Key.Aero Network
Register Free

Page 1 of 6 12345 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 30 of 176

Thread: MiG-29 kontra F-16 (aerodynamics...)

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    64

    MiG-29 kontra F-16 (aerodynamics...)

    In the thread "Rafale ad: fair comment or darned cheek?" is interesting conversation about aerodynamics of Rafale and Typhoon. One of gents told that some aerospace engennir have explained him the differencies.

    So what about comparing MiG-29 aerodynamics versus F-16. On the web I found this pics that might give you some basic ideas:


    left is w/o afterburner, right is with it, fuel reserves 50%, other should be clear

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Posts
    460
    I don't know. If it comes from a respected source it may be correct.
    However, I have some observations
    -the first two graph show a larger enveloppe for the MiG 29 in all the regimes. Also it says that it is the F 16 is a C, but it didn't said what block. Because i doubt that a GE powered blk. 50 would perform worst than the MiG at lower altitudes.
    -don't understand what the third graph displays. May be you can elaborate? Because if the two distance (2100 km and 3900) imply that the MiG has a bigger flying distance, that a huge BS! MiG has a smaller combat radius than the Viper. In fact even the Hornet outrages the MiG!

    Also, some remarks. In comparing the flying qualities, it shoulf be mentionaed that the F 16 accelerates better than MiG; in fact better even than the Su 27! Also it is one of the most agile plane.It can go from 1G to 9G in less that 1 second, thanks to FLCS.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    BBU
    Posts
    543
    And what are the aerodynamic differences between the different F-16 blocks? Does one block have different engines than other model...or one model has some aerodynamic doohikeys than other..or the differences are in terms of avionics?


    Since the graphs are Polish...and Poland has both planes...I`d say you eat it as it is Cru

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Posts
    460
    There is, of course no aerodyamic difference. However, the blk. 50 perform better than blk 52, even the thrust is similar (~13200kgf) because the GE engine is better. Not to mention the big difference between blk. 50 and blk. 42/32 with P&W 220E with just 10500 kgf. And all these are F 16 C. This is the reason I mentioned the block

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Montreal Canada
    Posts
    518
    Quote Originally Posted by cru
    I don't know. If it comes from a respected source it may be correct.
    However, I have some observations
    -the first two graph show a larger enveloppe for the MiG 29 in all the regimes. Also it says that it is the F 16 is a C, but it didn't said what block. Because i doubt that a GE powered blk. 50 would perform worst than the MiG at lower altitudes.
    -don't understand what the third graph displays. May be you can elaborate? Because if the two distance (2100 km and 3900) imply that the MiG has a bigger flying distance, that a huge BS! MiG has a smaller combat radius than the Viper. In fact even the Hornet outrages the MiG!

    Also, some remarks. In comparing the flying qualities, it shoulf be mentionaed that the F 16 accelerates better than MiG; in fact better even than the Su 27! Also it is one of the most agile plane.It can go from 1G to 9G in less that 1 second, thanks to FLCS.
    hello cru
    can you please post the figures for the F-16?
    weights, loads and ranges to start and here we'll do the maths against the Mig-29
    because some figures i've seen say for example that the internal fuel range gives 750kms for the F-16 and 1400 for the Mig-29 but it migh be radius confused with range...
    thanks in advance

    Camaro

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Dec 1999
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    8,692
    The main reason for the Mig-29 looking so good in those graphs is simply because the Mig-29 can fly both higher and faster than the F-16. Of course if that was the most important consideration then the SR-71 would be one of the best fighters in the world.

    The reality is that situational awareness and weapons are very important too. Advantage to F-16 regarding SA especially against the early model Mig-29s ona one to one basis, but that advantage is lost when the Mig-29 is operating as it was designed under external control. Regarding the weapons the Mig-29 has had close range advantage until recently when the F-16 is getting HMS and off boresight missiles to match, but of course every Mig-29 has this while only a few F-16s are getting this now.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Posts
    460
    hello cru
    can you please post the figures for the F-16?
    weights, loads and ranges to start and here we'll do the maths against the Mig-29
    because some figures i've seen say for example that the internal fuel range gives 750kms for the F-16 and 1400 for the Mig-29 but it migh be radius confused with range...
    thanks in advance

    Camaro
    For MiG 29: http://www.aeronautics.ru/archive/vvs/mig29-01.htm 1500 km (max. range, not combat radius, of course), 2100 with external tank.

    For F 16 various sources say max range W/O externals is 2500, with externals; 3800 km
    The main reason for the Mig-29 looking so good in those graphs is simply because the Mig-29 can fly both higher and faster than the F-16. Of course if that was the most important consideration then the SR-71 would be one of the best fighters in the world.

    The reality is that situational awareness and weapons are very important too. Advantage to F-16 regarding SA especially against the early model Mig-29s ona one to one basis, but that advantage is lost when the Mig-29 is operating as it was designed under external control. Regarding the weapons the Mig-29 has had close range advantage until recently when the F-16 is getting HMS and off boresight missiles to match, but of course every Mig-29 has this while only a few F-16s are getting this now.
    A good article about the F 16 vs. MiG 29: http://www.codeonemagazine.com/archi...july2a_95.html
    About SA, I don't see haw this advantage is lost to the last version of MiG. Don't forget that all the F 16 blk. 50/52 in the USAF are modernized in the CCIP programme that included Link 16 datalink. The amount of data provided by this is awesome: http://www.cnir.na.baesystems.com/cn...t_terminal.htm . Also blk. 40/42 are upgrade now. Also there are not so few F 16 with JHMCS/AIM 9X. There are about 250.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Dec 1999
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    8,692
    About SA, I don't see haw this advantage is lost to the last version of MiG.
    Because most except early model Mig-29s or export models have decent RHAWs and self defence counter measures, plus the datalink they operate with means they can fly radar and radio silent with their radar displays showing them where the enemy is. They can also have their passive IRSTs turned on to further help them out while not emitting anything. In other words any advantage the F-16s might have had is gone...

    Also there are not so few F 16 with JHMCS/AIM 9X. There are about 250.
    Compared with every Mig-29 built it is "few".

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    64
    A good article about the F 16 vs. MiG 29: http://www.codeonemagazine.com/arch.../july2a_95.html
    About SA, I don't see haw this advantage is lost to the last version of MiG. Don't forget that all the F 16 blk. 50/52 in the USAF are modernized in the CCIP programme that included Link 16 datalink. The amount of data provided by this is awesome: http://www.cnir.na.baesystems.com/c...vt_terminal.htm . Also blk. 40/42 are upgrade now. Also there are not so few F 16 with JHMCS/AIM 9X. There are about 250.
    Gents, the thread was aimed to compare aerodynamics solutions, flight performance and so. Please do not start thread "radar X have better range than radar Y"...

    Note the difference in manouverability graph, where MiG-29 is lacking 9G envelope. What do you think about this case?
    On the Rafale thread is was Jackonicko who was told about differencies between F-16 and MiG-29 aerodynamics.

    Note also that on the last graph, the MiG-29 is in red colour and F-16 in blue, exactly opposite like on two previous graphs.
    Last edited by zajcev; 2nd September 2005 at 07:41.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    NYC
    Posts
    28
    Quote Originally Posted by cru
    For MiG 29: http://www.aeronautics.ru/archive/vvs/mig29-01.htm 1500 km (max. range, not combat radius, of course), 2100 with external tank.
    That is for the old versions.

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    10,590
    This has been solved years ago.. The ones interested are welcome to read Jane's How To Fly and Fight in MiG-29 Fulcrum, that compares MiG-29 with F-16C from pilot's point of view... It lists and comments drawbacks and advantages of both types...

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Posts
    460
    Because most except early model Mig-29s or export models have decent RHAWs and self defence counter measures, plus the datalink they operate with means they can fly radar and radio silent with their radar displays showing them where the enemy is. They can also have their passive IRSTs turned on to further help them out while not emitting anything. In other words any advantage the F-16s might have had is gone...
    Stop one moment: you mentioned the "Mig-29 is operating as it was designed under external control". Let's talk about this. The f 16 can also operate with data received from external sources (AWACS, other F 16 in IFDL mode, or GCI); Moreover the MIDS operate at 256 kbt/s (upgraded to ~ 1Mbt, but only in the case of MIDS terminal made by Harris Corp.), compared with 16 k,in the case of the most sophisticated Russian-produced datalink. If you check the link, you will see that on the HDS (horizontal display situation) there is a clear picture of what is going on up to 550 km around the F 16, without using the radar.

    Now in your last post you changed the topic and mentioned other domains were the last MiG model might have an upper hand: EW and IRST. Well, let's take them one by one:
    -the F 16 C upgraded until now under the CCIP program use the ALR 69 A(V)-the first all-digital RWR in the worldhttp://www.raytheon.com/products/alr69/
    - the jammer is the ALQ 184 http://www.raytheon.com/products/ste...s01_030214.pdf;
    -Sniper targeting pod(with 3rd genration MV IR sensor, long range (50km) pumped-diode laser for ranging/LGBtargeting and A-A tracking function.
    Compared with every Mig-29 built it is "few".[/QUOTE]
    Correct, since the MiG 29 had it from the begining in standard configuration. However, 250 are not "few" ; how many Air Forces have 250 4th generation fighters? I'll tell you: a "few"

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    10,590
    Quote Originally Posted by cru
    Stop one moment: you mentioned the "Mig-29 is operating as it was designed under external control". Let's talk about this. The f 16 can also operate with data received from external sources (AWACS, other F 16 in IFDL mode, or GCI); Moreover the MIDS operate at 256 kbt/s (upgraded to ~ 1Mbt, but only in the case of MIDS terminal made by Harris Corp.), compared with 16 k,in the case of the most sophisticated Russian-produced datalink. If you check the link, you will see that on the HDS (horizontal display situation) there is a clear picture of what is going on up to 550 km around the F 16, without using the radar.

    Now in your last post you changed the topic and mentioned other domains were the last MiG model might have an upper hand: EW and IRST. Well, let's take them one by one:
    -the F 16 C upgraded until now under the CCIP program use the ALR 69 A(V)-the first all-digital RWR in the worldhttp://www.raytheon.com/products/alr69/
    - the jammer is the ALQ 184 http://www.raytheon.com/products/ste...s01_030214.pdf;
    -Sniper targeting pod(with 3rd genration MV IR sensor, long range (50km) pumped-diode laser for ranging/LGBtargeting and A-A tracking function.
    Compared with every Mig-29 built it is "few"
    Correct, since the MiG 29 had it from the begining in standard configuration. However, 250 are not "few" ; how many Air Forces have 250 4th generation fighters? I'll tell you: a "few"
    cru, you cannot be serious... You take the latest toys for F-16C and, of course, the oldest MiG-29 that exists and put these two together for comparison to make the F-16 win. Cheap trick..

    Let me put it differently - take $7mil and see what you can get for this. The same old MiG-29 or the Sniper targeting pod plus ALQ-184 and ALR-69 with no aircraft to hang those on. What is your choice?
    Last edited by flex297; 2nd September 2005 at 08:22.

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Posts
    460
    I was not sepaking about the "old" MiG 29, but the MiG-29 SMT.
    And if you use a 7 mil MiG 29, you will end with a QMiG 29.

    But back to the topic, if you red the article in Codeone, you will see that MiG is hard to beat in low speed, high AoA, while F 16 regain an advantage at higher speed.

    Also, the MiG has a larger enveloppe at high altitude, even compared to the later blk. 50.

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    10,590
    Quote Originally Posted by cru
    I was not sepaking about the "old" MiG 29, but the MiG-29 SMT.
    And if you use a 7 mil MiG 29, you will end with a QMiG 29.

    But back to the topic, if you red the article in Codeone, you will see that MiG is hard to beat in low speed, high AoA, while F 16 regain an advantage at higher speed.

    Also, the MiG has a larger enveloppe at high altitude, even compared to the later blk. 50.
    No, let's put those two on even road. F-16C Block 50? OK.. That makes some $40mil.. For that bucks you get the latest MiG-29KM with few tankers of Vodka as extra, not just basic SMT upgrade.

    As with aerodynamics, all has been already said in Jane's book that provides a decent comparison between somewhat downgraded and downrated Luftwaffe MiG-29s and F-16C, no need to argue here..
    Last edited by flex297; 2nd September 2005 at 09:11.

  16. #16
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Posts
    460
    Algerian MiG 29=30 mil/piece...

  17. #17
    Join Date
    Dec 1999
    Posts
    3,371
    In that case, i'll take some mothballed F86 to form a squadron and hang all sorts of !$%!$ on it and i'll still cost a lot less than a Mig29. That must mean it's better.
    Country::US of A

  18. #18
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    10,590
    Quote Originally Posted by cru
    Algerian MiG 29=30 mil/piece...
    Chilean F-16C Block 50 Peace Puma - 10 jets for $700 mil.
    Polish F-16 Block 52 - 48 jets for $3.5bn

    Of course, these two countries are no operators of previous versions which makes the financial conditions a bit harder..
    Last edited by flex297; 2nd September 2005 at 13:12.

  19. #19
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    10,590
    Quote Originally Posted by Vortex
    In that case, i'll take some mothballed F86 to form a squadron and hang all sorts of !$%!$ on it and i'll still cost a lot less than a Mig29. That must mean it's better.
    Theoretically... The question is if the pilot of the mentioned Sabre was enough persuaded about the capabilities of the aircraft to dare a fight with the 29. Because I can assure you that every average pilot of the Fulcrum dares to measure with a Lawndart, even on BVR...

  20. #20
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    42
    Quote Originally Posted by flex297
    Chilean F-16C Block 50 Peace Puma - 10 jets for $700 mil.
    Polish F-16 Block 52 - 48 jets for $3.5bn

    Of course, these two countries are no operators of previous versions which makes the financial conditions a bit harder..
    Chile bought 10 F-16 for $500 mil. Source: http://www.f-16.net/f-16_users_article9.html

    On December 27th, 2000, the Chilean government finally decided to purchase up to 10 new Block 50 F-16 fighters (6 C's and 4 D's) in a deal worth $500 million. The LOA was signed on February 2nd, 2002.
    We will paid $3500 mil. but we bought a lot of weapons for our F-16's. (i have full list but unfortunetly in Polish :/)
    For example:
    178 AIM-9X Sidewinder
    360 AGM-65G Maverick
    280 AGM-154 JSOW
    340 Mk82 bombs (227 kg)
    230 Mk84 bombs (907 kg)
    I can't translate full text

    Quote Originally Posted by cru
    Algerian MiG 29=30 mil/piece...
    In 1988 we paid $2 mln. for mig-29 (we bought 11 Mig's-29 + weapons for $25 mln.)

    In 1998 one F-16 (i don't know wich block) cost $28 mln. As you see we paid ~$72 milions per one F-16 (with weapons).

    Weapons for Polish F-16.
    (...)Po wielu latach przymiarek 27 grudnia 2002 roku rząd polski ogłosił jako zwycięzcę w programie na nowy wielozadaniowy samolot bojowy produkt amerykański firmy Lockheed-Martin. Po kilku miesiącach dodatkowych negocjacji (m.in. offset), 18 kwietnia 2003 roku została podpisana ostateczna umowa na dostawę 36 F-16C Block52+ oraz 12 F-16D Block52+ w latach 2006-2008. Samoloty będą użytkowane 3, 6 i 10 eskadrę lotnictwa taktycznego stacjonujące na poznańskim lotnisku Krzesiny i Łasku. Wartość kontraktu realizowanego w ramach programu Foreign Military Sales (FMS) Peace Sky wynosi 3,52 mld dolarów. Wraz z 48 samolotami Polskie Siły Powietrzne otrzymają: 178 pocisków AIM-9X Sidewinder, także 178 pocisków średniego zasięgu AIM-120C-5, 360 pocisków AGM-65G Maverick, 280 zasobników szybujących AGM-154 JSOW, 340 bomb Mk82 (227 kg), 230 bomb Mk84 (907 kg), 270 pakietów instalacajnych do w/w bomb w celu przekształecenia ich w GBU-31 lub -38, 270 pakietów do bomb w celu przekształcenia ich w GBU-22 i GBU-24 Paveway III, kilkanaście tysięcy szkolnych bomb BDU-33, kilkadziesiąt tysięcy sztuk amunicji do działka 20mm. Jednocześnie otrzymamy również 22 zasobniki obserwacyjno-celownicze Pantera (eksportowe Sniper-XR), 7 zasobników rozpoznawczych DB-110, około 20 hełmów zintegrowanych z systemem celowania nahełmowego JHMCS. Rewolucji ulegnie system szkolenia i symulacji pola walki, głównie dzięki pozyskaniu w firmie Link rozbudowanego pojedynczego symulatora misji, dwóch eskadrowych urządzeń treningowych, dwóch symulatorów procedur naziemnych.
    (...)
    Last edited by Samez; 2nd September 2005 at 17:35.

  21. #21
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Caracas, Venezuela
    Posts
    707
    Guys...

    AERODINAMICS
    FLIGHT ENVELOPES
    FLIGHT CHARTS
    HIGH
    FAST
    QUICK
    MANEUVERABILITY
    ROLL RATES
    PITCH RATES
    ANGLE FIGHTERS
    RATE FIGHTERS
    ARTICIAL STABILITY
    LERX

    Those are thingies related to "Aerodinamic comparation between F-16 and MiG-29" as Zajcev put in the name of the thread, that's what is all about, not about CCIP, datalinks, ALR-69 and such...

    PLEASE stay to the topic, is a good one!..

  22. #22
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    BBU
    Posts
    543
    I don`t mean any offence....but all the topics when it`s about X-plane vs Y-plane all the discussion resumes to the radar, electronics stuff. Well gee, I`m installing a new radar to my bed and some rocket pods to the chair...let`s see how combat ready it`ll be :P

    I would like to know more about the aerodynamic properties of both planes...as for the electronic stuff...I already know...too much.


    Please..continue:

  23. #23
    Join Date
    Dec 1999
    Posts
    3,371
    Quote Originally Posted by flex297
    Theoretically... The question is if the pilot of the mentioned Sabre was enough persuaded about the capabilities of the aircraft to dare a fight with the 29. Because I can assure you that every average pilot of the Fulcrum dares to measure with a Lawndart, even on BVR...
    your assurances mean nothing...i can assure you just the opposite. Every Viper pilot say they'll splash one faster than you can say MIG.
    Country::US of A

  24. #24
    Join Date
    Dec 1999
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    8,692
    Moreover the MIDS operate at 256 kbt/s (upgraded to ~ 1Mbt, but only in the case of MIDS terminal made by Harris Corp.), compared with 16 k,in the case of the most sophisticated Russian-produced datalink. If you check the link, you will see that on the HDS (horizontal display situation) there is a clear picture of what is going on up to 550 km around the F 16, without using the radar.
    Yes, of course, this is all about frame rates and bit speeds. It is nothing to do with the fact that the ground controller of the Mig can transmit and receive data without voice communications and the Mig pilot can recieve a 360 degree view of the airspace surrounding him totally passively too.

    Now in your last post you changed the topic and mentioned other domains were the last MiG model might have an upper hand: EW and IRST.
    So RHAW and IRST have nothing to do with SA!!!!!!!

    -the F 16 C upgraded until now under the CCIP program use the ALR 69 A(V)-the first all-digital RWR in the world
    And analog systems couldn't do the job at all? A rifle without a scope will still kill.

    Correct, since the MiG 29 had it from the begining in standard configuration. However, 250 are not "few" ; how many Air Forces have 250 4th generation fighters? I'll tell you: a "few"
    What fraction of the total number of F-16s built is 250 and that tells you what I mean by few.

    In that case, i'll take some mothballed F86 to form a squadron and hang all sorts of !$%!$ on it and i'll still cost a lot less than a Mig29. That must mean it's better.
    It is not just about price... price is a factor, but not the most important aspect.

    The fact that you get an aircraft that has minor advantages in some areas and is only slightly behind in some other areas for significantly less is what is important.
    The reality is that the purchase of F-16s is really all about buying American protection/favour. In that sense the F-16 does beat the Mig-29, except that is tempored with the fact that you only get that US support as long as you are worth more to them than those you are currently fighting. If Saddam had bought American planes and equipment on a large scale it stil would have done him no good when he invaded Kuwaite as selling a few Falcons isn't more important than threatening Saudi oil.
    So the choice is western investment but strings attached in conflict, or less investment, but your weapons are your own... as long as you keep up the payments.

  25. #25
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Caracas, Venezuela
    Posts
    707

    Cool

    Yes, of course, this is all about frame rates and bit speeds.
    In fact, it is. More speed and data rates allows better ways of encriptation (making the spoofing of datalink transmissions harder to jamm), allow more info (quantity of values) into the transmission (as MIDS via Link-16 do), and allow a much bigger number of recipents per datalink network as much as fewer time for refresh data. TKS-2-27 for Su-27S (a product of the 80s and a trully good one then and even very useful now) worked in the UHF region at some 4.6Kb/s working up to 16 aircraft in a network refreshing data every 10 seconds (so 6 updates for minute). While working in a 2 aircraft link the update was every 2 seconds. Now, USAF haven't anything comparable in both number of deployable assets and technical capability to the TKS-2-27/APD-518 combo of the VVS's Su-27S and V-PVO's MiG-31 and Su-27P. By 1989 they were close to 1000 aircraft of those types using datalinks. Only the F-14A Tomcat used something similar in the US (US Navy) IIRC via Link-11 connections and USAF used better Link-16 via JTIDS-2 classH terminals in some E-3B Sentry and other specialized aircraft but nothing at the tactical level. Now by 1992 18 F-15C MSIP II of Mountain Home TFS received JTIDS class2H that's improved over APD-518 and TKS-2-27. If there was any advantage of the Soviet/Russian side was via-numbers in the 80s. Now is shalved, most USAF/USN/NATO assets deploy IDM, JTIDS Class2H, or MIDS-LVT/FDL that are VASTLY better than the old (but yeah, good) APD-518/TKS-2-27. Trying tor argue the contrary is...sorry, foolish.

    Now you're talking about MiG-29s, 9.12 and 9.13 NEVER received anything in the class of TKS-2-27 or APD-518, not even Spektr ground-to-air datalink. The DATALINK equipment of MiG-29 is a simple Turkus (improved version with more frequencies for Soviet ones), without any "Tactical Display" capability. Only command & guidance info via Lazur-M datalink . Sorry this is not what I call a trully SA augmentation system. Is a command & guidance equipment. Period.

    So RHAW and IRST have nothing to do with SA!!!!!!!

    With SPO-15 L-005 Beryoza?, nor really. The equipment is far more sensitive than many people (those who call it garbage) think. As a STT-detector and advice system is fine as much as you're facing 80s radars. Now, if you want to use the sensor as an efective SA building equipment (like you can do with ALR-69 due better coverage and Digital Presentation or even ALR-45 by the fact) you're hopless due the fact of problems with prioritations and display. Ask this to any Russian pilot you like, Fulcrum, Fencer, Flanker...everybody will say the same. There is a very good reason that SPO-32 Pastel (L-151) was so much waited. It was a total quantum leap over Beryoza and Sirena-3M and comparable to ALR-69 and ALR-56 class of sets. It even had an ARM targetting system and memory expanded library.

    About the IRST is a backup system heavily dependent of ranging via radar (you can't obtain range information via IRST KOLS) or GCI operator (he tell you where the bandit is _heading_ you place the IR strobe in such a heading and uncage the IR seeker and launch. You can also use it to support radar azimuth-tracking, and into Laser-range-finder range, also rangefinding. Is not a SA agumentation system, because it can not measure range along, as per example AAN/AS-42 in the F-14D.



  26. #26
    Join Date
    Dec 1999
    Location
    Auckland, New Zealand
    Posts
    1,459
    Pit raises some good points. A Soviet Su-24 pilot notes that flying in Central Europe the Beryoza used to "light up like a christmas tree", due to the number of radars around. Pilots had to disable the audio warnings, or risk going deaf from the continual noise. Situational awareness value of the system was therefore very low. The MiG-29 lacked any form of ECM provision, internal or external, until the 9.13 was introduced. Even the 9.13 only had a very basic self-protectiom system, the Gardeniya.

    The KOLS IRST really isn't much more than an enlarged missile seeker. It cannot be compared to US systems like that of the F-14, which are vastly more powerful and expensive. It can't provide any situational awareness due to lack of ranging capability, and its short detection range.

    The non-export MiG-29 was supposed to have some form of tactical display from GCI via datalink, but it was never actually implemented. They did get the "Takt/Dubl" switch to change the CRT from HUD repeater to tactical display, but it didn't work. Probably the whole fleet would have got the capability during the planned MiG-29S upgrades.
    Last edited by aerospacetech; 5th September 2005 at 07:11.
    Available now: my book Hawker P.1103 and P.1121: Camm's Last Fighter Projects from Blue Envoy Press

  27. #27
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Posts
    295
    Quote Originally Posted by aerospacetech
    Pit raises some good points. A Soviet Su-24 pilot notes that flying in Central Europe the Beryoza used to "light up like a christmas tree", due to the number of radars around. Pilots had to disable the audio warnings, or risk going deaf from the continual noise. Situational awareness value of the system was therefore very low. The MiG-29 lacked any form of ECM provision, internal or external, until the 9.13 was introduced. Even the 9.13 only had a very basic self-protectiom system, the Gardeniya.

    The KOLS IRST really isn't much more than an enlarged missile seeker. It cannot be compared to US systems like that of the F-14, which are vastly more powerful and expensive. It can't provide any situational awareness due to lack of ranging capability, and its short detection range.

    The non-export MiG-29 was supposed to have some form of tactical display from GCI via datalink, but it was never actually implemented. They did get the "Takt/Dubl" switch to change the CRT from HUD repeater to tactical display, but it didn't work. Probably the whole fleet would have got the capability during the planned MiG-29S upgrades.
    Paul, man, your knowledge of Russian avionics is really unmatched.

  28. #28
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Posts
    460
    It is nothing to do with the fact that the ground controller of the Mig can transmit and receive data without voice communications and the Mig pilot can recieve a 360 degree view of the airspace surrounding him totally passively too.
    Garry, you don'y know much about datalinks? :diablo: Any datalink "can transmit and receive data without voice communications"! That's why is called datalink! In fact a voice channel is not even included in some datalinks (MIDS FDL)!
    As about receiving "a 360 degree view of the airspace surrounding him totally passively too", again thtat what a datalink does! Look at:http://www.cnir.na.baesystems.com/cn...t_terminal.htm and you can see that a Link 16 MIDS shows you what's around you!

    And analog systems couldn't do the job at all? A rifle without a scope will still kill.
    That's chidish! If it would be true, the Russian themseves would stick with MiG 23/21...etc

  29. #29
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    10,590
    Quote Originally Posted by Vortex
    your assurances mean nothing...i can assure you just the opposite. Every Viper pilot say they'll splash one faster than you can say MIG.
    I intentionally skipped the question about who actually splashes who.. if both sides are confident about having capabilities to destroy their enemioes, then the aircraft are in most aspects comparable and that is the point. Any pilot sitting in F-86 facing MiG-29 or F-16 would know that this is a suicide mission, therefore its value it close to zero..

  30. #30
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    10,590
    Quote Originally Posted by Pit
    In fact, it is. More speed and data rates allows better ways of encriptation (making the spoofing of datalink transmissions harder to jamm), allow more info (quantity of values) into the transmission (as MIDS via Link-16 do), and allow a much bigger number of recipents per datalink network as much as fewer time for refresh data. TKS-2-27 for Su-27S (a product of the 80s and a trully good one then and even very useful now) worked in the UHF region at some 4.6Kb/s working up to 16 aircraft in a network refreshing data every 10 seconds (so 6 updates for minute). While working in a 2 aircraft link the update was every 2 seconds. Now, USAF haven't anything comparable in both number of deployable assets and technical capability to the TKS-2-27/APD-518 combo of the VVS's Su-27S and V-PVO's MiG-31 and Su-27P. By 1989 they were close to 1000 aircraft of those types using datalinks. Only the F-14A Tomcat used something similar in the US (US Navy) IIRC via Link-11 connections and USAF used better Link-16 via JTIDS-2 classH terminals in some E-3B Sentry and other specialized aircraft but nothing at the tactical level. Now by 1992 18 F-15C MSIP II of Mountain Home TFS received JTIDS class2H that's improved over APD-518 and TKS-2-27. If there was any advantage of the Soviet/Russian side was via-numbers in the 80s. Now is shalved, most USAF/USN/NATO assets deploy IDM, JTIDS Class2H, or MIDS-LVT/FDL that are VASTLY better than the old (but yeah, good) APD-518/TKS-2-27. Trying tor argue the contrary is...sorry, foolish.

    Now you're talking about MiG-29s, 9.12 and 9.13 NEVER received anything in the class of TKS-2-27 or APD-518, not even Spektr ground-to-air datalink. The DATALINK equipment of MiG-29 is a simple Turkus (improved version with more frequencies for Soviet ones), without any "Tactical Display" capability. Only command & guidance info via Lazur-M datalink . Sorry this is not what I call a trully SA augmentation system. Is a command & guidance equipment. Period.

    With SPO-15 L-005 Beryoza?, nor really. The equipment is far more sensitive than many people (those who call it garbage) think. As a STT-detector and advice system is fine as much as you're facing 80s radars. Now, if you want to use the sensor as an efective SA building equipment (like you can do with ALR-69 due better coverage and Digital Presentation or even ALR-45 by the fact) you're hopless due the fact of problems with prioritations and display. Ask this to any Russian pilot you like, Fulcrum, Fencer, Flanker...everybody will say the same. There is a very good reason that SPO-32 Pastel (L-151) was so much waited. It was a total quantum leap over Beryoza and Sirena-3M and comparable to ALR-69 and ALR-56 class of sets. It even had an ARM targetting system and memory expanded library.

    About the IRST is a backup system heavily dependent of ranging via radar (you can't obtain range information via IRST KOLS) or GCI operator (he tell you where the bandit is _heading_ you place the IR strobe in such a heading and uncage the IR seeker and launch. You can also use it to support radar azimuth-tracking, and into Laser-range-finder range, also rangefinding. Is not a SA agumentation system, because it can not measure range along, as per example AAN/AS-42 in the F-14D.


    Very nice details, thanks.. Even if it has nothing to do with the original topic (aerodynamics), that was a very good readin..

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