Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

RuAF News and development Thread part 15

Collapse
X
Collapse
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 11 (0 members and 11 guests)
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
  • stealthflanker
    Rank 5 Registered User
    • Sep 2015
    • 1016

    Well, this kinda messy. i wonder why we need to compare MiG-29 and Su-27 when they serve different Hi-Lo mix. Just like F-15 and F-16.

    Comment

    • FBW
      FBW
      Rank 5 Registered User
      • Dec 2011
      • 3295

      Originally posted by stealthflanker View Post
      Well, this kinda messy. i wonder why we need to compare MiG-29 and Su-27 when they serve different Hi-Lo mix. Just like F-15 and F-16.
      They really weren't. The -27/-29's tactical function really wasn't analogous with the -16/-15 in the USAF. Different airforces different doctrines.

      The MiG-29 was to be the tip of the spear in Soviet frontal aviation. In retrospect, we look at it as the "low" probably due to combat record and the lack of post-Soviet investment in the type. At the time, the MiG-29 was not viewed as inferior, nor was it conceived as a day fighter/light attack aircraft as the F-16 was. We don't have to draw comparisons across very different tactical doctrines.

      Comment

      • JSR
        JSR
        Rank 5 Registered User
        • Aug 2011
        • 4976

        MIG-35 speed , altitude and climb rates are as good or better than latest Flanker. MIG nose and cockpit also got enlarged. excellent comfort for loitering or long range strike.
        F-16 got heavier/draggier and is far slower than F-15. Single engine fighter simply got too expensive with latest electronics and instead of gaining performance it shed performance. and it is not just F-16. you can look India and UAE airforces time line with slow upgrades, safety records (crash rate) of single engine fighters.

        I have doubt you can put CFT on older versions of F-16s. which with its lack of engine power and heavier weight make it uncompetitive. M2K did not went through that iteration.

        Last edited by JSR; 25th August 2017, 03:34.

        Comment

        • KGB
          KGB
          Senior Member
          • Mar 2016
          • 1426

          @stealthflanker @FBW

          i wonder why we need to compare MiG-29 and Su-27 when they serve different Hi-Lo mix.

          They really weren't.
          Here on Wings of Russia, they use those exact words. The USSR was looking to replicate the US's Hi-Lo mix. And Mig was tasked with countering the F 16

          Should start at the right time 6:45

          Last edited by KGB; 25th August 2017, 04:29.

          Comment

          • Arihant
            Rank 5 Registered User
            • Apr 2017
            • 440

            Just look what IAF M2K can practically lift and than compare it with MIG-29SMT or MIG29K.
            The Mirage 2000 has a weapons load of 6300 kgs whereas our MiG-29K can carry a load of 5500kg and MiG-29B-12 3500 kgs.

            The IAF adores and loves the MiG-29. Its an absolute gem of an aircraft. The Su-30MKI outclasses the MiG-29 in almost every parameter be it endurance,range,weapons load,sensors and multi role capability but the Fulcrum has a charm of its own, a certain charisma which even its direct nemesis in the West- F-16 lacks .

            @TR1
            You guys know the Su-27 doesn't outperform the MiG-29 in everything right?
            Will you briefly explain what do you mean by the above statement sir ? And as far as ITR,STR in the transonic and supersonic regimes are concerned, I believe the Su-30MKI has the the upper hand over the MiG-29SMT and MiG-35. Pls correct me if I am wrong.

            Comment

            • FBW
              FBW
              Rank 5 Registered User
              • Dec 2011
              • 3295

              I'm going to assume that discussing the roles of the MiG-29 and the Su-27 don't constitute thread derailment, if anyone disagrees, please say so.

              @KGB-discovery channel? It's entertainment. They are putting the MiG-29 in a context that makes sense to the western viewer. Here's why the MiG-29 and Su-27 aren't really analogous with the -15/-16 of the USAF.

              Both the -29 and -27 came out of the PFI program, an air superiority fighter to counter the new American fighters. It required long range (900+ mile combat radius), rough field performance, and high agility. The requirement were too ambitious for one design. The MiG came out of the need for a highly agile air superior fighter to replace the MiG-23 in frontal aviation. The Sukhoi was to meet the long range escort, and interception requirements. Both were supposed to be all-weather air superiority fighters. More "heavy-light" than "high-low" from a technological standpoint.

              The F-15 was designed as an all-weather air superiority fighter, the F-16 was originally a low cost day fighter meant to counter the spiraling cost of modern aircraft. It was to be technologically simple, and cheap enough to be procured in large numbers as it was clear the F-15 wasn't going to be procured in the thousands. Even before the F-16 entered service, the USAF morphed the role of the F-16 into a more capable multi-role aircraft with limited all-weather interception and strike capabilities.

              The MiG-29 would have filled the air superiority role over the central front, countering the F-15's and -16's. The regiments were assigned to frontal aviation. There was not a single Su-27 regiment assigned to : western group of forces, northern group of forces, central group of forces. The nearest Su-27 regiment was assigned to Baltic theater, Kaliningrad. That was to establish air superiority over the Baltic as the MiG's range was too short. The difference in role is highlighted by the fact that the first Su-27 regiment was assigned to PVO.

              One could argue that the MiG-29 and Su-27 became a "high-low" mix as the protracted development of the Su-27 led to a more capable fighter in the end, but in Soviet doctrine they were both considered highly capable air superiority fighters. By contrast, the F-15 was the USAF all-weather air superiority fighter, the F-16's role in the USAF became more focused on attack and a supplementary counter-air role. Consider the U.K's mix of fighters during the Cold War, the FGR.2, and the Tornado ADV. The Phantoms were assigned to provide air superiority over the BAOR (a role similar to MiG-29), the ADV provided long range interception, escort, air defense over the U.K. And North Sea. The Su-27 served a similar role (albeit far more capable).
              Last edited by FBW; 25th August 2017, 12:52.

              Comment

              • JSR
                JSR
                Rank 5 Registered User
                • Aug 2011
                • 4976

                Originally posted by Arihant View Post
                The Mirage 2000 has a weapons load of 6300 kgs whereas our MiG-29K can carry a load of 5500kg and MiG-29B-12 3500 kgs.
                I think you have very little understanding. Have you seen any thing like 6300kg under IAF M2K? and what will be it's practical utility meaning that can be used for round the clock operation . The MIG29SMT/UPG increases MTOW to over 22 tons. It has that increase fuel capacity . MIG29K different plan with 5 Wet stations . It has demonstrated close to 6000kg from aircraft carrier with 24.5 tons MTOW. MIG29M/MIG35 MTOW further increased up to 26.5 Tons. When compare loaded performance M2K is joke.

                Comment

                • Arihant
                  Rank 5 Registered User
                  • Apr 2017
                  • 440

                  This post isnt about the Russian airforce .I think I would be better off if I post it in the IAF thread but this concerns the MiG-29 and since us fellas have been engaged in a heated conversation about the MiG-29 and its viability for quite some time, I think it deserves to be posted here.

                  We received the first batch of MiG-29 in June of 87 and the Fulcrum was formally inducted in December,87. Soo after, IAF conducted a series of tests named Exercise Lightning in which the newly inducted MiG was pitted against the Mirage 2000, then the best air superiority fighter in IAF's arsenal. A similar such exercise was conducted in the past after the Mirage 2000 was inducted. In that, the Mirages flew against the MiG-23MF,at that time our best air to air fighter aircraft. The Mirages badly mauled the MiG-23MF in both BVR and WVR domains. So this time Air HQ wanted to know how the MiG-29B fared against the undisputed air superiority king of the Indian airforce. This is what followed.

                  The print isnt that good and you guys may have to strain your Mk1 a bit but its readable and worth the read.

                  Click image for larger version

Name:	Mirage 2000 vs MiG-29 DACT-1.jpg
Views:	1
Size:	289.5 KB
ID:	3676373
                  Click image for larger version

Name:	Mirage-2000 vs MiG-29 DACT-2.jpg
Views:	1
Size:	166.2 KB
ID:	3676374
                  Click image for larger version

Name:	Mirage 2000 vs MiG-29 DACT-3.jpg
Views:	1
Size:	183.3 KB
ID:	3676375
                  Click image for larger version

Name:	Mirage 2000 vs MiG-29 DACT-4.jpg
Views:	1
Size:	183.6 KB
ID:	3676376
                  Click image for larger version

Name:	Mirage 2000 vs MiG-29 DACT-5.jpg
Views:	1
Size:	214.8 KB
ID:	3676377
                  Click image for larger version

Name:	Mirage 2000 vs MiG-29 DACT-6.jpg
Views:	1
Size:	210.5 KB
ID:	3676378
                  Click image for larger version

Name:	Mirage 2000 vs MiG-29 DACT-7.jpg
Views:	1
Size:	253.8 KB
ID:	3676379

                  Click on the images to view the full resolution picture.
                  Last edited by Arihant; 25th August 2017, 14:08.

                  Comment

                  • JSR
                    JSR
                    Rank 5 Registered User
                    • Aug 2011
                    • 4976

                    This old irrelevant stuff that you posted. MIG35 is designed for 19 km altitude and 2700km/hr top speed with latest FBW. It is designed for all the long range weopons like R-77-1 and every thing coming after,Grom family etc. It's future proof for 40 years. (where is that M2K and Meteor). Sudan is the new star of Saudi alliance due to airforce built with Russian fighters with separate weopon and maintaince chain. There other countries that soon lined up for more advance version. F16/M2K are irrelevant for modern warfare.

                    Comment

                    • Arihant
                      Rank 5 Registered User
                      • Apr 2017
                      • 440

                      I think you have very little understanding. Have you seen any thing like 6300kg under IAF M2K? and what will be it's practical utility meaning that can be used for round the clock operation . The MIG29SMT/UPG increases MTOW to over 22 tons. It has that increase fuel capacity .
                      We hardly put max weapons load on most of our jets. By max I mean to its full ordnance capacity in terms of weight . But there are exceptions to these. You will find many Jaguar and Sukhoi kitted out with a full weapons load pictures.

                      A fully loaded Mirage ,ie the ac appproaching its max take off weight wont have any practical utility is a dumbass statement. Its nothing but a delusional mumbo jumbo. Why are there any Newtonian laws of physics which forbids an aircraft from being useful when it is at its max takeoff weight ? Just because there arent any pics of Indian Mirages with a full weapons load doesnt translate into Mirages cant fly with their full load.

                      Comment

                      • Arihant
                        Rank 5 Registered User
                        • Apr 2017
                        • 440

                        This old irrelevant stuff that you posted. MIG35 is designed for 19 km altitude and 2700km/hr top speed with latest FBW. It is designed for all the long range weopons like R-77-1 and every thing coming after,Grom family etc. It's future proof for 40 years. (where is that M2K and Meteor)
                        Have I said anywhere that the MiG-29 and its latest iterations have outlived their usefullness and have become obsolete. Have i ever uttered that the MiG-35 isnt designed for all the long range weapons and ..... . I cant see how you are writing such stuffs. I see you have a thing for the MiG-29 and thats good. But what isnt good is your remark that the Mirage and F-16 have had their day and are useless now.

                        Regarding those slides which you have labelled as old and irrelavent, you need to go through them. It desribes how the MiG-29 outtrumped the Mirage 2000 in almost every aspect. In a different DACT , the Fulcrum had beat the Mirage 2000 7:1 in the BVR domain. I posted them to show that no matter how sophisticated the Mirage 2000 may be,the Fulcrum can still kick its ass. And mind it these are the 9.12 models with the N019 export grade radars and the Mirage 2000 had the RDI radars.

                        Comment

                        • Austin
                          Rank 5 Registered User
                          • Oct 2003
                          • 6477

                          My Last word on this as its RuAF thread.

                          Mirage-2000 received exceptional treatment by the IAF and were well looked and cared after ,upgraded regularly and probably had the highest uptime too for IAF fleet , Reason was simple the 2 squadron of M2K played the role of Air Based Nuclear deterrent since late 80's and were hardwired for nuclear role and likely flown by IAF elite pilot , Rafale would play the same N Detterent role once it enters squadron service , In Conventional Role Mirage played a key role in high altitude bombing during Kargil war. It was nickname "Delicate Darling"

                          Now both the Mig-29UPG and M2K-5 is getting upgraded to the mentioned standard and likely will be in IAF squadron for next 25 years
                          "A map does you no good if you don't know where you are"

                          Comment

                          • Austin
                            Rank 5 Registered User
                            • Oct 2003
                            • 6477

                            The new Hephaestus system allows the use of uncorrected ammunition as highly accurate

                            Подробнее на ТАСС:
                            http://tass.ru/armiya-i-opk/4507779

                            KUBINKA / Moscow Region /, 25 August. / TASS /. Specialized computing subsystem SVP-24 Gefest increased the accuracy of bombing of strategic bombers Tu-22M3 and allowed Su-24M bombers during the operation in Syria to use uncorrected ammunition as highly accurate. This was reported on Friday by the Chairman of the Military Scientific Committee of the RF Armed Forces - Deputy Chief of the General Staff Lieutenant-General Igor Makushev.

                            According to him, Tu-22M3 bombers were involved in a special operation in Syria, carrying out more than 250 sorties, during which 250 and 500 kg weapons were used.

                            "At the same time, Tu-22M3 was used to attack targets in Syria, which underwent modernization, during which specialized computing subsystems were installed on them, which significantly increased the accuracy of the bombing," Makushev said at a round table devoted to Syrian experience at the International Military-technical forum "Army-2017".


                            About the system of SVP-24 "Hephaestus"


                            According to Igor Makushev, the system of SVP-24 Gefest due to the analysis of GLONASS data on the relative location of the aircraft and the target, taking into account the atmospheric pressure, air humidity, wind speed, flight speed and a number of other factors, calculates the course, speed and altitude of the aircraft Defeat, after which the bombing is carried out automatically.

                            The Chairman of the VNK noted that the modernized Su-25SM aircraft provided the possibility of bombing using a satellite navigation system.

                            "The use of Su-24M bombers equipped with the SVP-24 Hephaist subsystem allowed to ensure the effectiveness of enemy targets' destruction by unguided bombs, comparable to the accuracy of corrected air bombs," he stressed.According to Makushev, 50% of the main tasks in the air strikes of enemy targets in Syria were carried out by Su-24M bombers and Su-25SM attack aircraft.


                            "The Su-34 fighter-bomber of the fourth generation ensured accurate strikes, both in tactical and operational depth of the enemy's territory, including high maneuverability at low altitudes, modern navigational and sighting equipment, phased array radar and A powerful complex of electronic suppression, 12 suspension points allow the Su-34 to carry up to 8 tons of ammunition, "the general said. Also in Syria, the Su-34 ensured the effective use of the corrected aerial bombs KAB-500 and X-29L missiles with laser guidance, he explained.

                            "Thus, aviation complexes, which are in service for a long time, have confirmed their effectiveness," concluded Makushev.
                            Подробнее на ТАСС:
                            http://tass.ru/armiya-i-opk/4507779
                            "A map does you no good if you don't know where you are"

                            Comment

                            • Austin
                              Rank 5 Registered User
                              • Oct 2003
                              • 6477

                              Stand Off Air Launched Weapon for UAV

                              https://sdelanounas.ru/blogs/97146/
                              In the special exhibition of the "Innovation Club" within the framework of the 3rd International Military Technical Forum "Army-2017", a new aviation armament complex for the UAV (KAVB) was presented at the stand of OKB Aviaautomatika LLC (Kursk). Works are conducted jointly with OOO "VAIS-Technika".

                              Mass ammunition, according to the developers, vary from 25 to 50 kg. The launching range is up to 100 km. As a warhead, it is assumed that small-sized combat elements will be used against MLRS missiles. The suspension device is also unified


                              Ammunition, developed in an initiative order for about three years, was recently taken for testing on one of the "big" domestic UAVs. Mainly, TSA is designed for high-precision destruction of small-sized mobile targets.


                              "A map does you no good if you don't know where you are"

                              Comment

                              • Trident
                                Rank 5 Registered User
                                • May 2004
                                • 3965

                                Originally posted by TR1 View Post
                                You guys know the Su-27 doesn't outperform the MiG-29 in everything right? Sure when considering fuel load and weapons, the Flanker overall is a magnificent platform, but the Fulcrum has many performance indicators where it leads.
                                Many? It accelerates and climbs a bit faster and there may be certain parts of the envelope where it turns slightly better. BUT the advantages are very minor in an apples and apples comparison (both configured for equal combat persistence - a 50% fuel comparison is nonsense, considering the difference in fuel fraction).

                                Then again, there is arguably nothing wrong with its performance - it likely does what the customer wanted (though if the latter specified that kind of range it wasn't the best thought out of requirements, hence arguably...). Cost is the issue, a comparison with its contemporaries shows that the state of the art should have allowed such capabilities to be packaged into a smaller, single-engined and hence cheaper airframe.
                                sigpic

                                Comment

                                • JSR
                                  JSR
                                  Rank 5 Registered User
                                  • Aug 2011
                                  • 4976

                                  We hardly put max weapons load on most of our jets. By max I mean to its full ordnance capacity in terms of weight . But there are exceptions to these. You will find many Jaguar and Sukhoi kitted out with a full weapons load pictures.
                                  Jaguar and Sukhoi are not M2K/F-16.

                                  A fully loaded Mirage ,ie the ac appproaching its max take off weight wont have any practical utility is a dumbass statement. Its nothing but a delusional mumbo jumbo. Why are there any Newtonian laws of physics which forbids an aircraft from being useful when it is at its max takeoff weight ? Just because there arent any pics of Indian Mirages with a full weapons load doesnt translate into Mirages cant fly with their full load.
                                  As I said there is big difference between theory and practice.
                                  Have I said anywhere that the MiG-29 and its latest iterations have outlived their usefullness and have become obsolete. Have i ever uttered that the MiG-35 isnt designed for all the long range weapons and ..... . I cant see how you are writing such stuffs. I see you have a thing for the MiG-29 and thats good. But what isnt good is your remark that the Mirage and F-16 have had their day and are useless now.
                                  It is stupid to compare Mirage/ F-16 to MIG-35. MIG-35 has clear upgrade path with new engines/ radars with all the weopons of Su-57.
                                  M2K-9 is stuck in 1990s. UAE/Qatar and Egypt are not interested in upgrading it further. . there are several single engine fighter crashes in Yemen war.
                                  even US is using F-18E/F-15/F-22. F-16 has much minor role in Middleast. infact the conclusion already made that twin engine fighters are the only way to go for performance and high reliable operations in real operations

                                  Comment

                                  • Scar
                                    Senior Member
                                    • Nov 2015
                                    • 682

                                    Mi-28UB

                                    Comment

                                    • sepheronx
                                      Senior Member
                                      • Jun 2015
                                      • 320

                                      I would love to have the specs of those smaller missiles used for the Pantsir system Quad launcher.

                                      Comment

                                      • MSphere
                                        Senior Member
                                        • Feb 2010
                                        • 8983

                                        Originally posted by Trident
                                        Many? It accelerates and climbs a bit faster and there may be certain parts of the envelope where it turns slightly better. BUT the advantages are very minor in an apples and apples comparison (both configured for equal combat persistence - a 50% fuel comparison is nonsense, considering the difference in fuel fraction).

                                        Then again, there is arguably nothing wrong with its performance - it likely does what the customer wanted (though if the latter specified that kind of range it wasn't the best thought out of requirements, hence arguably...). Cost is the issue, a comparison with its contemporaries shows that the state of the art should have allowed such capabilities to be packaged into a smaller, single-engined and hence cheaper airframe.
                                        The doctrine for VKS says no single-engine fighters.. even their new trainers have two engines...

                                        Comment

                                        • Scar
                                          Senior Member
                                          • Nov 2015
                                          • 682

                                          T/220 by NPK SPP

                                          Comment

                                          Unconfigured Ad Widget

                                          Collapse

                                           

                                          Working...
                                          X