Mig-29S attacks 2 targets simultaneously?

[Case]

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.

arXiv, eh?

 

If by beam-splitting you mean to say beam-forming then that's completely out of the context. The idea behind a Cassegrain or any focusing instrument is to focus the radiation, and not to use interference to get directional information.

 

I'm failing to see why this paper would answer the question about the maximum lockable range. The angular sensitivity graphs they show are typical in the sense that they show the mainlobe and the progressively weaker side lobes.

 

The point you made earlier about diverging beams would probably make sense if the radar was working on different frequencies, where each frequency has a different beamsize, and sidelobes could be overlapping with the mainlobe. Still, you'd have to be talking about pretty different frequencies...

 

(I don't think there's a notion of target tracking in a radiotelescope in the same sense for one)

Yes there is, it's just that your target moves in an extremely predictable manner... all you're doing is correcting for the rotation of the Earth :smilewink:

[topol-m]

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

 

In 1991, the exact quantity of fighters equiped with it is unknown probably is between 40-90 (various sources) some of them might have the ME version. The MP version has been and will be produced in much biger quantity as long the Mig-29SMT program is supported.

[GGTharos]

arXiv' date=' eh?[/quote']

 

Hey, at least there's -some- papers out there, even if the quality might be considered dubious.

 

If by beam-splitting you mean to say beam-forming then that's completely out of the context. The idea behind a Cassegrain or any focusing instrument is to focus the radiation, and not to use interference to get directional information.

 

Nope, I just don't speak the lingo. You have a central obstruction so you're going to get some form of interference/diffraction. Does it matter? I don't know - I figure they'd try to optimize things as much as they can anyway.

[GGTharos]

So at least initially there were not a lot of planes equipped with them. Is this the one with the planar antenna?

 

Are the radars now being upgraded to MP? Or, more to the point, do you know if the RuAF is converting or has converted to SMT (or other update) at this point and in what quantities?

 

In 1991, the exact quantity of fighters equiped with it is unknown probably is between 40-90 (various sources) some of them might have the ME version. The MP version has been and will be produced in much biger quantity as long the Mig-29SMT programs is supported.

[topol-m]

So at least initially there were not a lot of planes equipped with them. Is this the one with the planar antenna?

 

Are the radars now being upgraded to MP? Or, more to the point, do you know if the RuAF is converting or has converted to SMT (or other update) at this point and in what quantities?

 

I have no info about replacing just the radars of the older mig-29s. There is a program of modernization to the SMT standart which should include about 200 aircraft. Some of the already modernized units have MP radars others Zhuk-ME. But there is no info how much exactly have been modernized to this day. According to the inicial plans they should have been modernized years ago, but reality is different :smilewink: And i doubt they have more than 100 SMT operational. Yet there is heavy advertising of this aircraft (as it should be) and already several contracts with buyers.

[Boberro]

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.

 

I second that.

 

^^^^^

 

It would be cool and uber good.

[GGTharos]

I am a little surprised, I thought Russia had rejected SMT for either SMT2 or better upgrade :)

[Case]

Hey, at least there's -some- papers out there, even if the quality might be considered dubious.

The quality isn't dubious at all. These guys are explaining how to use an off the shelf parabolic dish as the primary reflector and a specifically designed secondary reflector to increase the efficiency and simplicity of a radio telescope. It's just not applicable to this thread...

 

Nope, I just don't speak the lingo.

You may want to brush up on it, cause beam-forming is at the heart of phased arrays, the technology behind actively or passively electronically scanned arrays, of which you talk so highly so often.

 

You have a central obstruction so you're going to get some form of interference/diffraction.

As far as I can see the feed horn for the N001 radar is specifically not placed in the center for exactly the reason you quote above (though interference/diffraction is probably less of a problem compared to reflections). This is what you meant by saying the mainlobe is not at the center. Placing it off the center means you minimize central obstruction while minimizing possible shape changes to the main beam.

[topol-m]

I am a little surprised, I thought Russia had rejected SMT for either SMT2 or better upgrade :)

 

No one knows for sure :) Too little info... Its quite possible the SMT standart modernization of the mig-29 is stopped in favour of the SMT2 (as they made an offer to Peru to modernize its SMT to SMT2) but the lack of info in numbers and in dates is REALLY frustrating. :mad:

[GGTharos]

The quality isn't dubious at all. These guys are explaining how to use an off the shelf parabolic dish as the primary reflector and a specifically designed secondary reflector to increase the efficiency and simplicity of a radio telescope. It's just not applicable to this thread...

 

The articles in arXiv are typically considered of dubious quality compared to stuff published in mags - while I don't buy that, that's the stereotype.

 

You may want to brush up on it, cause beam-forming is at the heart of phased arrays, the technology behind actively or passively electronically scanned arrays, of which you talk so highly so often.

I'm reasonably well aware of how beam-forming works in ESAs, and as far as I know the N001 doesn't do things the same way ;)

 

 

As far as I can see the feed horn for the N001 radar is specifically not placed in the center for exactly the reason you quote above (though interference/diffraction is probably less of a problem compared to reflections). This is what you meant by saying the mainlobe is not at the center. Placing it off the center means you minimize central obstruction while minimizing possible shape changes to the main beam.

Correct - that is what I recall of the diagram I saw.

 

Edit: There are also pilot testimonies regarding the increasing time required to get a lock on target as the distance to target increases with the cassegrain antenna'ed sets. Not sure what that means in terms of the physics - or maybe it's a processor issue - or both.

Edited May 6, 2009 by GGTharos

[GGTharos]

Yeah, that kinda sucks - all I know is that few few Su-27 were upgraded to SM so far or 35. Hard to get any info :(

 

No one knows for sure :) Too little info... Its quite possible the SMT standart modernization of the mig-29 is stopped in favour of the SMT2 (as they made an offer to Peru to modernize its SMT to SMT2) but the lack of info in numbers and in dates is REALLY frustrating. :mad:

[Case]

The articles in arXiv are typically considered of dubious quality compared to stuff published in mags - while I don't buy that, that's the stereotype.

Maybe for fields other than astrophysics... however, this paper was accepted and published in the Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society (MNRAS) in March 2008; http://cdsads.u-strasbg.fr/abs/2008MNRAS.384.1207H

 

I hope you're not saying that MNRAS is of dubious quality :music_whistling:

[GGTharos]

I'm telling you what the stereotype is. Personally I don't much care. ;)

 

I hope you're not saying that MNRAS is of dubious quality :music_whistling:

[Case]

I'm telling you what the stereotype is. Personally I don't much care. ;)

Let me assure you then that there is nothing dubious with the quality of this paper.

 

Edit: It is always advisable to check arXiv papers and see if they actually got published. If they were, then there's most likely nothing dubious about them.

Edited May 6, 2009 by Case

[Geier]

Yeah, that kinda sucks - all I know is that few few Su-27 were upgraded to SM so far or 35. Hard to get any info :(

It's stiil top secret info;).

[GGTharos]

Many of them are probably good even if not published in a mag ... it's just the stereotype. At any rate it is a nice place to at least get -some- look at papers for free which is greatly apreciated :)

 

Gone are the days where I had access to every journal in the world :P (Well, almost every journal)

 

Let me assure you then that there is nothing dubious with the quality of this paper.

 

Edit: It is always advisable to check arXiv papers and see if they actually got published. If they were, then there's most likely nothing dubious about them.

[GGTharos]

Oh no ... why are there Ka-50's hovering outside my window ;)

 

It's stiil top secret info;).

[Vekkinho]

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

 

Why don't you drop to TS and I'll introduce you to the guy who flew Fishbeds and Fulcrums in YuAF 38-18 years ago and who can explain it furthermore. He's watching Chelsea - Barcelona match ATM!

 

I wish you could read and understand Croatian cause it's not the propaganda article published by some "Red airforce-magazine" crap but a reading material of all 12 pilots who took part in 22nd June-27th September 1986 MiG-29 licensing that took place in Авиабаза Луговая, CCCP.

 

If you wish, I can have him sign that for you and send it over!

[GGTharos]

Man, I wish you could read the MiG manual and see that despite all the described modes, there is NOT A SINGLE MENTION of two-target track for a MiG of that era! The only possibility mentioned so far (not in the manual, IIRC, but extrapolated) was independent EOS and radar track, not two radar tracks.

 

Edit: Correction, just to get my own language straight - there is a mode where the MiG radar can track multiple targets, but it cannot engage more than a single simultaneously. At least, not the original radar which was put into those things - you need an upgrade which IIRC did not exist at that time.

 

And if you want to send me something, then send me the radar operations manual page where it states that this radar can do so - that is far more valuable than sanitized information from an article. Without some form of manufacturer confirmation, that's just as well as the Jane's article stating that the Su-33 carries the Moskit along with all sort of other stuff.

 

Why don't you drop to TS and I'll introduce you to the guy who flew Fishbeds and Fulcrums in YuAF 38-18 years ago and who can explain it furthermore. He's watching Chelsea - Barcelona match ATM!

 

I wish you could read and understand Croatian cause it's not the propaganda article published by some "Red airforce-magazine" crap but a reading material of all 12 pilots who took part in 22nd June-27th September 1986 MiG-29 licensing that took place in Авиабаза Луговая, CCCP.

 

If you wish, I can have him sign that for you and send it over!

Edited May 6, 2009 by GGTharos

[Vekkinho]

Let me assure you that N019 for use with CCCP BBC was more capable radar that what NATO could see with N019EA used by Laage's 1./JG 73 Steinhoff!

[GGTharos]

Let me assure you NATO itself already knew the full capabilities of the N019 at the time (see topol's post). I don't - all I have is a manual describing how that radar works, and nowhere in it is there a capability of engaging two targets simultaneously, let alone with a pair of SARH missiles.

 

The only Russian radar with such capability at the time was the MiG-31's radar, and that sucker's a PESA, not an MSA. Even ARH missiles used with MSA's require relatively high data rate (ie. fast scan rate) for increased accuracy and Pk - and you're telling me an MSA will let you attack two aircraft with SARH? ;)

 

So we're going to add magic radar to the magic wheelbrakes now? ;)

[Vekkinho]

 

Block diagram:

 

Master oscillator:

 

Transmitter:

 

Ts100 Processor:

 

Receiver:

 

GCI controlled "scan mode":

 

Radar search:

 

Pursuit (dogon):

[GGTharos]

I have those too. Where's the symbology for two target engagement, or even just single target engagement + continued scanning?

 

The best I've seen for that was a short film for the N019M which entered limited production in 1991, and that showed 2-target TWS to use with ARH weapons on the HUD, with the appropriate symbology. The original N019 was not, AFAIK, described as having such a capability.

 

Could this be another interesting ah, 'expected upgrade' like Jane's calling the Su-33 'expected upgrade' as existing capability which never happened? And it then multiplied throughout the interwebs and you still find all sorts of websites saying that Su-33's can carry every A2G weapon in the Russian arsenal, R-77s, and who-knows-what-else?

Edited May 6, 2009 by GGTharos

[Vekkinho]

MiG-31 wasn't the only plane at that time with such capability because the Ts100 processor used in MiG-29 is based on the proprietary POISK architecture developed at NII Argon, which allows adapting of the instruction set to control system functions, by expanding the basic instruction set with microcodes inherent in specific tasks. Compared to machines using the same elements but a generic instruction set (e.g. the ES EVM architecture Argon-15A of the MiG-31) processing capability was enhanced by 1.5 to 2.5 times and the code 3 to 5 times more compact, making Ts100 much cheaper to produce.

[Vekkinho]

Check text at this link

http://www.acig.org/artman/publish/article_236.shtml

just below this pic: