Interesting Info on Migs vs. AMRAAMs

[Starlight]

The reaction time of the MiG-29 pilot was probably a bit higher than what expected, mainly for these reasons:

- the amraam didn't give so much warning, so between it went active and impact it was probably a matter of few seconds. LockOn teaches that TWS doesn't give any amraam launch indication.

- the mig-29A, despite being an aircraft with wonderfulf flight characteristics, is not full-HOTAS-equipped and is not so much user-friendly. Even if you read the full report of German Mig-29As against US Falcons, you see that the Fulcrums were a bit better maneuvering in some envelopes (low speed, knife range) but the Germans quickly admitted that setting up the switches for a missile attack took much more time than in the F-16. And maneuvering is just one part of the fight. Next you have to fire you missiles ;)

- NATO had achieved air superiority, there were AWACS monitoring the sky, and even if there were some misunderstandings between fighter pilots and controllers, the surprise factor was much more in NATO's hands.

 

 

Another thing that arises here is that (like I stated in another post, but no one believed me...) the Amraam has often failed to be a real mig-killer, despite its good hit percentage. Ok all aircraft hit were at least forced to head home (the luckiest), but I remember reading that since its earliest operational use (1992-Iraq), the Amraam was criticized by US DoD because its warhead was not sufficiently powerful to inflict lethal damage on bigger fighter aircraft (like Su-27 and Mig-31 I think). Remember the Fulcrum is a small fighter, even if it's twin-engined.

 

 

The story reported on that article is obviously filled with propaganda. But also US and NATO use propaganda too.

 

Those who have some knowledge can filter articles like this and still get some interesting info.

 

I hope that this thread doesn't get politic. GGTharos offered a good article from the technical point of view, don't try to hijack it.

I understand that some wounds from that war are still open. I live a few kilometers from Venice, Italy, and I remember that war as well, because when it broke out I heard jets returning from operations over former Jugoslavia and because in 1999 I was bound to enter the military (at that time we still had one year of mandatory service). So I wasn't happy that a war broke out a few hundred kms from home, as I'm not happy when I hear that a war breaks out somewhere in the world. And I hope no one here likes war too...

 

 

PS: I think I recorded some real footage of F-16s shooting down the four Super-Galebs over Bosnia, many years ago. As soon as I find that cassette and a working VHS player I will rip to divx and I'll put it online.

[Cosmonaut]

I've never really heard anyone say that AIM120's were easy to evade under any circumstances but can they be defeated ..of course. However did the pilots from the accounts in the original post posses the training or equipment to do so still isnt clear. I don't believe in this "I squeeze the trigger and the enemy explodes" like extras in a bad action movie type accuracy from any BVR missile.

 

The one account, regarding this theatre of war, I remember hearing was from an F15 pilot where he describes how he fired two BVR missiles and both missed. The Eagle driver described it as "the missiles just didnt work" as if to say it malfunctioned.. Hmm or maybe the Mig29 evaded them.. anyway the third shot was fired and that impacted the Mig WVR a few thousand feet below the F15.

 

 

So you can be bombed by a successive strike?

 

They should be applauded for having the bravery to stand and fight such odds. It may be suicide, but at least its better than strapping a bomb to your torso and letting go on a bus.

 

Interesting interpretation of my reply.. It helps if you take into consideration the original post when commenting on a single reply but it being so far up the page it can be difficult to get to ;). It is quite clear that my comments were not judging the Pilots nor the war itself, just the idea that the accounts that are being presented here isnt enough to draw any conclusions from ..The topic is about a Jet versus a missile and my reply was based on that and nothing more.

[Starlight]

some more info

Acig:

http://www.acig.org/artman/publish/article_380.shtml

 

F-16.net

http://www.f-16.net/f-16_news_article607.html

 

flight-level.com

http://www.flight-level.com/dogfight/dirk.html

http://www.flight-level.com/dogfight/peric.jpg

 

PS: GGTharos, the original thread (http://forum.keypublishing.co.uk/archive/index.php?t-6123.html) is serious or to make people laugh? :)

 

Those questions deserve the first place in the "Aviation Newbie" contest... I can't bear those forums where aviation is treated like ufology or conspiracy theories...

 

1) I have heard PAF shot down Israeli F-15 while it was overflying Pakistan from India

2) Israeli mercenaries flew in Africa in support of South Africa and Ethipia in regional conflicts.

3) Russia sent AWACs to India in 1971 war with Pakistan- and used this against pakistan

4) US F-117 shot down over serbia was shot by MiG-29

5) In Gulf War, US used `accidents' to cover up many air losses- they accept 40 odd losses, actual losses may be over 100.

6) Israel lost over 20 planes in 1982 to Syria in air combat- western accounts have always maintained 0-2 for years.

[Kula66]

Another thing that arises here is that (like I stated in another post, but no one believed me...) the Amraam has often failed to be a real mig-killer, despite its good hit percentage. Ok all aircraft hit were at least forced to head home (the luckiest), but I remember reading that since its earliest operational use (1992-Iraq), the Amraam was criticized by US DoD because its warhead was not sufficiently powerful to inflict lethal damage on bigger fighter aircraft (like Su-27 and Mig-31 I think). Remember the Fulcrum is a small fighter, even if it's twin-engined.

 

Bear in mind the warhead in AMRAAM is abot 2 1/2 times the size of AIM-9L/Ms .and 8 x that of Stinger .. and they work just fine in RL! Also, aren't they talking about missiles which work on KE alone? ie. no explosive!

[Alfa]

Hi,

 

Please keep this civilised and stay off the politics or the thread will be closed.

 

My 2 cents,

 

I agree with D-Scythe that it shouldnt come as much of a surprise that AMRAAM equipped F-15Cs would have a distinct advantage over R-27R equipped MiG-29As - the latter is a tech generation behind the former.

 

However, the point about numerical superiority cannot be dismissed - Soviet fighters were designed to operate in an environment in which they would have the numerical advantage and have extensive ground support for their operation. In Yugoslavia the MiG-29s had neither - they were vastly outnumbered and ground command and control facilities were cripled by cruise missile attacks at an early stage of the war.

 

It is standard NATO tactics(and as the very first action of a campaign) to launch cruise missile attacks against command & control installations in order to achive a break-down of the enemy´s ability to communicate and organise his defense. This tactic, coupled with the introduction of land attack cruise missiles and stealth bombers, has proved very effective against a Soviet style airdefence system - the standard Soviet fighters were not well equipped with onboard systems in terms of allowing them to operate effectively as independant entities, but were highly dependant on GCI to provide the "situational awareness" and organise their efforts.

 

Its a bit like if you were to engage in a fist fight with an opponent who wears glasses - start by tearing off his glasses, and your chances of prevailing become much greater :) .

 

The Soviet planners recognised this problem and took steps to deal with it - introducing SAM systems that are harder to "disable" and developing new MiG-29 and Su-27 versions with better onboard systems, which in combination with AWACS, are much better equipped for operating independantly of ground control systems. But these efforts didnt make it into the airdefense systems of "client states" and their weaknesses have been exploited.

 

Cheers,

- JJ.

[SUBS17]

From what I've heard the Mig 29 pilot made the right decision but unfortunately too late. As the missile was probably launched in TWS mode he probably never new it had been fired untill the missile went pitbull(active)[yeah I've been playing AF!] in which case no matter what you do its too late. The R27R also has a very poor A/A history and infact is less likely to hit another aircraft than a heater. I doubt very much that the Serbian Air Force would put unskilled pilots in its most powerful jet fighter so I doubt either of the 29 pilots didn't know what they were doing. In fact they probably new what they were up against but gave it their best anyway.

[Pilotasso]

Bear in mind the warhead in AMRAAM is abot 2 1/2 times the size of AIM-9L/Ms .and 8 x that of Stinger .. and they work just fine in RL! Also, aren't they talking about missiles which work on KE alone? ie. no explosive!

 

Bad example.

 

1) AIM-9 and stinger missiles are to be shot up close.

2) their IR guidance are much more precise than radar, wich enables them to terform direct hits more often. You dont even need a warhead to kill a plane if it goes through the airframe.

[Pilotasso]

From what I've heard the Mig 29 pilot made the right decision but unfortunately too late. As the missile was probably launched in TWS mode he probably never new it had been fired untill the missile went pitbull(active)[yeah I've been playing AF!] in which case no matter what you do its too late. The R27R also has a very poor A/A history and infact is less likely to hit another aircraft than a heater. I doubt very much that the Serbian Air Force would put unskilled pilots in its most powerful jet fighter so I doubt either of the 29 pilots didn't know what they were doing. In fact they probably new what they were up against but gave it their best anyway.

 

Are you assuming the pilot on the first post, fired an R-17?

1)Logic says no, because he tried to dodge right after the launch wich would result in a lost msissile from the start.

2) there is no actual mention to the missile type fired

3) NATO aicraft had fired AMRAAM under 10 miles, there is an uncertainty fact to wich SARH or IR missiles the 29 could have put in the air.

[D-Scythe]

some more info

Acig:

http://www.acig.org/artman/publish/article_380.shtml

 

F-16.net

http://www.f-16.net/f-16_news_article607.html

 

flight-level.com

http://www.flight-level.com/dogfight/dirk.html

http://www.flight-level.com/dogfight/peric.jpg

 

PS: GGTharos, the original thread (http://forum.keypublishing.co.uk/archive/index.php?t-6123.html) is serious or to make people laugh? :)

 

Those questions deserve the first place in the "Aviation Newbie" contest... I can't bear those forums where aviation is treated like ufology or conspiracy theories...

 

1) I have heard PAF shot down Israeli F-15 while it was overflying Pakistan from India

2) Israeli mercenaries flew in Africa in support of South Africa and Ethipia in regional conflicts.

3) Russia sent AWACs to India in 1971 war with Pakistan- and used this against pakistan

4) US F-117 shot down over serbia was shot by MiG-29

5) In Gulf War, US used `accidents' to cover up many air losses- they accept 40 odd losses, actual losses may be over 100.

6) Israel lost over 20 planes in 1982 to Syria in air combat- western accounts have always maintained 0-2 for years.

 

Even though all of your points are debatable, point 5 is by far the most senseless and provocative, and contributes nothing to the conversation.

 

**EDIT Oh, I see. My bad :D

[GGTharos]

I think you should read what he posted again D-Scythe ... very slowly and very carefully.

 

You should probably also read the link.

[Kula66]

I think you should read what he posted again D-Scythe ... very slowly and very carefully.

 

You should probably also read the link.

 

Careful GGT, when I said someone should read something slowly, I got warned I was going to get banned ....

[tflash]

- the mig-29A, despite being an aircraft with wonderfulf flight characteristics, is not full-HOTAS-equipped and is not so much user-friendly. Even if you read the full report of German Mig-29As against US Falcons, you see that the Fulcrums were a bit better maneuvering in some envelopes (low speed, knife range) but the Germans quickly admitted that setting up the switches for a missile attack took much more time than in the F-16. And maneuvering is just one part of the fight. Next you have to fire you missiles ;)

 

This is exactly what has been puzzling me about Lockon since the beginning: all I have read in Air International and Air Forces Monthly about the German Mig-29's consistently states that these aircraft had "inferior avionics" and "where of little use in BVR" whilst the flight characteristics and dogfighting, and especially the R-73 where greatly acclaimed. Most articles also cite the much higher workload to fly the aircraft.

 

In Lockon however, I do not find the Russian avionics to be inferior to the F-15, on the contrary: I particulary like the ease of use of the Mig-29 and Su-27 radar. And above all they are very easy to fly!

 

OK, the German Mig-29A is indeed inferior to the Mig-29S in Lockon, but not at that point, and mostly due to the missiles, not the avionics?

[Force_Feedback]

OK, the German Mig-29A is indeed inferior to the Mig-29S in Lockon, but not at that point, and mostly due to the missiles, not the avionics?

 

That's because not all the features of the Mig-29A are incorporated in lomac, I'd say, after reading the flight manual, about 3/4 of the modes and hud symbols are actually simulated in lomac. Haven't checked it for the su-27 yet, and I can't check it for the mig-29S, as I can't find a manual of it.

But beleive me, the real mig-29a has a lot more modes and settings than featured in lomac (even the HUD symbology is off when locking a r-27r and r-73), not to speak about the GCI. The devs know this, but realize more pressing issues have to be dealt with before "upgrading" the avionics in lomac.

[Starlight]

Bear in mind the warhead in AMRAAM is abot 2 1/2 times the size of AIM-9L/Ms .and 8 x that of Stinger .. and they work just fine in RL! Also, aren't they talking about missiles which work on KE alone? ie. no explosive!

 

I recently had the opportunity to talk with an F-16 pilot and he told me that (referring to the Sidewinder) direct kills happen but it's not for that purpose that they are built. Missiles (at least like -9L/M) are just "carriers" for their fragmentation warhead, and they have a proximity fuze which make the warhead detonate when the weapon is close to its target, sending shrapnel against it to shred its airframe. He told me that a Sidewinder hit is more something like a burst from a large shotgun. Obviously such a shrapnel burst on an airframe packed with fuel, electronics, wires, hydraulics and so on can have a tremendous effect. It doesn't take that much to cause a fireball in the sky. And if the blast is very close, the HE warhead blast can take its toll too.

 

However kinetic kills are not so common and current AAMs are not configured for that purpose. You should note that every US AAM (AIM-7,-9,-54,-120) has proximity fuzes which detect when the target is within lethal range to detonate the HE/blast fragmentation warhead. If they were kinetic killers they wouldn't need all these things.

 

 

The same pilot told me that Sidewinders against bigger aircraft like F-15, F-14 and Su-27 wouldn't be able to inflict tremendous damage, at least unless they score a very close hit in a critical zone. (he also told me about a story of a US aircraft damaged by a friendly Sidewinder hit which made it back home)

 

I don't know much about the AMRAAM, but while active radars usually have a high-PRF, their "image quality" should still be inferior to that of the IR-wavelength. So I won't be surprised if Amraam hits would be even more "proximity" hits than Sidewinders, meaning that they need a larger warhead.

But that's just my speculation.

 

If the article about the Serb Mig-29 is true, then there would be evidence that an Amraam hit can be not enough to shoot down a quite small fighter like the Mig-29. Keep in mind that the Amraam will equip front line US fighters for a while and many potential enemies of US aircraft fly Flanker versions, which are much larger than the Fulcrum.

 

For that complaint of the US DoD, I've read about it on an aviation magazine, in the mid 90s, which I'm not sure I can find out again.... it was in a news article so I'd have to read some dozen issues before finding it....

Some years ago the Amraam contractors had a new funding to improve ECCM, jamming resistance and control system. The smart way, seems not to add warhead, but to make the weapon more precise.

 

However there's already an example of larger warhead applied to AAMs. The Israeli Python and Shafrir, are basically very similar to US Sidewinders, but carry a much larger warhead to inflict deadly damage on the target aircraft. The idea is that, if an enemy aircraft is hit by a larger warhead it simply can't live to fight another day.

[Starlight]

This is exactly what has been puzzling me about Lockon since the beginning: all I have read in Air International and Air Forces Monthly about the German Mig-29's consistently states that these aircraft had "inferior avionics" and "where of little use in BVR" whilst the flight characteristics and dogfighting, and especially the R-73 where greatly acclaimed. Most articles also cite the much higher workload to fly the aircraft.

 

In Lockon however, I do not find the Russian avionics to be inferior to the F-15, on the contrary: I particulary like the ease of use of the Mig-29 and Su-27 radar. And above all they are very easy to fly!

 

OK, the German Mig-29A is indeed inferior to the Mig-29S in Lockon, but not at that point, and mostly due to the missiles, not the avionics?

 

Even if LockOn could simulate all the 1,000 switches and modes of the Mig-29, if you had a 1,000 button HOTAS controller configured on your PC, this doesn't mean that the real aircraft has HOTAS technology! In that case HOTAS would just be on your PC!

 

I never flew any combat jet, but from the reports that I read, I understand that the earlier Fulcrums have not full HOTAS commands, so if you're in a fight and you need to set up a missile attack you have to play with some switches in the cockpit. And if you're pulling G's while pursuing a desperate Falcon pilot pulling himself 9 G's, that's not an easy thing to do.

And even in BVR, US fighters, AFAIK, are more point-and-shoot (like digital cameras) than the older Russian build counterparts. Keep in mind that BVR engagements don't last so long so you don't have much time to play with switches...

More modern Russian aircraft like the Mig-29M or latest Flanker versions incorporate such technology. I think this is one of the main "technology gaps" which many aviation articles refer to when talking about "F-16 vs Mig-29" topics.

[GGTharos]

Actually, Starlight, the AMRAAM uses an adaptive warhead which means its effect on a single target is probably that of a warhead 2-4 times as large.

 

You don't need to disintegrate an aircraft to achieve a kill - if the weapon can consistently take out a MiG-29, it'll be likely able to consistently take out a Flanker, too.

[Guest IguanaKing]

Well...aerodynamically speaking, the MiG-29 has a definite advantage in WVR combat. The only problem is that it is a manned aircraft, flown by a man, who has all the natural mental and physical limitations of a man. Many of the Western fighters excel in overcoming this limitation by making flying a "no-brainer". That way, much more of the pilot's mental capacity can be focused on the fight, rather than the basic act of flying his plane. Not sure about other users of the MiG-29, but Russian pilots also are known to forego the use of a g-suit. This, in many cases, gives them a physical disadvantage as well. But, for the record, I think lack of training played a HUGE role in this. On the other hand, perhaps aircraft obviously flagged as belonging to a particular country didn't want to provoke an incident. I mean...its one thing to shoot down an F-16 and have the option of blaming it on third-party activity, but its quite another to fire on F-15s from MiG-29s. The average homeland defender with a particular political view may have an AK, SA-14 or 10 in his home, but none of them have a Fulcrum in their backyard.

[GGTharos]

No, it has an advantage at SLOW SPEEDS. ;) It's not 10-g aircraft; according to pilot testimony, you can lose control by attempting jinks similar to those in an F-16.

[Guest IguanaKing]

Actually, I heard that the Fulcrum gets its tail waxed in low-speed fights with F/A-18s, since the Hornet is probably the best low-speed performer in service. I guess my statement was a blanket statement regarding the overall aerodynamic performance of the MiG-29, it tends to maintain its energy a little better in a knife fight than most other aircraft...but again, its all about tactics and fighting on your own terms. You may have seen me say this before, but, at low altitudes, the F-16 can run circles around an F-15 any day of the week. Up high though, the Viper gets its *** handed to it by the Eagle. ;)

[SUBS17]

Are you assuming the pilot on the first post, fired an R-17?

1)Logic says no, because he tried to dodge right after the launch wich would result in a lost msissile from the start.

2) there is no actual mention to the missile type fired

3) NATO aicraft had fired AMRAAM under 10 miles, there is an uncertainty fact to wich SARH or IR missiles the 29 could have put in the air.

 

My theory is he had a lock with R27R and fired eventhough he was out of range to use as a distraction while he tried to evade the Amraam. It could have been a heater but the result would have been the same anyway. The Amraam was already on top of him.

[Guest IguanaKing]

Well, its not at all uncommon to put a missile in the air just to put your opponent on the defensive. Granted, its not the ideal action, but it can also give you enough time to figure out what the hell is going on while leveling the mental playing field for a few moments. :cool:

[D-Scythe]

I recently had the opportunity to talk with an F-16 pilot and he told me that (referring to the Sidewinder) direct kills happen but it's not for that purpose that they are built. Missiles (at least like -9L/M) are just "carriers" for their fragmentation warhead, and they have a proximity fuze which make the warhead detonate when the weapon is close to its target, sending shrapnel against it to shred its airframe. He told me that a Sidewinder hit is more something like a burst from a large shotgun. Obviously such a shrapnel burst on an airframe packed with fuel, electronics, wires, hydraulics and so on can have a tremendous effect. It doesn't take that much to cause a fireball in the sky. And if the blast is very close, the HE warhead blast can take its toll too.

 

However kinetic kills are not so common and current AAMs are not configured for that purpose. You should note that every US AAM (AIM-7,-9,-54,-120) has proximity fuzes which detect when the target is within lethal range to detonate the HE/blast fragmentation warhead. If they were kinetic killers they wouldn't need all these things.

 

 

The same pilot told me that Sidewinders against bigger aircraft like F-15, F-14 and Su-27 wouldn't be able to inflict tremendous damage, at least unless they score a very close hit in a critical zone. (he also told me about a story of a US aircraft damaged by a friendly Sidewinder hit which made it back home)

 

I don't know much about the AMRAAM, but while active radars usually have a high-PRF, their "image quality" should still be inferior to that of the IR-wavelength. So I won't be surprised if Amraam hits would be even more "proximity" hits than Sidewinders, meaning that they need a larger warhead.

But that's just my speculation.

 

If the article about the Serb Mig-29 is true, then there would be evidence that an Amraam hit can be not enough to shoot down a quite small fighter like the Mig-29. Keep in mind that the Amraam will equip front line US fighters for a while and many potential enemies of US aircraft fly Flanker versions, which are much larger than the Fulcrum.

 

For that complaint of the US DoD, I've read about it on an aviation magazine, in the mid 90s, which I'm not sure I can find out again.... it was in a news article so I'd have to read some dozen issues before finding it....

Some years ago the Amraam contractors had a new funding to improve ECCM, jamming resistance and control system. The smart way, seems not to add warhead, but to make the weapon more precise.

 

However there's already an example of larger warhead applied to AAMs. The Israeli Python and Shafrir, are basically very similar to US Sidewinders, but carry a much larger warhead to inflict deadly damage on the target aircraft. The idea is that, if an enemy aircraft is hit by a larger warhead it simply can't live to fight another day.

 

Lotsa missiles currently in service are "direct" hit weapons - most obvious the PAC 3. Late model AIM-120Cs also score an unusual amount of kinetic kills in comparison to older missiles like the AIM-9 and the AIM-7. Moreover, as GG stated, even if it doesn't score a direct hit, it has a fuze that senses where the target is in relation to the missile and explodes the warhead in that direction/orientation.

 

If you don't dodge it, your bird is almost definitely going to be destroyed.

[Guest IguanaKing]

...or at least rendered unflyable, which is as good as dead. :icon_jook

[britgliderpilot]

Actually, I heard that the Fulcrum gets its tail waxed in low-speed fights with F/A-18s, since the Hornet is probably the best low-speed performer in service. I guess my statement was a blanket statement regarding the overall aerodynamic performance of the MiG-29, it tends to maintain its energy a little better in a knife fight than most other aircraft...but again, its all about tactics and fighting on your own terms. You may have seen me say this before, but, at low altitudes, the F-16 can run circles around an F-15 any day of the week. Up high though, the Viper gets its *** handed to it by the Eagle. ;)

 

I had to check the date on that post, because I KNOW I've seen it before :p

 

Pretty much verbatim, too . . . . . . grin.

[GGTharos]

Actually, I heard that the Fulcrum gets its tail waxed in low-speed fights with F/A-18s, since the Hornet is probably the best low-speed performer in service. I guess my statement was a blanket statement regarding the overall aerodynamic performance of the MiG-29, it tends to maintain its energy a little better in a knife fight than most other aircraft...but again, its all about tactics and fighting on your own terms. You may have seen me say this before, but, at low altitudes, the F-16 can run circles around an F-15 any day of the week. Up high though, the Viper gets its *** handed to it by the Eagle. ;)

 

 

... Until the F-15 drags it down to a slow speed fight, at which point the F-16 better know how to run ;)