudes so they could look-up and wouldn't have to look down. So much for being sneaky when you can't fly around the huge radar array of an F-15 4-ship.

I'm pretty sure if you asked a MiG-29 pilot, he'd tell you that the radar wasn't meant to be something that enhanced your situational awareness, just something to guide missiles with. And for -that- it was ok, it worked, once locked on. But when it came to search? It sucked. Big time.

 

Why do you think Alan R. Wise wrote about radar ranges in MiG-29 Declassified Flight Manual?

 

Internet forum as a reference? Where are the names behind the texts? So we can now use internet forums with authors that don’t use real names as references?

 

Hey, I questioned its reliability myself. However that manual doesn't say much; there's a number of anecdotes relating to that radar's troublesome behaviour when it came to looking down.

I'm sure you could find'em, too. Personally I looked for about 10-15 minutes only, and then I gave up because I wasn't finding references. But I bet you that if I still had access to scientific journals like before, I could find something more solid than some internet forum reference, or Yefimski ;)

 

I'm well aware of what the MiG-manual says. I'm also well aware of comments made about that radar by pilots who had used it or fought against it - almost every week I find out something new that trumps what I thought I had known well before.

 

What's the trick? Quit sticking to singleton sources ... or sources that are obviously copies of other sources. You'll have to judge what's reliable on your own - and the best way to do that is to get access to pilots of those machines or opposition pilots.

[4c Hajduk Veljko]

What's the trick? Quit sticking to singleton sources ... or sources that are obviously copies of other sources.

I stick to sources that have names associated with them. Not Wikipedia and Internet forums with nameless “scientists” ….

 

You'll have to judge what's reliable on your own - and the best way to do that is to get access to pilots of those machines or opposition pilots.

I am sure everything those pilots (nameless?) tell you are pure truths! And all they tell you is so classified you can not name the sources. He, he, he ... Lucky you, there are so many 14 years old here, that most of them will believe you.

 

…I could find something more solid than some internet forum reference, or Yefimski ;)

Ahhh, you sources are internet forums and Yefimski’s …. My source is Alan R. Wise, book ISBN # 0-7643-1389-4. He, he, he …

 

Enough said. I am out of here …

[GGTharos]

None of what they tell me is classified. They'd go to jail, bub. But I have no permission to name those people, so I do not.

 

I'm not interested in your opinion Hajduk, nor am I intrested in what you think of my sources. I'm more interested in how things actually work - you're just interested in throwing names. Have fun at it ;)

 

PS: I have access to that MiG manual too. I knew of that passage well before you quoted it ;)

[SwingKid]

Here's a funnier answer: The poor MiG's radar pretty much sucked when it came to search.

 

Out of curiosity, what did your sources think of the APG-68? It didn't even have HPRF or a guard horn - both of which the N019 certainly did. Did it suck even worse, then?

 

-SK

[GGTharos]

I do recall there were complaints about the F-16's radar. However I was not interested in it so I haven't asked (further, I don't think I know anyone currently who uses or used it, but I'll see if I can find out)

 

PS: I don't know if the radar being spoken about was the 66 or the 68, either.

[D-Scythe]

Out of curiosity, what did your sources think of the APG-68? It didn't even have HPRF or a guard horn - both of which the N019 certainly did. Did it suck even worse, then?

 

Is this even a fair comparison? You might as well compare the radar between the F-4 and the MiG-17. Until the introduction of the AMRAAM, there wasn't even a reason for the APG-68 to have a significant BVR capability anyway. The N019 was to be used with the R-27R/ER from the outset and, in terms of size, the APG-65 was a much better match physically. Still, from what some pilots (East German or otherwise) have said, the N019 was a generation behind the APG-65 - obviously this is a subjective opinion and should be taken lightly, but it's a comparison nonetheless between the N019 and another contemporary western radar of similar physical dimensions.

[Pilotasso]

I do recall there were complaints about the F-16's radar. However I was not interested in it so I haven't asked (further, I don't think I know anyone currently who uses or used it, but I'll see if I can find out)

 

PS: I don't know if the radar being spoken about was the 66 or the 68, either.

 

The "certain complaints about the F-16 radar" were basicaly attributed to the baseline APG-66 where it ceased to work "properly" under given number set of circunstances and the bad resistence to notching while looking down. This radars range against another F-16 is above 30 miles as described to me, no exact figures (could be 31 miles :D ).

My brother has flown and monitered both this radar and the APG-66V2 (wich is equivalent in perfomance to APG-68V5, being the V9 even better) is light years ahead of the old version, not only in modes but range, ECM resistence, notching and certainly the "other" complaints you might heard.

 

Dont think viper pilots have much reasons to complain anymore, one realy cant demand much more of it being such a small radar, certainly not like APG-63 or 65.

[SwingKid]

Is this even a fair comparison?

 

The F-16 radar against the MiG-29 radar is not a fair comparison?

 

Interesting...

 

-SK

[Geier]

The F-16 radar against the MiG-29 radar is not a fair comparison?

 

Interesting...

 

-SK

As for me the first series of AN/APG63 is in balance with Mig29 9-12 one