Mig-29S attacks 2 targets simultaneously?

[GGTharos]

Which radar, Kuky? Are we still talking the original N001?

[Teknetinium]

I like the idea of having data link on ET :)

[Case]

The N001 uses a twist-cassegrain antenna which means multiple reflectors, and that causes issues of its own - but perhaps not the issue I'm thinking of.

What kind of issues? I can imagine that the lobes are not symmetric or that there might be a loss of contrast in certain lines-of-sight that are obstructed by the receiver, but I don't see how this could and would affect a maximum lock range. Especially not one as fixed a range like you said before... in the end it all depends on the flux that the radar receives...

[Kuky]

Hm... is this good info on Su-27 radar(s):

 

http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-Flanker-Radars.html#N001

 

Has specified there for N001 radar some 43-53 NM estimated range

Edited May 6, 2009 by Kuky

[Frostie]

Sure, but you were talking about keeping a lock at 66 km, which has nothing to do with the Rmax of a missile.

 

I'm saying that if Alfa is right and the radio link between aircraft and missile has a maximum range of, say, 66 km, then that does not necessarily mean that you can't launch missiles at targets farther than that. You have to make sure the distance between the aircraft and the missile doesn't get larger than that maximum range.

Thanks for clearing that up Case and Alfa, to think me and 5000 other lost souls were actually starting to believe that RL Flankers could only lock from 66km away. Our resident NATO/Rus testpilot had us going for a while.:D

[GGTharos]

Also Jane's:

 

http://www.janes.com/articles/Janes-Avionics/N001-Mech-Fire-Control-Radar-FCR-Russian-Federation.html

 

Hm... is this good info on Su-27 radar(s):

 

http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-Flanker-Radars.html#N001

 

Has specified there for N001 radar some 43-53 NM estimated range

[Case]

Hm... is this good info on Su-27 radar(s):

 

http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-Flanker-Radars.html#N001

 

Has specified there for N001 radar some 43-53 NM estimated range

 

Also Jane's:

 

http://www.janes.com/articles/Janes-Avionics/N001-Mech-Fire-Control-Radar-FCR-Russian-Federation.html

Thanks for these links. Google already led me to them, but didn't answer questions other than clearing up what GG meant by the mainlobe being offset from the center.

[GGTharos]

Let's see, with a 2 degree off-bore and the definition of the mainlobe being the half-power point for the beam, could that possibly put the target outside of the mainlobe when the radar needs to be staring at it?

 

It was something like that - though I forget whose info I'm perpetuating here, I'm reasonably certain this was mentioned by the devs. On the other hand, the 66km (or thereabouts) does appear to coincide with a reasonable guess kinematic limit for the ER under certain conditions, so who knows ;)

 

What kind of issues? I can imagine that the lobes are not symmetric or that there might be a loss of contrast in certain lines-of-sight that are obstructed by the receiver' date=' but I don't see how this could and would affect a maximum lock range. Especially not one as fixed a range like you said before... in the end it all depends on the flux that the radar receives...[/quote']

[GGTharos]

Hm, I see now - SK had mentioned that radar - or rather, antenna type generating multiple beams and at some point those diverge enough to screw with the tracking system in -theory-. I haven't seen him around much lately, but I wonder if that theory still makes sense to him. It would be nice to know.

 

As for the data-link, Alfa, those sidelobes have quite a bit of oomph ...

[Case]

Let's see, with a 2 degree off-bore and the definition of the mainlobe being the half-power point for the beam, could that possibly put the target outside of the mainlobe when the radar needs to be staring at it?

Those numbers seem reasonable, as at the diffraction limit a 1 m radar dish at an X-band frequency of 10 Ghz has a beamwidth (lambda/diameter) of 2 degrees.

 

Still, this only sets the beamsize and possible the shape of the beam, but says nothing about a limit to the range to which the radar can keep a lock.

[Vekkinho]

Yugoslav MiG-29 pilot locked up and maintained a lock on a JAT (yugoslav air transport) DC-10 at the range of 120 km. DC-10 was entering Yugoslav airspace over Adriatic sea inbound from Italy. Onboard that DC-10 were Yugoslav basketball players who won World championship in 1990 in Argentina. So this was 19 years ago with N001 radar! Two ship MiG-29 flight flew to intercept and escort.

 

(DC-10 is of pretty same RCS as KC-10)!

 

So do not mistake missile Rmax with lock Rmax!

[Vekkinho]

The Su-27 and MiG radar of the aircraft versions modeled was not capable of holding a lock beyond 66km (indeed, the manuals indicate max missile range as 66km, but it is probably greater). The reason for this is that the cassegrain type antenna has an obstruction and so the mainlobe is offset from center. This caused the radar to be unable to hold lock at certain distance.

 

Are you sure it's not the pitot tube that blocks the mainlobe when centered! :smilewink:

 

Is that's the reason why 5 gen fighters had their pitot tubes removed! :megalol:

[GGTharos]

SK had some sort of hypothesis when he made that suggestion a long time ago; he's the antenna design expert, not I - so I wonder if he still believes in it. While there seem to have been papers written on the matter, sadly I don't have access to them; perhaps you do.

 

Those numbers seem reasonable, as at the diffraction limit a 1 m radar dish at an X-band frequency of 10 Ghz has a beamwidth (lambda/diameter) of 2 degrees.

 

Still, this only sets the beamsize and possible the shape of the beam, but says nothing about a limit to the range to which the radar can keep a lock.

[Case]

While there seem to have been papers written on the matter, sadly I don't have access to them; perhaps you do.

Unfortunately I don't. I'm just trying to apply the laws of physics on this.

 

There may be some truth in the divergence of multiple beams, but they are still coming from the same transmitter, so I have a hard time seeing how a 1 meter dish could run into problems at ranges of tens of kilometers. More likely the divergence means loss of sensitivity, but still, a large enough target should and would make up for those losses. Hence I'm not surprised by Vekkinho's post above.

 

Edit: with SK you mean SwingKid, right?

[GGTharos]

Vekkinho probably just didn't know that cassegrains come with a built-in obstruction ;)

 

Yes, I mean SwingKid.

 

Thinking about it some more, it seems like a central (or even off-set) obstruction would cause issues close up rather than far away, but that's coming from telescope experience, I don't know if the wavelength changes the name of the game so to speak.

 

 

 

Unfortunately I don't. I'm just trying to apply the laws of physics on this.

 

There may be some truth in the divergence of multiple beams, but they are still coming from the same transmitter, so I have a hard time seeing how a 1 meter dish could run into problems at ranges of tens of kilometers. More likely the divergence means loss of sensitivity, but still, a large enough target should and would make up for those losses. Hence I'm not surprised by Vekkinho's post above.

 

Edit: with SK you mean SwingKid, right?

[Wilde]

So this was 19 years ago with N001 radar!

 

Doesn't the 29 feature either a N019 or a Zhuk-M (?) depending on the plane's version?

 

Btw, I find it quite amusing how difficult it is to find actual information about the avionics being used in actively operating fighters. They're only quite openhearted about the export versions. But they hardly mention their own equipment.

[Case]

Thinking about it some more, it seems like a central (or even off-set) obstruction would cause issues close up rather than far away, but that's coming from telescope experience, I don't know if the wavelength changes the name of the game so to speak.

Exactly, but in (optical) telescopes the obstruction will always be orders of magnitude larger than the wavelength you're talking about (centimeters versus fractions of a micron), while I guess that the central obstruction for a radar is at least the same order of magnitude in size (both centimeters). That's why I said I don't see a problem with a 1m radar dish and tens of kilometers in range.

 

But since we're both not experts on this I don't think we'll figure it out unless we find a good paper or outside help.

[GGTharos]

I found something on arXiv ...

 

http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0712/0712.0911v1.pdf

 

This suggests that there's no beam-splitting occuring, or at least it doesn't seem to be a problem - at least as far as my intepretation of some of the graphs goes.

 

On the other hand, I'm also not keen to apply it to a fighter radar wholesale, since dimensions are different, as well as the purpose and likely the processing mechanisms (I don't think there's a notion of target tracking in a radiotelescope in the same sense for one)

[GGTharos]

There's also no telling if the N019 underwent any upgrades as well, for example. The APG-63 has seen a lot of upgrades, I think most often to software and less so to hardware for example.

 

Doesn't the 29 feature either a N019 or a Zhuk-M (?) depending on the plane's version?

 

Btw, I find it quite amusing how difficult it is to find actual information about the avionics being used in actively operating fighters. They're only quite openhearted about the export versions. But they hardly mention their own equipment.

[Vekkinho]

Doesn't the 29 feature either a N019 or a Zhuk-M (?) depending on the plane's version?

 

Btw, I find it quite amusing how difficult it is to find actual information about the avionics being used in actively operating fighters. They're only quite openhearted about the export versions. But they hardly mention their own equipment.

 

Yes, sorry my mistake, but it's not the N019 but an И019 (И - I for Izdeliye (product)). This N-I mistake happened after a direct translation where И was mistaken for N.

 

And it was a stock И019!

 

OK I found the data with lots of details regarding the topic of this thread, so here's the important part. It's in Croatian/Serbian but I can translate imprtant parts (underlined text) to the very word so maybe you all can learn my language a bit :-)

 

 

It says:

Introduction of MiG-29 was a quite modernization leap of entire YuAF. Only it's (Fulcrum's) radar И019 had a range of 95km (58nm) with a capability of tracking multiple and engaging two fighter like targets simultaneously!

 

Glossary:

MiG-29 = MiG-29

domet = range

95 = 95

km = Kilometer

nekoliko = multiple

cilj = target

gada = engage

dva = two

isto = same

vreme = time

Shall we close the subject now and admit that RuAF fighters are undermodeled in LOFC?!

 

+ I failed to mention it's a MiG-29A (9-12) I'm talking of, not a MiG-29S (9-13) as in the subject :smilewink:

Edited May 6, 2009 by Vekkinho

[topol-m]

There's also no telling if the N019 underwent any upgrades as well, for example. The APG-63 has seen a lot of upgrades, I think most often to software and less so to hardware for example.

 

N019

N019EA version supplied to Warsaw Pact countries. Lacks "SP" mode

N019EB an export variant. Lacks "SP" mode. More downgraded

N019M an updated version as a response to the compromise of the N-019 radar by a US spy. Increased ECM resistance, new software. Doubling capacity to 400,000 operations per second compared to the N019. Allows two targets to be engaged by active radar homing missiles simultaneously. Slightly increased range to 80km.

N019ME Topaz slightly downgraded for the IAF

N019MP version for the Mig-29SMT. Detection of 20 targets simultaneously, track four, and engage two. Ground mapping mode, acquisition and engagement of sea and land targets. Capable of generating maps of 15x15, 24x24, 50x50 or 77x77km with a resolution of 15m. Radar imagery can be transmitted via datalink to GCI centres or A-50 AWACS aircraft. Improved performance against slow flying helicopters and resistance to jamming. Uses Doppler beam sharpening techniques

N019M1 Fully programmable digital processing. 30-50% greater range in air-to-air search and track. Improved track-while-scan mode, with the ability to continue volume search for new targets while tracking 10. 4 targets can engaged at once with R-77 missiles. Air to surface modes include Real beam, DBS, SAR (5x5m), and moving target detection. Can handoff target data to the Kh-31A/Kh-35A anti-shipping missiles. Allows target handoff to TV guided weapons.

[borchi_2b]

thanks vhekkiho, i allways wanted somebody to show some prove for what we knew for many years. but allways this is bloged by the community. damn even the su27 can track mulitiples and attack them. but why do we discuss this in this forum. most of the people here ban hard ass facts, like we ban cheaters.

the mig29S (9-13) is capable to track 4 targets at the same time, like the su27, and with thier new radars, damn, they are even capable of more then that. the new radar tech is capable to track in theorie 1000 targets, cause it incorporates multi radarbeams sent form many many radar emmiters, in independent directions and as far the theorie, each beam is independent and could be tracking a target at the same time. same way works the radar of the eurofighter and all the new 5 th generation fighters and also the 4th generations.

 

but that level is bloged by the community here and the still bitch about the r27et, and other things which are way outdated by these days.

i can only say on thing. most of the people here should be happy that only the non sophisticated ARH SARH and IR missiles are inplemented in worng ways into this sim.

today pilots have to face even worth threats then we have to face in lomac, and still people bitch about shit like 27et. imagine somebody would fire a passive radar homing misslie at you. this is even worth then a ir long range, cause you here nothing and the missile tracks you for 130km just by locking you radarsignals. these missiles were built to kill awacs, but they work fine for fighters as well. the bad thing is, that these missles can also activate thier own tracking radar when they are close enough and the radarsignals they are tracking disappear, so there is no real way to get away from that bitch.

 

so please ED, for the patch that you want to releas for FC this year.

make the missile more real and give the mig29c and the su27 the capabilities they have in real. lock and track multi targets.

 

the eagle has so far what it needs, but some stuff needs to be done there too.

[Vekkinho]

^^^^

I second that

 

+ ED make 9-12 track multiple and engage at least two :v: fighters at the same time...

[GGTharos]

Man, I wish the MiG manual had some accurate data on this radar engaging multiple targets instead of this propaganda about it engaging singletons ;)

 

I'll believe your article over the flight manual any day though! :D

 

It says:

Introduction of MiG-29 was a quite modernization leap of entire YuAF. Only it's (Fulcrum's) radar И019 had a range of 95km (58nm) with a capability of tracking multiple and engaging two fighter like targets simultaneously!

 

Glossary:

MiG-29 = MiG-29

domet = range

95 = 95

km = Kilometer

nekoliko = multiple

cilj = target

gada = engage

dva = two

isto = same

vreme = time

Shall we close the subject now and admit that RuAF fighters are undermodeled in LOFC?!

 

+ I failed to mention it's a MiG-29A (9-12) I'm talking of, not a MiG-29S (9-13) as in the subject :smilewink:

Edited May 6, 2009 by GGTharos

[GGTharos]

Do you know when this one went into service and in what sort of quantity?

 

N019M an updated version as a response to the compromise of the N-019 radar by a US spy. Increased ECM resistance, new software. Doubling capacity to 400,000 operations per second compared to the N019. Allows two targets to be engaged by active radar homing missiles simultaneously. Slightly increased range to 80km.