Read the forum code of contact
By: - 1st July 2014 at 23:52 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Mrmalaya, Lukos and JSR walk into a bar. Mrmalaya mentions a dogfight between a Fulcrum and a Typhoon, a b*tch fight breaks out between JSR and Lukos while Mrmalaya quietly sneaks away to the Juke Box and puts on Elvis' Love me Tender. You're evil, Mrmalaya. Tut-tut!
By: - 2nd July 2014 at 04:03 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Don't tell me off, this is an accurate reflection of some of the content in this amazing movie posted on The Aviationist blog:http://theaviationist.com/2014/07/01/fulcrum-drivers-video/
Note: It was of broader interest than platform specific threads and wasn't "just a nice pic"....
Do you realize what you have done?:dev2:
By: - 2nd July 2014 at 04:35 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Nice video, thank you.
By: - 2nd July 2014 at 05:28 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Yes, it is a nice video.
By: - 2nd July 2014 at 09:35 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Do you realize what you have done?:dev2:
The horror... The horror... :)
This topic is strangely quiet...
Nice video by the way.
By: - 2nd July 2014 at 21:27 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I think this is the point where I start the fire by saying;
Technical comparison for such dogfight would entirely depend on the remaining fuel of the aircraft; If fueled for certain time in combat or certain range, Typhoon should get upper hand in kinematics. If both are fuelled at 50%, MiG-29 would have just as good kinematics in overall, too close to guestimate without having actual data about Typhoon.
By: - 2nd July 2014 at 21:39 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I think this is the point where I start the fire by saying;Technical comparison for such dogfight would entirely depend on the remaining fuel of the aircraft; If fueled for certain time in combat or certain range, Typhoon should get upper hand in kinematics. If both are fuelled at 50%, MiG-29 would have just as good kinematics in overall, too close to guestimate without having actual data about Typhoon.
Let's avoid the Euro vs Russia debate.
What are your thoughts on MiG-29K/MiG-35/the second gen family performance vs the 9-12s and 9-13s?
By: - 2nd July 2014 at 22:33 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I think this is the point where I start the fire by saying;Technical comparison for such dogfight would entirely depend on the remaining fuel of the aircraft; If fueled for certain time in combat or certain range, Typhoon should get upper hand in kinematics. If both are fuelled at 50%, MiG-29 would have just as good kinematics in overall, too close to guestimate without having actual data about Typhoon.
Well, if you haven't got complete info on the Typhoon, there's not much point in trying to guestimate performance, is there?
Technical comparison for such dogfight would entirely depend on the remaining fuel of the aircraft;
And what about weapons and avionics?
By: - 2nd July 2014 at 22:35 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Nice video, by the way, Good to see MiG-29 still flying in NATO. I also dig that older video from a few years back of Polish MiG-29 jousting it out with the Polish F-16.
By: - 3rd July 2014 at 09:09 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
The horror... The horror... :)This topic is strangely quiet...
Nice video by the way.
I can fix that with some declarations after Garuda V if you wish ;)
By: - 3rd July 2014 at 11:19 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Well, if you haven't got complete info on the Typhoon, there's not much point in trying to guestimate performance, is there?
Guessing by definition involves filling the gaps where we lack the "complete info", so no, there IS point in guessing, and anyone can guess the way they want, be it just out of nationalistic bias or by methodic analyisis or rather scientific estimates. Problem is about convincing other party when neither side has "complete info".
And what about weapons and avionics?
Would depend on weapons too, however what we see in the video is a Eurofighter and MiG-29A with a single WVR missile. Both are equipped with a centerline fuel tank, we can consider them as dropped, or not.
As for avionics, I don't think there isn't much to discuss; For BVR, everything is clear. For WVR, both have IRST, HMS and HOBS missiles, so everything is clear on that too.
What are your thoughts on MiG-29K/MiG-35/the second gen family performance vs the 9-12s and 9-13s?
Some very known user will hate this answer too but; MiG-29K/MiG-35 when compared to legacy MiG-29A;
1-adds weight, which will degrade every performance parameter.
2-It adds to wing area, which should improve ITR and high altitude subsonic STR, but degrades SEP, low altitude str, and high altitude supersonic STR.
3-It adds to engine power, which should improve STR and SEP.
Question is, how much these factors affect those data. 13% increase in NTOW, estimated 22% increase in empty weight, compensated by 35% increse in wing area; which also contributes to drag. And all this increase in drag is compensated by 9% increase in thrust. Historically speaking, no newer variant of any aircraft (F-16 blk30 vs blk50, F-18A vs F-18E, F-15A vs F-15E, even F-14A (with P-414s) vs F-14D) got better maneuverability after recieving similar upgrades. I have no reason to think why same shouldn't apply to MiG-35 vs MiG-29A too.
However;;; for a more complex guestimating; I played with some numbers assuming MiG-35 uses same airfoil of MiG-29 and comparing at their published NTOWs;
For a 7G turn at M0,8 at S/L, MiG-29 @15400 kg needs Cl=0,8 (15400*9,81*7)/(1/2*1,2*38*(0,8*343,33)^2) and generates 206 kN of drag.
For a 7G turn at M0,8 at S/L, MiG-35 @17500 kg needs Cl=0,7 (17500*9,81*7)/(1/2*1,2*50*(0,8*343,33)^2) and generates 226 kN of drag.
For this test point there is 9,7% increase in drag, compared to 8,97% increase in thrust. Pretty close actually.. For some other -random- test points;
For a 1G level flight at M0,8 at S/L (for acceleration), MiG-29 Cl = 0,08, overall drag = 94kN MiG-35 Cl = 0,07, drag = 124 kN;
For a 4G turn at M0,9 9k meters (air density = 0,46) MiG-29 Cl = 0,9 drag = 92,3 kN MiG-35 Cl = 0,8 drag = 104,1 kN;
Maximal G/instantenious turn rate at 9000 meters M0,85; MiG-29 = 5,75G -> 11,69 deg/s MiG-35 = 6,65G -> 13,57 deg/s
Maximum ITR @ S/L (earliest point to achive 9G, Clmax = 1,5), MiG-29 = M0,58 25,24 deg/s; MiG-35 = M0,54 27,15 deg/s
Source;
[ATTACH=CONFIG]229735[/ATTACH]
By: - 3rd July 2014 at 12:27 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I can fix that with some declarations after Garuda V if you wish ;)
Garuda V?
By: - 3rd July 2014 at 13:05 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Guessing by definition involves filling the gaps where we lack the "complete info", so no, there IS point in guessing, and anyone can guess the way they want, be it just out of nationalistic bias or by methodic analyisis or rather scientific estimates. Problem is about convincing other party when neither side has "complete info".
But isn't the MiG-29 almost as heavy as the Typhoon, while having a lot less thrust - I think we can make a good guess here.
http://forum.keypublishing.com/showthread.php?88369-MiG-29-35-light-medium
Would depend on weapons too, however what we see in the video is a Eurofighter and MiG-29A with a single WVR missile. Both are equipped with a centerline fuel tank, we can consider them as dropped, or not.As for avionics, I don't think there isn't much to discuss; For BVR, everything is clear. For WVR, both have IRST, HMS and HOBS missiles, so everything is clear on that too.
BVR: R-27 vs AIM-120C7 - everything is clear here. WVR: state-of-the-art Iris-T vs 1970s tech R-73? I think everything is clear too.
By: - 3rd July 2014 at 16:26 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Armed with 2x R-60s and 50% fuel; MiG-29A 9.12 weigh 12800 kg; with 2x AAMs and 50% fuel Typhoon should weigh around 13660 kg; 6,8% increase in weight and 10% increase in thrust; furthermore smaller wings of MiG-29 should reduce drag and allow for better low altitude STR, better low-G SEP and better vertical performance. For example, MiG-29A achieves 345 m/s at that weight. Its even higher than what F-15C offers at 50% fuel; Could Eurofighter do the same? Probably not. There are some certain points I wouldn't expect MiG-29 to match Typhoon, thats why I said comperable performance.
BVR; N010 vs CAPTOR, R-27R/T vs AIM-120C, Lazur vs Link16. Yes, everything is clear on this one.
WVR;
-IRIS-T vs R-73M ?? R-73M has better range, better HOBS capability but lacks LOAL and has less G ability. While its older, R-73 both more mature and repeatedly proven that it works.
-PIRATE vs S-31 KOLS ?? PIRATE can be newer and may have better advertised on paper performance than KOLS, but KOLS repeatedly shown it has excellent capabilities in WVR, in both automatic target acquisition and its interface with HMS, plus its a VERY accurate gunsight. On practical usage for WVR, there is hardly anything PIRATE could improve upon KOLS, so both should work effectively, but KOLS is proven while PIRATE is not.
-HMSS vs Shchel-3UM ?? HMSS is obviously newer lighter, but for practical reasons it has no performance advantage; both are effective off-bore sights for their respective missiles.
No, I don't think any single one of the 3 points I mentioned suggest a clear advantage to one side. Kinematics? That's pretty much debatable too.
By: - 3rd July 2014 at 16:47 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
^The usual suspect is at it again.
By: - 3rd July 2014 at 17:11 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
My bad, was thinking about polish Mig-29 and kidding Sintra
By: - 3rd July 2014 at 17:46 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
@lukos; Just ignore me will you? I assure you, I wouldn't have bothered answering if YOU were posting instead of TR1 or Levsha.
By: - 3rd July 2014 at 18:51 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Lazur vs Link16. Yes, everything is clear on this one.
Andraxxus , will the Su 35S also be using the Lazur data link ?
IIRC the Su 30 MKI that Russia exported to India uses the Israeli TADIRAN SpectraLink .
By: - 3rd July 2014 at 20:54 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Thanks for the reply Andraxxus.
I guess such is the price for payload, range and airframe life.
By: - 3rd July 2014 at 21:21 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I don't know. However, even baseline Su-27S had an additional, vastly superior intra-flight datalink (TKS-2-27 as Peregrinefalcon named it) with 20-30 times bandwidth. Its interface with RLPK allows groups of 4 Su-27s to act as single unit to and share real time scanning, tracking and target information with other Su-27s in group and with small intervals, with other groups and GCI assets. TKS-2-27 can also recieve target information and intercept directives from Rubezh/Senez/Lurch/Vozdukh-1 sets and from A-50 SDRLO. System also allows group commander to make control directives and guide Su-27s in group to guide to their targets via autopilot, etc. Feature-vise, Su-27 had something very similar to Link-16, albeit with inferior bandwith. Such features were also present in MiG-31, but apperantly not on MiG-29, which stuck to lazur datalinks. If I were to guess, Su-35S will still have Lazur datalink -as its the only way to guide older MiG-29s or even older legacy aircraft-, plus something similar to upgraded/improved TKS-2-27 (or APD-518 of MiG-31).
Posts: 4,619
By: mrmalaya - 1st July 2014 at 19:49
Don't tell me off, this is an accurate reflection of some of the content in this amazing movie posted on The Aviationist blog:
http://theaviationist.com/2014/07/01/fulcrum-drivers-video/
Note: It was of broader interest than platform specific threads and wasn't "just a nice pic"....