Mig-21 " Bison " surprises US F-16 in Cope India 2005

[D-Scythe]

US F-15C are using AIM_9X and AIM-120, in the pass Cope India 2004 and still the Mig-21 Bison perform very well...

 

http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/IAF/Images/Special/CopeIndia/CopeIndia34.jpg

 

http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/IAF/Images/Special/CopeIndia/CopeIndia22.jpg

 

One or the many Inf. in the Internet. Not sure is all true but the mayority did say the same.

http://www.indiadefence.com/COPE.htm

 

" While the superb performances of IAF Sukhoi-30s were somewhat anticipated, the performance of MiG-21Bison came as a major ”unpleasant surprise” to the USAF officials. It also validates the claim of the Russian officials that they are capable of successfully converting ”second generation” late-model MiG-21bis fighters to ”fourth generation combat platforms”. Inherently the significant positive attributes enjoyed by MiG-21s were their dog fighting ability in WVR (Within Visual Range) combat. Even the earlier models had a low corner velocity of 556 kilometres per hour and at Mach 0.5 had an instantaneous turn rate of 11.1 degrees per second. The MiG-21Bison with more powerful R-25 engines not only considerably bettered this performance but it may also be credited with ”jackrabbit” acceleration, a very critical attribute in WVR combat.

 

Among many fourth generations attributes added to the IAF MiG-21Bison design, the incorporation of HMS (Helmet Mounted Sight) and high-off-boresight R-73RDM2 NBVR/WVR (Near Beyond Visual Range/Within Visual Range) AAMs (Air-to-Air Missiles) have turned it into a ”Great Equalizer” in the WVR combat scenario. Conceptually a small number of MiG-21Bisons maintaining ”radar silence” can be guided towards their aerial target by a couple of Sukhoi-30s by secure data links in accordance with MFFC (Mixed Fighter Force Concept). Upon entering into an WVR combat envelope the MiG-21Bisons armed with HMS and deadly NBVR/WVR missiles had the capability of destroying even fifth-generation fighters alike F/A-22 Raptor as assessed by high-profile Fighter Analyst Ben Lambeth of RAND Corporation. According to Lambeth ”in visual combat everybody dies at the same rate.” F/A-22 also has to slow down if forced into a WVR combat scenario and loses the advantage of its super-cruise attributes. The situation further complicates if the IAF Sukhoi-30s have acquired the capability of providing target illumination for RVV-AE (AA-12 Adder) BVR missiles being launched from IAF MiG-21Bisons at extended ranges. "

 

No, the F-15C did not use the AMRAAM. It was seen carrying AIM-9Xs though.

 

And that stuff about the F/A-22 slowing down is complete BS. Speed is life - why would a Raptor kill its speed if it has the energy advantage?

[GGTharos]

Not this again.

 

No, the US Jets were NOT using the 9X or the 120. They were required to use a 'SARH-like' missile for the exercise. THey also did not use all onboard features, or the most modern radars.

 

This has been disputed before, MANY times, and the only conclusion is that it is INCONCLUSIVE.

 

By the way, PRACTICALLY, and NOT COnceptually, a number of F-15s, F-16s, F-22s, can be guided by an F-15, F-16, or F-22 while they maintain radar silence. This has been possible for quite some time ago.

 

As for:

Upon entering into an WVR combat envelope the MiG-21Bisons armed with HMS and deadly NBVR/WVR missiles had the capability of destroying even fifth-generation fighters alike F/A-22 Raptor as assessed by high-profile Fighter Analyst Ben Lambeth of RAND Corporation

 

Well, that's nice - what are they going to do when they get slapped down before WVR by a bunch of 120's, or when they find their funky WVR missiles are having issues with holding a lock on an F-22?

 

Quit reading the hype: The F-22 is STEALTH. That means quite difficult to train your weapons on it - there's no 'Stealth defeating magic' out there. The 22's WILL be taking the first shots, WILL be hitting, and WILL be a nightmare to deal with in WVR when all you're left out of your strike force is a couple jets.

 

And, by the way ... 11.1 deg/s instantaneous SUCKS. BAD! The F-15 alone, being a large fighter, will do better sustained. An F-16 at corner velocity will sustain twice that rate.

 

Hype? hello?

 

Also:

According to Lambeth ”in visual combat everybody dies at the same rate.” F/A-22 also has to slow down if forced into a WVR combat scenario and loses the advantage of its super-cruise attributes. The situation further complicates if the IAF Sukhoi-30s have acquired the capability of providing target illumination for RVV-AE (AA-12 Adder) BVR missiles being launched from IAF MiG-21Bisons at extended ranges. "

 

Already something F-15's, F-16s and F-22s can do with AMRAAMs for a while now. What an Adder /can't/ do is lock onto an F-22 ;)

 

As for the F-22 having to slow down ... some forget that it has excellent acceleration/deceleration, very good AoA handling, and likely very good turning characteristics. It'll fight you in all regimes, and it'll probbaly snap you back you'll be wondering where your head went. It is -not- an aircraft anyone should be comparing their own aircraft to - it's no UFO, but with good maneuverability, cruising speed AND STEALTH, it's now in a class of its own, apart from everything else.

 

Edit: D-Scythe, I doubt they were X's. They were probably CATMs which can sometimes look like X's from afar.

[Pilotasso]

On a side note about this text VVVVV

5th gen fighters is as said by russian aricraft analysts. Western analysts would say 3rd gen. Just to avoid confusion.

 

 

Upon entering into an WVR combat envelope the MiG-21Bisons armed with HMS and deadly NBVR/WVR missiles had the capability of destroying even fifth-generation fighters alike F/A-22 Raptor as assessed by high-profile Fighter Analyst Ben Lambeth of RAND Corporation. According to Lambeth ”in visual combat everybody dies at the same rate.” F/A-22 also has to slow down if forced into a WVR combat scenario and loses the advantage of its super-cruise attributes. The situation further complicates if the IAF Sukhoi-30s have acquired the capability of providing target illumination for RVV-AE (AA-12 Adder) BVR missiles being launched from IAF MiG-21Bisons at extended ranges. "

 

I was believing what that article said untill this part of the text ^^^^^^

Some people just go over the top speculating...."illuminating the F-22"???!! at what range? LOL 5 miles?!:rolleyes:

[GGTharos]

They're not saying 'illuminating the F-22' ... they're basically describing the 'buddy launch' feature which the AMRAAM has had for a long long time. They just throw in the 'F22' around in there for kicks, and don't actually appear to have a clue.

[LaRata]

No, the F-15C did not use the AMRAAM. It was seen carrying AIM-9Xs though.

 

And that stuff about the F/A-22 slowing down is complete BS. Speed is life - why would a Raptor kill its speed if it has the energy advantage?

 

 

Sorry ... I`m only a combat planes Fan :) this was looking very similar to AIM-120 !!!!! for Me :)

 

 

http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/IAF/Images/Special/CopeIndia/IAF05.jpg

[GGTharos]

Fair enough. Let me explain then:

 

Obviously, those aircraft don't shoot missiles at each other. They simulate the shots. The simulation for the AIM-120 had it working as a SARH missile, not as an AMRAAM ... no multi-target capability, no launch-and-leave capability, and range limited to 20nm (a little under 40km).

 

I hope that clears it up ;)

[Force_Feedback]

Sorry ... I`m only a combat planes Fan :) this was looking very similar to AIM-120 !!!!! for Me :)

 

 

http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/IAF/Images/Special/CopeIndia/IAF05.jpg

 

Lies all lies, US stuff rules!!!

 

Russkie should suck too, but well, I'm putting my back against the back of the seat and pull on that handle.

I wish you all kinds of luck, let's hope this thread will get 50 pages long.

[Alfa]

...Small enough to fit inside the radome inside the migs intake... ;)

 

kinda reminds me off those woden russian dols.:biggrin:

 

Right..

 

Pilotasso I was interested in knowing the compartive radar power of the APG-68 vs. that of the Kopyo. In order to get an idea about that, you would need to know the radar antenna area and emitter output of both - I know what these are for the Kopyo, but have no idea about either for the APG-68.....do you? :)

 

The Kopyo is not that weak - it has an antenna of 500mm in diameter and an average emitter output of ~ 1Kw. I dont know, but I could imagine that the APG-68 has similar attributes - it may even be "weaker".

 

Cheers,

- JJ.

[Alfa]

Not this again.

 

LOL.....yeah I am afraid so.

 

And, by the way ... 11.1 deg/s instantaneous SUCKS. BAD! The F-15 alone, being a large fighter, will do better sustained. An F-16 at corner velocity will sustain twice that rate.

 

No I am not sold on the super agility of the MiG-21 airframe either - I have a hard time seeing how it could match an F-16 in a dogfight - even with HMS/R-73 combo.

 

Cheers,

- JJ.

[GGTharos]

Hehe, interesting thing, Alfa ... I'm completely unable to find any information on the APG-68 ... even on Northrop-Grumann's site ... no antenna diameter of all things.

[Alfa]

Hehe, interesting thing, Alfa ... I'm completely unable to find any information on the APG-68 ... even on Northrop-Grumann's site ... no antenna diameter of all things.

 

Hehe....I know ;)

 

For the APG-63 it seems that the antenna dia. is some 850mm and peak output ~ 5Kw.

 

For the APG-65 I found antenna size(in inches) corresponding to some 625mm - but nothing on emitter output.

 

For the APG-68 I found.....bugger all :mad:

 

Cheers,

- JJ.

[Guest IguanaKing]

GG is most definitely correct, the results of these exercises (and nobody actually knows the results) are inconclusive. These exercises were NOT, no-holds-barred, gloves off, competitions to see who is the best...they are SCRIPTED EXERCISES. In one sortie, blue goes up to practice using a pre-determined tactic with a pre-determined array of sensors and weapons. Red goes up to counter blue, by using pre-determined tactics, pre-determined...yada-yada-yada. In the next sortie they practice a different skill set on both sides. I can't quite understand why some seem to think that these are competitions in which both sides come to the fight with everything they've got, they come to practice offensive and defensive tactics, sensor employment, and weapon employment...plain and simple. I'd call the article silly, but, after reading it, it really doesn't even come close to suggesting that one side waxed the other's tail.

[GGTharos]

Hehe....I know ;)

 

For the APG-63 it seems that the antenna dia. is some 850mm and peak output ~ 5Kw.

 

For the APG-65 I found antenna size(in inches) corresponding to some 625mm - but nothing on emitter output.

 

For the APG-68 I found.....bugger all :mad:

 

Cheers,

- JJ.

 

And interestingly enough ... same for APG-66 :icon_evil

[Pilotasso]

APG-68:

 

Area 73.7 x 48.3 cm(29 x 19 in)

 

Frequency (est)

9.7 to 9.9 GHz

Power out (est)

320 W (avg)

21.5 kW (peak)

 

http://www.hawkdatahub.com/E019/body.html

[D-Scythe]

21.5? That's four times that of the APG-63, and more than twice that of the AWG-9.

[SUBS17]

The upgraded Mig21s are deadly, I never new they can carry R77s until I did a mission on F4AF and got shotdown by two of them with a flight of 4 F-16s. In real life the Mig21 is a very small fighter, tiny compared to an F-16 but eventhough its no big surprise to me if they are a handful in a dogfight. Historically Mig21s have been shotdown by prop planes and B52s but eventhough that its upgraded version is still deadly particularly with those R77s.

[Pilotasso]

21.5? That's four times that of the APG-63, and more than twice that of the AWG-9.

 

 

Aparently theres no fixed output, be sure your not mixing average with peak...can anyone get the Bisons antenna Area?

[Starlight]

that source is probably exaggerated (even though it seems to have a lot of data). Remember that the APG-66/68 is one of the few systems which is air cooled. The other (bigger) airborne radar systems should be liquid-cooled.

 

here's what I've found:

 

APG-66 Characteristics:

Weight: 296 lb

Power: 3.6 kVA

Cooling Air: 2.8 kW

Volume: 3.63 ft3

 

http://www.aiaa.org/content.cfm?pageid=406&gTable=mtgpaper&gID=96648

 

just click "see first page"

 

another source reported the APG-66 to be lighter (about 236 lbs)

 

I don't know if peak power could reach such a high value, but it doesn't seem likely. Especially if you compare it to AWG-9 and APG-63/70 which have much longer range (and therefore are much higher-powered)

[Pilotasso]

hehe Pilotasso your source is probably exaggerated. Remember that the APG-66 is one of the few systems which is air cooled. The other (bigger) airborne radar systems should be liquid-cooled.

 

here's what I've found:

 

APG-66 Characteristics:

Weight: 296 lb

Power: 3.6 kVA

Cooling Air: 2.8 kW

Volume: 3.63 ft3

 

http://www.aiaa.org/content.cfm?pageid=406&gTable=mtgpaper&gID=96648

 

just click "see first page"

 

another source reported the APG-66 to be lighter (about 236 lbs)

 

That corroborates with books I have...too bad I cant find any more sourcs for the APG-68 but:

 

it has an antenna of 500mm in diameter and an average emitter output of ~ 1Kw. I dont know, but I could imagine that the APG-68 has similar attributes - it may even be "weaker".

Cheers,

- JJ.

 

Assuming we are right about antenna Areas this equates for the bison:

A=pi*(0.500/2)^2=0.19635 Sq meters

 

APG-66/68:

A=0.737*0.483=0.355971 Sq meters

 

Kopyo radar output=1KW

APG-66 output=3.6KW

 

F-16's apears to win, theres litle margin for the bison radar other eventual electronics advantages (if any) to overcome this...

 

I would like anyone else to confirm these values before we conclude if the bisons qualities are enough to give the americans F-16's the alleged surprise factor...

[GGTharos]

I see you corrected it ... good job, but not a perfect comparison. You need to calculate the area of an ellipse for the APG-66/68, not that of a rectangle. I think if you reduce the area by 20% you'll be in the conservative ballpark though, and the F_16 still wins.

[Guest IguanaKing]

Pilotasso, the plate of the APG-66/68 is an ellipse, not a rectangle. ;) Edit: DOH!!! GG types faster than I do.

 

I'm still not clear as to what the "surprise" actually was. At one point in the article they mention how the USAF crews were surprised since the IAF normally doesn't use AWACS support. I took this to mean that the E-3 crews were vectoring IAF pilots and were surprised by how quickly they caught on to working with AWACS support. I can imagine that the USAF expected to have to overcome a bit of a teaching hurdle, but were surprised when their job of teaching was made easier by how sharp the IAF pilots were.

[Pilotasso]

I see you corrected it ... good job, but not a perfect comparison. You need to calculate the area of an ellipse for the APG-66/68, not that of a rectangle. I think if you reduce the area by 20% you'll be in the conservative ballpark though, and the F_16 still wins.

 

A little mixup from mm to m...:icon_redf and we use commas instead of points on decimal parts. No rectagle, but since it has bits of squares out from a perfect elipse curve, I went for the rectangle... ;)

[Guest IguanaKing]

Well...that would mean it has even less surface area than the ellipse. ;) If we could just calculate the area of each row in the array and add them all together...:D

[Alfa]

APG-68:

 

Area 73.7 x 48.3 cm(29 x 19 in)

 

Frequency (est)

9.7 to 9.9 GHz

Power out (est)

320 W (avg)

21.5 kW (peak)

 

http://www.hawkdatahub.com/E019/body.html

 

No way Pilotasso.

 

An average output of ~0.3Kw and pulse(peak) of 21 Kw?! :biggrin:

 

Those numbers just dont match up at all - they are totally insane.

 

Cheers,

- JJ.

[Alfa]

That corroborates with books I have...too bad I cant find any more sourcs for the APG-68 but:

 

 

 

Assuming we are right about antenna Areas this equates for the bison:

A=pi*(0.500/2)^2=0.19635 Sq meters

 

APG-66/68:

A=0.737*0.483=0.355971 Sq meters

 

Kopyo radar output=1KW

APG-66 output=3.6KW

 

F-16's apears to win, theres litle margin for the bison radar other eventual electronics advantages (if any) to overcome this...

 

I would like anyone else to confirm these values before we conclude if the bisons qualities are enough to give the americans F-16's the alleged surprise factor...

 

Pilotasso,

 

The 1 Kw I stated for the Kopyo is the average output ;) - which would translate to some 5 Kw peak :) .

 

This means an emitter power equal to that the N019, N001, N010 and APG-63. The differences in acquisition ranges between the above/Kopyo has to do with their associated antenna sizes.

 

There is no way you can tell me that the 3.6 Kw you stated for the APG-66 is average output - that would be about 3.5 times higher than for the F-15´s APG-63(!). If on the other hand the 3.5 Kw(to the extent it "holds water") is the peak output for the APG-66, then it is considerably lower than for the Kopyo.

 

I am also quite sceptical about your antenna size calculations - if I replace the 500mm diameter of the Kopyo with the 625mm for the APG-65 in your formula, I get ~ 0.3066 m2 for this versus your 0.355971 m2 for the APG-66 .....i.e. the F/A-18 should have a smaller radar antenna area than the F-16(?)

 

Cheers,

- JJ.