Key.Aero Network
Register Free

Page 9 of 19 FirstFirst ... 5678910111213 ... LastLast
Results 241 to 270 of 544

Thread: MiG-29 Fulcrum

  1. #241
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    128
    Quote Originally Posted by Sens View Post
    The Typhoon has a 105 kN engine
    I knew the baseline EJ200's thrust was 95 kNs... where does the 105 kN figure come from?

  2. #242
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    324
    Quote Originally Posted by J-20 Hotdog View Post
    sadly yes, its not seeing as many new variants. but never fret.. the Russian Navy can re-engine them with Guizhou WS-13s, which would give them more thrust and less smoke when completed!
    ROFL.

  3. #243
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    324
    Quote Originally Posted by JangBoGo View Post
    they are planning for a higher thrust engine with French collaboration for the Tejas Mk2 with a thrust of 90kN.

    I still cannot understand why such a stupid plan of 90kN thrust engine sooooo late in the show when a higher thrust RD-33MK is available or just around the corner....
    Mk2 will be powered by GE-414 engine of 98kN.

    LCA Mk1 might be refitted later in MLU with the new kaveri.. but i have my doubts on that.

  4. #244
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    1,000
    Quote Originally Posted by killerbean View Post
    Mk2 will be powered by GE-414 engine of 98kN.

    LCA Mk1 might be refitted later in MLU with the new kaveri.. but i have my doubts on that.
    By the "new" Kaveri don't you mean the new engine that is to be developed with French assistance with 90kN thrust? If the 90kN thrust is true, then that is the problem.....of not aiming for a 90+ to 100kN engine.

  5. #245
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    1,000
    Quote Originally Posted by Sens View Post
    The Typhoon has a 105 kN engine, but the nominal output is still kept at 90 kN from the 90s in the advertisements for the more thrilling life-cycle cost from that. (Shown at the offer to Austria) Similar thing with Rafale.
    Thanks. But I'm hearing the 105kN thrust figure from you... even though I have heard about 10t thrust engine for Typhoon.
    Regarding life-cycle....the contribution from the engine to the life-cycle cost of the aircraft it powers will be acquisition cost, running cost and service/maintenance cost. In that regard....from a program aired last year dedicated to the Typhoon's chance in MMRCA, the following data came from it

    Unit cost of Typhoon engine - 6million Euros/unit (12million pounds is what makes up a Typhoon ****)
    Fuel consumption for Typhoon in AB* - 6 liters/second = 360 liters/minute

    * the documentary did not mention the parameters like at which mach number and if it was with weapons (or in what configuration). But I would consider the figure of 6 liter/sec was the most favorable with the lightest load and a low mach number.


    with regard to the RD-33MK...... I was asking for the details of the same (increased) nominal thrust of RD-33MK series that I heard might be installed for the Russian Navy's MiG-29K. Even the current RD-33MK might be able to punch out 500-1,000kg more, but it will be at the cost of its lifespan and SFC. The current setting is most likely a balanced optimization for better SFC (than its predecessor), maintaining a 9t thrust and a 4,000hrs lifespan. The next development cycle for the RD-33MK would most likely be to increase the dry or wet thrust or both by maintaining the same SFC (or improving it further) and 4,000hrs (or improving it).

    It is now at least 4years since RD-33MK came online and 4 years is a decent time for a technically sound engine designer like Klimov to have increased the nominal thrust range for the baseline RD-33MK. Provided it was planned as future growth path according to company strategy and funded accordingly OR it was ordered by the customer...

    Anyone want to guess or do simple math on how long a Typhoon will be in air using AB?? It goes for every fighter except the mighty MiG-31 and possibly MiG-25 which will probably be able to hang on for an hour and more in AB, all others will probably fall out in 10-16 minutes.

  6. #246
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    2,591
    Quote Originally Posted by Austere View Post
    I knew the baseline EJ200's thrust was 95 kNs... where does the 105 kN figure come from?
    EJ200 has a growth potenial of 15% to 20% increased thrust from 20,000lbs. So that'd be 23,000lbs to 24,000lbs, or 105 kN to 107 kN.

    However, such increases in thrust isn't needed for the Typhoon. I'd rather it have TVNs which would be more beneficial in a number of areas without sacrificing engine life.

  7. #247
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    3,774
    You can always find use for more thrust. Less thrust and thrust vectoring is no advantage.
    Go Huskers!

  8. #248
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    49
    Production-Line MiG-29K

    >>> click <<<

    very popular images

  9. #249
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    49

  10. #250
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Norway
    Posts
    3,796
    Quote Originally Posted by JangBoGo View Post
    Thanks. But I'm hearing the 105kN thrust figure from you... even though I have heard about 10t thrust engine for Typhoon.
    Regarding life-cycle....the contribution from the engine to the life-cycle cost of the aircraft it powers will be acquisition cost, running cost and service/maintenance cost. In that regard....from a program aired last year dedicated to the Typhoon's chance in MMRCA, the following data came from it

    Unit cost of Typhoon engine - 6million Euros/unit (12million pounds is what makes up a Typhoon ****)
    Fuel consumption for Typhoon in AB* - 6 liters/second = 360 liters/minute

    * the documentary did not mention the parameters like at which mach number and if it was with weapons (or in what configuration). But I would consider the figure of 6 liter/sec was the most favorable with the lightest load and a low mach number.


    with regard to the RD-33MK...... I was asking for the details of the same (increased) nominal thrust of RD-33MK series that I heard might be installed for the Russian Navy's MiG-29K. Even the current RD-33MK might be able to punch out 500-1,000kg more, but it will be at the cost of its lifespan and SFC. The current setting is most likely a balanced optimization for better SFC (than its predecessor), maintaining a 9t thrust and a 4,000hrs lifespan. The next development cycle for the RD-33MK would most likely be to increase the dry or wet thrust or both by maintaining the same SFC (or improving it further) and 4,000hrs (or improving it).

    It is now at least 4years since RD-33MK came online and 4 years is a decent time for a technically sound engine designer like Klimov to have increased the nominal thrust range for the baseline RD-33MK. Provided it was planned as future growth path according to company strategy and funded accordingly OR it was ordered by the customer...

    Anyone want to guess or do simple math on how long a Typhoon will be in air using AB?? It goes for every fighter except the mighty MiG-31 and possibly MiG-25 which will probably be able to hang on for an hour and more in AB, all others will probably fall out in 10-16 minutes.
    I can't find the Article on the RD-33MKM engines..
    Pls do a search on RD-33MKM, if you find something let us know.
    There was something about increased thrust and and lower fuel consumption.
    New FADEC, etc etc..
    Thanks

  11. #251
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    122
    ff1987 translated this information on Polish Air Force exercises. I have discussed these results in several forums. Most of the people are really surprised about MiG-29 efectiveness because it's an early version without ECM equipment (like Gardenya) and the old radar. R-27 missile is also quite effective. Any opinions?

    Polish magazine "Armia" 3-4/2009 , 5/2009
    article : F-16 vs MiG-29

    http://www.sklep.kagero.pl/16-armia-5-2009.html
    http://www.sklep.kagero.pl/15-armia-3-4-2009.html

    Col. M.Wiączkowski ( MiG-29 pilot) describe some fights:

    1)scenario :
    BVR - distance over 50km , 4 MiG-29 (9.12) vs 2 F-16blk 52+
    results : 2 F-16 and 1 MiG-29 shoot down

    (F-16 were supposed to attack and Mig-29 were flying CAP).

    2) scenario :
    BVR , 4 vs 4 , F-16 had E-3C support.
    results : 4 MiG-29 shoot down

    F-16 was flying by U.S. instructors at that time.

    And some explanations...

    "In time, when the monthly exercise Fruit Fly Polish pilots took over the reins completely new F-16, the scales tipped straight victories in the direction of the F-16
    At this point, it should be noted that it does not undermine the ability of American pilots, but only affirm undeniable facts. With full responsibility, we can conclude that a different airline personnel training system of American (75% based on the interaction with AWACS) is noticeable not only in serving not only air combat training, but also during normal flight school. In our field conditions and with our air defense systems, U.S. pilots to cope with varying fortune, which was confirmed by exercises which took place over the last few years. The Polish pilots trained in air combat with the F-16 both 1vs1, 2vs2. Several times tried clashes 1 MiG-29 vs 2 F-16 and the results obtained are really different from not settled, including the fight due to the ending of fuel "

    Another pilots { 1)MiG-29 and 2)F-16 pilots } relations from "FruitFly" exercises :

    1)scenario

    Red : 4 F-16 (escort) , 4 Su-22 ( bombers )
    Blue : 4 MiG-29 (CAP)
    -some AMRAAM and R-27 shoot were evade ( max range shoot ) by turning away
    -AMRAAM kill 2 MiG-29 in BVR
    -R-27 kill 1 F-16 in BVR
    -R-73 kill 2 F-16 in WVR
    results : 2 MiG-29 and 3 F-16 shoot down

    2)scenario

    Red : 4 F-16 (escort) , 4 Su-22 ( bombers )
    Blue : 4 MiG-29 (CAP)
    -start at alt 8-9km
    -distance : F-16 detect MiG-29 from 120km , track at 80 km , only one F-16 used his radar , and thanks to link 16 provide data to the others F-16s.
    -first shoot were below 80km ( at max range ) - 4 AMRAAM and 2 R-27 , and all missiles failed.
    -second shoot were below 50km - some r-27 and 2 AMRAAM were fire - and results some kills at 30km - 1 MiG was killed by AMRAAM and 2 Su22 by R-27
    -second MiG-29 was killed ( but author didn't go into detail) – probably by another AMRAAM shoot.
    -third Su-22 shoot down
    -fight end in WVR , 2 vs 2 , results -1 MiG-29 killed by AIM-9X and another because lack of fuel .
    - so 4 MiGs and 3 Su-22 were shoot down in this scenario

    I would like to emphasize that in both the above scenarios, despite the use of medium-range missiles, combat ends in WVR. Exercises "Fruit Fly" allow full use of aircraft equipment (EW, radar, etc.), as are the internal exercises of the Polish army, no foreign guests.

    http://forum.keypublishing.co.uk/sho...=120736&page=3

    Note that in the first exercise involving Su-22 the priority for the MiG-29 were the escorting F-16. In the second the Su-22.

  12. #252
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    poland
    Posts
    345
    Hi a89
    That article was from 2009, and at that time Polish Air Force pilots hadn't got much experience with new F-16s.
    But as you notice the MiGs scores some kills against much better equipped F-16.
    F-16 pilots admitted that MiGs are still very useful weapon with conjuction with great pilots.
    MiG driver said that F-16 is better in BVR, but in WVR they are quite comparable ( F-16 has got new weapons - AIM-9X + JHMCS, but MiG is probably more maneuverable).
    In this scenarios we can conclude that newer technology give some advantageous, but didn't make you untouchable opponent.
    Additionaly in many vs many engagement the fights end in WVR - so BFM is still in use ( some guys believe that current fight is only BVR).
    About R-27R1- our MiGs use some tactics:
    one is shooter - fire R-27 - then turn 180 deg
    another fly about 8 km behind shooter and provide radar data to R-27.
    About MiG-29 radar - I can tell You that the range find in the internet ( around 70-80 km against 3 sq m ) aren't the same as pilots say. One MiGs pilot declared that he detected denmark F-16AM from over 100km head on.
    I think that newer MiG-29K/KUB with new radar and fox3 AAMS is quite comparable to F-16C/D blk 52+ in BVR arena.

  13. #253
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    122
    In this scenarios we can conclude that newer technology give some advantageous, but didn't make you untouchable opponent.
    Additionaly in many vs many engagement the fights end in WVR - so BFM is still in use ( some guys believe that current fight is only BVR).
    Sure, the thing is that NATO has had access to MiG-29A 9.12A technology for ages. You would expect F-16 ECM equipment capable of dealing efficiently with it.

  14. #254
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    poland
    Posts
    345
    Quote Originally Posted by a89 View Post
    Sure, the thing is that NATO has had access to MiG-29A 9.12A technology for ages. You would expect F-16 ECM equipment capable of dealing efficiently with it.
    Of course yes. But at that time (2009 exercises) the AIDEWS wasn't operational on our F-16s.

  15. #255
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    2,062
    Quote Originally Posted by ff1987 View Post
    Hi a89
    That article was from 2009, and at that time Polish Air Force pilots hadn't got much experience with new F-16s.
    But as you notice the MiGs scores some kills against much better equipped F-16.
    F-16 pilots admitted that MiGs are still very useful weapon with conjuction with great pilots.
    MiG driver said that F-16 is better in BVR, but in WVR they are quite comparable ( F-16 has got new weapons - AIM-9X + JHMCS, but MiG is probably more maneuverable).
    In this scenarios we can conclude that newer technology give some advantageous, but didn't make you untouchable opponent.
    Additionaly in many vs many engagement the fights end in WVR - so BFM is still in use ( some guys believe that current fight is only BVR).
    About R-27R1- our MiGs use some tactics:
    one is shooter - fire R-27 - then turn 180 deg
    another fly about 8 km behind shooter and provide radar data to R-27.
    About MiG-29 radar - I can tell You that the range find in the internet ( around 70-80 km against 3 sq m ) aren't the same as pilots say. One MiGs pilot declared that he detected denmark F-16AM from over 100km head on.
    I think that newer MiG-29K/KUB with new radar and fox3 AAMS is quite comparable to F-16C/D blk 52+ in BVR arena.
    Very interesting. So the (old!) MiG-29's radar can provide target data for an R-27 OUTSIDE the launch range? I assume the target has to still be in the tracking range though, right? Was this tactic used in soviet times, and on other aircraft like Su-27 ? ( MiG-31 is known to use this )
    Last edited by mack8; 28th January 2013 at 20:45.

  16. #256
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    .de
    Posts
    1,974
    But does the Polish air force still operate the R-27 missile? I find it hard to find recent photos of a Polish MiG-29 carrying R-27, and dare I ask, when was the last time Poland test fired an R-27?
    Patrick

  17. #257
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    poland
    Posts
    345
    Quote Originally Posted by mack8 View Post
    Very interesting. So the (old!)MiG-29's radar can provide target data for an R-27 OUTSIDE the launch range? I assume the target has to still be in the tracking range though, right? Was this tactic used in soviet times, and on other aircraft like Su-27 ? ( Mig-31 is known to use this )
    Yes 9.12 MiG-29 radar can provide target data for an R-27 outside the launch range.
    I don't know if the others russians fighters can use this tactics, but probably yes.
    I know ones pilot relation about BVR engagement, and he launch R-27 from 25km ( 5km alt) in head on vs F-16AM at that time, then turn away. The wingman was flying just 8km behind shooter and track f-16 by its own radar to pass data to missile.

  18. #258
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    poland
    Posts
    345
    Quote Originally Posted by Levsha View Post
    But does the Polish air force still operate the R-27 missile? I find it hard to find recent photos of a Polish MiG-29 carrying R-27, and dare I ask, when was the last time Poland test fired an R-27?
    We haven't got enough space in Poland to fire real R-27.
    Pilots use R-27 just in simulation in exercises like "Fruit Fly" and often plays aggressors against F-16s.

  19. #259
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    .de
    Posts
    1,974
    Quote Originally Posted by ff1987 View Post
    We haven't got enough space in Poland to fire real R-27.
    Pilots use R-27 just in simulation in exercises like "Fruit Fly" and often plays aggressors against F-16s.
    Any recent photos of R-27 on Polish MiG-29?
    Patrick

  20. #260
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    poland
    Posts
    345
    Quote Originally Posted by Levsha View Post
    Any recent photos of R-27 on Polish MiG-29?
    Polish Air Force still operate R-27R missiles:

    http://lotniczapolska.pl/Lifting-MiGa,22762

    "Recent supply these missiles took place in 2006-2007 during the acquisition of aircraft from Germany. Delivered then 50 medium-range missiles R-27 and 150 short-range R-60 missiles and 310 R-73"

    "Armament:

    Aircraft armament (version 9.12 - purchased by Poland) are:
    - 1 gun GSz-30-1 caliber 30 mm at the base of the wing with a standard supply of 150 rounds of ammunition;
    - Semi active radar guided air - air missiles R-27
    -IR guided air - air missiles R-60;
    - IR guided air - air missiles - R-73.
    To destroy ground targets (surface) plane can use bombs and unguided missiles."

    http://www.airpolicing.wp.mil.pl/pl/6.html

    Photos:
    http://www.airliners.net/photo/Polan...93c4d6d8fc2133
    http://www.airliners.net/photo/Polan...93c4d6d8fc2133

    Photos are from 2005/6 but our Air Force still use R-27R missiles ( see above link ), as we haven't got any other BVR missiles on MiGs.

  21. #261
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    2,126
    1)scenario :
    BVR - distance over 50km , 4 MiG-29 (9.12) vs 2 F-16blk 52+
    results : 2 F-16 and 1 MiG-29 shoot down


    What are the assumptions on those MiG-29 v F-16 BVR engagements?

    Currently AIM-120 has a real life hit ratio of about 33% from memory. So 4 aircraft launching 8 missiles would probably bag at least 2 and maybe a third MiG-29.

    R27 has 4% - from Eritrea-Ethiopia where only 1 out of 24 missiles hit (and that wasn't a hit but caused enough damage for aircraft to crash later). We don't know about type of R27 used and they were apparently "max range" shoots.


    Also were any R27s launched in Serbia in 1999?

    1)scenario

    Red : 4 F-16 (escort) , 4 Su-22 ( bombers )
    Blue : 4 MiG-29 (CAP)
    -some AMRAAM and R-27 shoot were evade ( max range shoot ) by turning away
    -AMRAAM kill 2 MiG-29 in BVR
    -R-27 kill 1 F-16 in BVR
    Seems a bit optimistic given outcome of max range shoots in Ethiopia-Eritrea (4% hit ratio for R27).


    To be honest I'm a bit dubious on these electronic simulations. In real life there are a lot more factors affecting hit probability.
    Last edited by thobbes; 29th January 2013 at 04:38.

  22. #262
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    5,655
    The Ethiopia scenario isn't really indicative of much, IMO.
    We don't now the pilot quality, we don't know the missile status, or the engagement specifics.
    http://img818.imageshack.us/img818/9098/rsz11rsz3807.jpg

  23. #263
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    122
    Currently AIM-120 has a real life hit ratio of about 33% from memory. So 4 aircraft launching 8 missiles would probably bag at least 2 and maybe a third MiG-29.
    This ratio was achieved in ideal conditions i.e. with AWACS support and in some cases, foes who did not have fully operational aircraft.

    The Ethiopia scenario isn't really indicative of much, IMO.
    We don't now the pilot quality, we don't know the missile status, or the engagement specifics.
    Yes, it is not known where the missiles came from, if the life was expired, and how they were handled by flight personnel.

  24. #264
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    poland
    Posts
    345
    Quote Originally Posted by thobbes View Post
    What are the assumptions on those MiG-29 v F-16 BVR engagements?

    Currently AIM-120 has a real life hit ratio of about 33% from memory. So 4 aircraft launching 8 missiles would probably bag at least 2 and maybe a third MiG-29.

    R27 has 4% - from Eritrea-Ethiopia where only 1 out of 24 missiles hit (and that wasn't a hit but caused enough damage for aircraft to crash later). We don't know about type of R27 used and they were apparently "max range" shoots.


    Also were any R27s launched in Serbia in 1999?



    Seems a bit optimistic given outcome of max range shoots in Ethiopia-Eritrea (4% hit ratio for R27).


    To be honest I'm a bit dubious on these electronic simulations. In real life there are a lot more factors affecting hit probability.
    This is what I read in magazine. This results was given by pilots.
    But You should notice some arguments:
    1. Polish F-16s pilots haven't got enough experience at that time ( Poland start to operate F-16 in 2006, and US instructors also take part in some exercises, but without AWACS support they had some difficulties to operate over Poland).
    2.F-16 didn't use AIDEWS. Probably only Su-22s had some EW equipment at that time.
    3.MiG-29s pilots was very experience guys. They play a lot of BVR games vs other NATO fighters ( F-15C, F-16AM, F/A-18A/C). They had some anti AMRAAM tactics.
    4.MiG-29 probably shoot R-27s within NEZ (example 25km) and use some special tactics ( see above posts) to enhance Pk. Also many R-27s were evade by F-16s and Su-22s.
    5.The authors reminds that after some time - kill ratio go on favour F-16s ( Pilots get experience and build tactics - how to use new weapons)
    You must remember that fighter aircrafts is kind of weapon just like AK-47. You need a lot of times to learn how to use it properly over Your own territory ( We have got very different air defence systems , SAMs, army than US, and also we use some other tactics than powerful USAF).
    6.I don't know much about Pk shoots, but as a part of NATO we probably use similar simulations. For example from Red Flag Alaska 2012:

    „Four Eurofighters are believed to have accounted for 16 of these "kills" from 18 simulated missile shots „

    http://www.flightglobal.com/news/art...ercise-376410/

    I don't know how much reality is in those simulations, but according to NATO the Red Flag reflects real war condition.
    Maybe the things is how You use Your weapons - if You shoot from max range then Pk became very very low, but if You got perfect shoot well within NEZ the PK rise.

  25. #265
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Cataclysm
    Posts
    4,124
    Quote Originally Posted by thobbes View Post
    R27 has 4% - from Eritrea-Ethiopia where only 1 out of 24 missiles hit (and that wasn't a hit but caused enough damage for aircraft to crash later). We don't know about type of R27 used and they were apparently "max range" shoots.
    One needs to take the Eritrean scenario with great caution. The supplied missiles were said to be expired and improperly stored which led to liquid nitrogen leaks (cooling system of the sensor head of the R-73). Ukrainian mercs also complained about the BVR tactics which usually consisted of approaching to the target head-on, firing a salvo of R-27s from maximum engagement range and swiftly turning away. Not exactly the best way to increase your Pk.

    Not saying that R-27 can beat AMRAAM, though..

  26. #266
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    2,126
    In any case if this is the kind of result obtained by experienced pilots flying a 1980s vintage Soviet aircraft with 1980s Soviet vintage missiles, then the Israelis and Yanks are very, very lucky that Arab pilots were poorly trained and generally equipped with export "monkey model" equipment and that Serbs had 10 years of sanctions and non-functional radars.

    I wonder what the result would be if you pitted experienced late model Flanker pilots versus NATO jets in BVR scenarios (F-22 aside).

    It does make one wonder how long outnumbered NATO airforces would've lasted in a Cold War Goes Hot Scenario.
    Last edited by thobbes; 29th January 2013 at 21:08.

  27. #267
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    2,062
    They weren't really outnumbered , the ration was closer to 1:1. Somewhere there MUST be some sort of OOB for 1990 of VVS, PVO and NATO air forces opposing each other.

    Anyway, if the cold war went hot instead of... slightly colder (but then hotted up rapidly in other places- peace is not an option, no money in it!) in 1990 or 1991, no ill trained, hideously outnumbered, monkey models iraqis or embargoed and even more hideously outnumbered (if valiant) serbs there. Most of the soviet combat technology was roughly on par with US/NATO's , and in some areas even superior. MiG-29s and Su-27s totting HMS and insanely (for that time) agile missiles, sound BVR tactics and even longer ranged missiles (R-27E on Su-27), all frontline combat aircraft featuring basic chaff& flare dispensers for self defence, many with ECM gear, which would have severely degrades the Pk of the likes of already equalled or even outperformed AIM-9M or AIM-7M (AIM-120 number would have been insignificant at this time), all this would have probably led to something like a FAVOURABLE kill ratio for the soviets, at least in the early part of the war. But then , no matter what happened in the air or on the ground, probably none of us would be here today anyway to say which way it went...

  28. #268
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    2,126
    The other important area where NATO has managed to maintain overwhelming superiority against poorer air defence forces is electronic warfare and intelligence.

    Soviets maintained massive EW support for their forces (e.g. Yak-28PPs, Il-28s, Su-24MP, Mi-8s).

    This is something generally ignored by most modern opponents of NATO who focused on combat aircraft/helicopters (Iraq/Libya) or in Yugoslavia's case national defence industry.

  29. #269
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    2,062
    Probably mean Il-20 or 22 right ? There were also comparatively numerous Tu-16, An-12 and others that escape me now , specifically configured for ECM, SIGINT etc. Added to that, numerous ground based jamming stations. And perhaps other "secretno" assets we don't know about.

  30. #270
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    2,126
    From memory, wasn't there some EW variants of the Il-28 Beagle? Not sure of their operational status in 1980s.

    Forgot about Il-20/22 as well as a ground systems.

    It's interesting that out of smaller air forces, only the Israelis seem to have truly embraced electronic warfare.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

- Part of the    Network -

KEY AERO AVIATION NEWS

MAGAZINES

AVIATION FORUM

SHOP

 

WEBSITES