First-hand account of MiG-29 radar

[RedTiger]

On a strategic level it was a fantastic radar. It practically wiped out the entire US fleet of F-111 and A-6 and made the B-1B and Tornado IDS obsolete overnight, without ever firing a shot. By contrast, the F-15 and its radar killed what - 100 planes?

 

 

I think it was Guderian that said something along the lines of "a tank's engine is just as potent of a weapon as its gun". I guess the threat of a radar's capabilities is just as effective as the missiles it guides. Why did they bank so much on the absence of look-down shot-down capability?

[GGTharos]

They didn't. This is why those aircraft are equipped with ECM suites and the like - in addition, the NOE flight causes issues for the missiles used. The idea was to avoid -detection- to begin with. MiG-29's weren't built to hunt down bombers - they were built to be vectored to them, and in that role they would probably serve about as well as a MiG-23. I'd call the MiG-31 a much bigger threat. Thus, the B-2 bomber.

[nscode]

Regardless of what we know now about the 29, and what we think US knew back then, or they say they knew, the fact remains it was regarded as a very scary thing to go against. Both when there was nothing known about it, and even more after first public appearances.

[Kuky]

Well I think that with good use of GCI MiG-29's are best used (and I think with this purpose they are designed) as fast intercepts of enemy fighters close to front line (short range) The MiG-29 is very small, fast and can take off from very short improvised runways. The air intakes and landing gear are designed for this purpose (rough improvised runways). Once close it can easily take out its target because it would be able to sneek in silently. Being able to get close, even if the target goes defensive MiG's agility is perfect for this CAC.

[RvEYoda]

Well I think that with good use of GCI MiG-29's are best used (and I think with this purpose they are designed) as fast intercepts of enemy fighters close to front line (short range) The MiG-29 is very small, fast and can take off from very short improvised runways. The air intakes and landing gear are designed for this purpose (rough improvised runways). Once close it can easily take out its target because it would be able to sneek in silently. Being able to get close, even if the target goes defensive MiG's agility is perfect for this CAC.

 

 

Well....it has a drawback though.

Also a discussion i brought up with the pilots,

I was surprised to hear that keeping tally on that 29

in a dogfight is apparently surprisingly easy because

of its huge smoketrail :)

 

[Esac_mirmidon]

One thing is get the smoke in sight, and the other get the tail in sight for fire.....XD

[Groove]

The Mig-29 engines dont smoke that much on full thrust. So in a dogfight it shouldnt smoke at all, maybe when the mig-29 pilot goes to idle for braking.

[Kuky]

Yeah sure Yoda, keeping visual easier would be correct if the pilot can see smoke... but if they are both really close who ever outmanouvres the other will make the kill. It's not enough if you can see the oponent if you can't turn on him for a shot and I kind of agree with Groove about those engine smokes. See on that screenshot you posted one has engines with lots of smoke coming out but the other doesn't have any... or minimal. On most video's showing MiG-29's on airshows the smoke is not consistent. It only smokes when engine RPM changes (I assume it's on idling) in high speed passes with full power I don't see that much smoke at all.

 

Also I remember while I was still living in former Yugoslavia, many years ago, I was once in military base Batajnica (I went there for testing as I wanted to go to military highschool) and I saw MiG-29 flying low and he went vertical right above me...did few turns and he was gone out of sight. To my recolection I can't remember seing any smoke at all... but I can't really be sure as it was long time ago and I was a teenager at that time :)

[4c Hajduk Veljko]

They didn't.

Yes it did. Why do you think F-117 was made, and all future designs had stealth in mind. At this age, even stealth is questioned as well. See what is happening with F-117.

[GGTharos]

The F-117 wasn't made to penetrate deep into Russia, the B-2 was. Stealth isn't being questioned; the F-117 is being retired because it is too expensive to maintain alongside aircraft that can do its job better.

[RvEYoda]

Guys I don't claim to have seen it myself, only what I have been

told myself by mig-29 pilots about visibility in a dogfight, and they have

trained that!

 

My question : "It must be difficult to spot the mig-29 in a dogfight"

And the answer was something like : "Not at all, because of our smoky engines" (i cannot remember the exact words, this was six months ago :))

 

In airshows iirc I was told that the mig-29 often uses different fuel than normal operations

fuel for less smoke (so the spectators will be happy)

 

Tito please jump in here any minute and give the whole explanation ;)

[S77th-konkussion]

One thing is get the smoke in sight, and the other get the tail in sight for fire.....XD

 

 

Given the state of training, conditions, continuing education, etc of the pilots- I would say that is NO problem whatsoever. Smoke or no smoke.

 

I continue to marvel at this foolhardy idea that just because a pilot has the tools to kill his target from way off- somehow this means that he is ill-equipped to fight up close.

 

Rhen must laugh his azz off everytime he reads how so-n-so is gonna do this or that in a real battle.

[RvETito]

Roger that! Coming to assist- bandits twelve o'clock high, hot, fox 1! Smoke on! :D

 

The RD-33 from all series (including the naval 33K) smoke like hell at military power. At idle and afterburner they don't smoke at all. I've only once seen pic of smoky engine at burner (minimum), it was a slovak 29UB, pics in the Military discussion section. I've spoken to Klimov design bureau reperesentative (the engine's designers) about that problem and eh told me that the reason for the smoke is the combustion chamber that've had to shorten to fit the engine into the aircraft airframe. As a result the burning porcess has become unefficient leading to unburnt products at higher rejime except for AB where everything burns.

 

It's a fact that one and the same plane- namely the '312' prototype of MiG-29K doesn't smoke more than any other fighter regardless the engine rejime at MAKS demo flights while at trials on the Kuznetzov you can see it smoking like steam locomotive.

 

Fisben, which is part of the ED team is engineer for the MiG company and he says that they do special tunning of the engines (I believe it's not the fuel) of aircraft planed for demo flights. Without having inside-the-kitchen info I think they increase the maximum EGT settings of the fuel governors. The RD-33MK, however seem to smoke much less as seen on the MiG-35 videos. You can check at pilot.strizhi.ru the MiG-29KUB's maiden flight the difference between the new plane and the escorting MiG-29UB. So they might have solved the problem.

 

Both the MiG-29 and Su-27 have a switch "Режим двигателей-> Боевой- Учебно-боевой" (Engines mode-> Combat- Training) which allow full and reduced power to save the short service life of the engine. AFAIK the german MiGs have run exactly on Training mode (10% less thrust). The difference between the two modes is in the maximum EGT settings: lower EGT- more smoke and better engine endurance, higher EGT- less smoke, shorter engine life but full 8300kgf available. Kick it! :D

 

AFAIK, most MiG-29 operators use reduced power (smoky-smoky) in peace time nowadays.

[RedTiger]

Thanks for the info AirTito, that's very interesting. It almost reminds me of WWII fighters with that extra WEP available in combat.

[nscode]

And have you ever seen a 29 who's engines smoke differently.. I mean one much more than the other... or were ours unique in that way :D

[RvETito]

Thanks for the info AirTito, that's very interesting. It almost reminds me of WWII fighters with that extra WEP available in combat.

 

AFAIK this requires maintenance actions i.e. you can't just switch that in flight and go "Wohooo!" :D Eh Yoda ;)

[RvETito]

I just learnt something very interesting about the MiG-29- it is not possible to use R-73 and R-60 during a single flight. The WCS can work only with one type of short range missiles and the switching, like the engines mode, can happen only after maintenance on the ground. So all pictures that show mixed loadout of R-73 and R-60 are fake, the plane can carry them in any combo but can fire only one type.

 

So, one more 'illegal' loadout in LO :D But who needs R-60 anyway? ;)

[SwingKid]

I just learnt something very interesting about the MiG-29- it is not possible to use R-73 and R-60 during a single flight. The WCS can work only with one type of short range missiles and the switching, like the engines mode, can happen only after maintenance on the ground. So all pictures that show mixed loadout of R-73 and R-60 are fake, the plane can carry them in any combo but can fire only one type.

 

What does this mean for RVV-AE on the outer pylons?

[Kuky]

I just learnt something very interesting about the MiG-29- it is not possible to use R-73 and R-60 during a single flight. The WCS can work only with one type of short range missiles and the switching, like the engines mode, can happen only after maintenance on the ground. So all pictures that show mixed loadout of R-73 and R-60 are fake, the plane can carry them in any combo but can fire only one type.

 

Wow... that is very interesting... I'll make sure I never mix the 2 on the MiG-29 from now on :smartass:

[Dudikoff]

But the eagle still had a tremendous range advantage, allowing a flight to pop a bunch of migs, then extend and come back for another try. The MiG-29 just wasn't competitive in BVR against the Eagle, in addition to the things you mentioned.

Lastly, the Eagle had TWS capability at least as of the first MSIP upgrade, AFAIK. So while they were limited to shooting in STT, sorting was eased and SA was increased by being able to TWS until it was time to shoot.

 

But why would you compare the F-15 with the MiG-29 which was not intended for air superiority (the Su-27 was designed for that) as he didn't have the range, the radar or the weapon load for that. It was intended to cover the frontline and duke it out with F-16s at worst. By comparing it with the F-15, you turn it's one advantage it had against aircraft it was intended to fight (BVR capability) into it's weakness.

[nscode]

You probably could take a mix of R-73 and R-60M, and could fire them, but you wouldn't have correct LA calculations for both, and would have to guess it, like in Phi0

[nscode]

What does this mean for RVV-AE on the outer pylons?

 

Except for the fact that it means that there are "illegal" loadouts in some pictures - nothing.

[SwingKid]

Except for the fact that it means that there are "illegal" loadouts in some pictures - nothing.

 

What do you mean, "in some pictures?"

To have R-73 on outer pylons with R-77 on the middle pylons is a standard Lock On loadout.

That should be illegal.

[RvETito]

You probably could take a mix of R-73 and R-60M, and could fire them, but you wouldn't have correct LA calculations for both, and would have to guess it, like in Phi0

 

You can take a mix but you can fire only one type, even in LMA (Phi0).

[nscode]

What do you mean, "in some pictures?"

To have R-73 on outer pylons with R-77 on the middle pylons is a standard Lock On loadout.

That should be illegal.

 

I mean pictures like this one:

 

It has a mix of R-60 and R-73.

 

Tito (like others before him) suggests that this can not be operational. You can ether have R-60 or R-73 as short range weapons (2xR-27+4xR60 or 2xR27+4xR73 or 6xR60 or 6xR73)

Why would this have anything to do with RVV-AE? In fact, this is about the early WCS, we don't know if the upgraded WCS has the same limitations.