Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


    MiG-29/ΜiG-35 Fulcrum: News

    Share

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15458
    Points : 16165
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: MiG-29/ΜiG-35 Fulcrum: News

    Post  GarryB on Sun Jan 13, 2013 10:00 am

    Well Gary, propaganda by ria? Dont be so hasty to dismiss everything critical as "propaganda".
    I like and have respect for Soviet/Russian military hardware, but i must be honest and be able to critisise when its called for.
    By the way, the Eurofighter its a huge and costly failure if anything, but this site is for Soviet/Rusian hardware, so here i can both praise and critizise them.

    Did you even read the article you posted?

    How does a subcontractor to MIG forging documents to sell old parts to MIG for the Algerian contract equate to your accusation that MIG can't make planes any more?

    If they were poorly made why would the Russian military accept them?

    They basically had a few counterfeit parts that were not brand new, which Algeria used as an excuse to end the contract... to find they were not new they must have had experts (likely Sukhoi ones) scour the aircraft parts looking for anomolies so they could reject the offer.


    At the end of the day the issue was that Algeria claimed it ordered brand new parts and some parts were found to be not new manufacture.

    Of course the definition of new is vague... when I buy something I really don't know when it was manufactured... it might be ten years old sitting in storage for all I know, but because it has never left storage it can be sold as new. Algeria took the recently manufactured definition of new it seems.


    _________________
    “The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion […] but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact; non-Westerners never do.”

    ― Samuel P. Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order

    runaway
    Master Sergeant
    Master Sergeant

    Posts : 351
    Points : 372
    Join date : 2010-11-12
    Location : Sweden

    Re: MiG-29/ΜiG-35 Fulcrum: News

    Post  runaway on Sun Jan 13, 2013 6:39 pm

    GarryB wrote:Did you even read the article you posted?

    How does a subcontractor to MIG forging documents to sell old parts to MIG for the Algerian contract equate to your accusation that MIG can't make planes any more?

    If they were poorly made why would the Russian military accept them?

    Take it easy, did you read my post? I never said MiG can´t make planes. I said there were poorly made, by that i wasnt clear, i meant these part from subcontractors. Sorry about that.

    Still, MiG should have better controll for quality, and iam sure they have improved that now.

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15458
    Points : 16165
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: MiG-29/ΜiG-35 Fulcrum: News

    Post  GarryB on Mon Jan 14, 2013 8:48 am

    Still, MiG should have better controll for quality, and iam sure they have improved that now.

    Mig had a contract to supply planes to Algeria, they got some parts from a sub contractor that had official looking documents that later turned out to be forgeries and you are blaming MiG?

    Perhaps it is their fault... perhaps they should have telepaths in their ranks that can divine whether documents are fake or genuine... or perhaps they should just build planes for people who actually want them rather than those trying to wiggle out of contracts because they got a better offer.


    _________________
    “The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion […] but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact; non-Westerners never do.”

    ― Samuel P. Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order

    TR1
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5840
    Points : 5892
    Join date : 2011-12-06

    Re: MiG-29/ΜiG-35 Fulcrum: News

    Post  TR1 on Mon Jan 14, 2013 8:58 am

    I would not be surprised in the least if MiG "mislabeled" things as new when they were older make (even if fully functional, which is the case I believe). MiG had a lot of issues with mismanagment, lots of replacements, and ofc the typical post USSR situation.

    Low level corruption is so common through ought Russia (well, and high level) that someone cutting corners this way is almost to be assumed.
    I mean, they bought a used anchor for Kuznetsov....and pocketed the rest....:/

    runaway
    Master Sergeant
    Master Sergeant

    Posts : 351
    Points : 372
    Join date : 2010-11-12
    Location : Sweden

    Re: MiG-29/ΜiG-35 Fulcrum: News

    Post  runaway on Mon Jan 14, 2013 6:24 pm

    TR1 wrote:Low level corruption is so common through ought Russia (well, and high level) that someone cutting corners this way is almost to be assumed.
    I mean, they bought a used anchor for Kuznetsov....and pocketed the rest....:/

    Yes, and it never seems to end..

    MOSCOW, January 14 (RIA Novosti) – A district court in Russia’s Nizhny Novgorod Region has ordered the seizure of real estate from a former official found guilty of fraud involving fighter jets for Syria, according to the court’s website.

    Andrei Silyakov’s land plot and house qualified for confiscation because he had other places to live, the Vachsky court said on Friday without specifying the property’s value.

    But Silyakov, a former regional official at the Federal Reserves Agency, was not using the house anyway because he has been on the run since 2011.

    In 2006-2007 Silyakov illegally sold four airframes for MiG-31 fighter jets from the state reserves, investigators said earlier.

    The buyer was Nizhny Novgorod’s Sokol aircraft maker that was contracted to supply the jets to the Syrian Air Force, media reported in 2010.

    Silyakov managed to sell the airframes – which cost 115 million rubles each ($3.8 million) – to a firm he controlled for 153 rubles ($5) apiece. He later resold them to the Sokol plant for 4 million rubles ($130,000).

    He was also accused of swindling 35,000 tons of fuel oil through similar machinations.

    The official pleaded not guilty but was convicted of fraud and sentenced to ten years and eight months in prison in 2011. He disappeared days before the verdict and remains on the run.

    Total damages in the case were estimated at 1.3 billion rubles, but the court only sentenced Silyakov to a fine of 315 million rubles ($10 million).

    The airframes were never turned into jets for Syria and remain on Sokol's premises, Kommersant said on Monday.


    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15458
    Points : 16165
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: MiG-29/ΜiG-35 Fulcrum: News

    Post  GarryB on Tue Jan 15, 2013 9:56 am

    Well I still don't see the connection between... there is some corruption in Russia, and Mig is no longer able to make aircraft.

    Personally I think it was more likely a translation error regarding what constitutes new... if they wanted new planes then WTF were they buying Mig-29SMTs? They should have been buying Mig-29M2s if they wanted new planes.

    If Russian planes are crap and Russia is all corrupt why would they suddenly cancel the contract and then buy Sukhois... or is there no corruption at Sukhoi?

    (In my personal experience the more money the more the corruption which suggests to me there would be even more corruption at Sukhoi... but it seems to be screw Mig week this week...) Razz


    _________________
    “The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion […] but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact; non-Westerners never do.”

    ― Samuel P. Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order

    TR1
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5840
    Points : 5892
    Join date : 2011-12-06

    Re: MiG-29/ΜiG-35 Fulcrum: News

    Post  TR1 on Tue Jan 15, 2013 9:59 am

    The SMT was marketed as a new plane, that was the issue.
    They did not send their MiG-29s to be upgraded, they were buying new build birds.
    As I understood, this was the center of the issue - the birds were certainly "new build"...but built in the early 90 and stored!

    a89
    Junior Sergeant
    Junior Sergeant

    Posts : 107
    Points : 114
    Join date : 2013-01-09
    Location : Oxfordshire

    Re: MiG-29/ΜiG-35 Fulcrum: News

    Post  a89 on Wed Jan 16, 2013 11:44 am

    The SMT was marketed as a new plane, that was the issue.
    They did not send their MiG-29s to be upgraded, they were buying new build birds.
    As I understood, this was the center of the issue - the birds were certainly "new build"...but built in the early 90 and stored!

    Well, SMT was always advertised as a modernization. Those Algerian SMT were built from stocks. In 1991 MiG got a large number of aircraft from VVS and Iraqui Air Force orders which were not delivered. All aircraft sold until Indian MiG-29K contract came from these stocks. Algerians should have been aware of this, and I am sure they were. The issue were some defective parts installed in the aircraft.

    A while ago I wrote a long article on the SMT. Its in Spanish but can be easily translated to English.

    alejandro-8.blogspot.com/2012/02/mig-29smt-la-version-de-los-escandalos_15.html


    TR1
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5840
    Points : 5892
    Join date : 2011-12-06

    Re: MiG-29/ΜiG-35 Fulcrum: News

    Post  TR1 on Wed Jan 16, 2013 11:49 am

    What was defective specifically though?

    I have encountered no mention of any specifics actually failing in service, but more disagreement over the age of some of the equipment.

    Did anything actually fail?

    a89
    Junior Sergeant
    Junior Sergeant

    Posts : 107
    Points : 114
    Join date : 2013-01-09
    Location : Oxfordshire

    Re: MiG-29/ΜiG-35 Fulcrum: News

    Post  a89 on Wed Jan 16, 2013 12:42 pm

    In some news you can find references to components: BOD-88, which are used to control fuel pressure. Components had been manufactured between 1984 and 1996, data sheets were falsified.

    militaryparitet.com/teletype/data/ic_teletype/5055/
    pravda.ru/accidents/factor/crime/26-05-2011/1078215-kontrakt-0/
    tsn.ua/svit/fsb-top-menedzheri-miga-prodali-alzhiru-brakovani-vinishchuvachi.html


    TR1
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5840
    Points : 5892
    Join date : 2011-12-06

    Re: MiG-29/ΜiG-35 Fulcrum: News

    Post  TR1 on Wed Jan 16, 2013 9:07 pm

    Ok that is the specifics I was looking for, thanks Alejandro!

    Where these replaced when delivered to RuAF? AFAIK the birds have had no issues in service, and they get a decent number of flight hours (150 per pilot @ Kursk in 20120).

    a89
    Junior Sergeant
    Junior Sergeant

    Posts : 107
    Points : 114
    Join date : 2013-01-09
    Location : Oxfordshire

    Re: MiG-29/ΜiG-35 Fulcrum: News

    Post  a89 on Wed Jan 16, 2013 10:15 pm

    Where these replaced when delivered to RuAF? AFAIK the birds have had no issues in service, and they get a decent number of flight hours (150 per pilot @ Kursk in 20120).

    The componets were replaced. There were going to be changes anyway (IFF). In any case I always thought those birds were a great opportunity for a country that needed to acquire a supersonic fighter, like Peru. RSK MiG would have been very flexible and careful to avoid any problems.


    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15458
    Points : 16165
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: MiG-29/ΜiG-35 Fulcrum: News

    Post  GarryB on Thu Jan 17, 2013 12:17 am

    Even if the planes were perfect they would have rejected them when given an offer of Su-30s for the same price...


    _________________
    “The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion […] but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact; non-Westerners never do.”

    ― Samuel P. Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order

    TR1
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5840
    Points : 5892
    Join date : 2011-12-06

    Re: MiG-29/ΜiG-35 Fulcrum: News

    Post  TR1 on Thu Jan 17, 2013 2:46 am

    TBH I am rather happy the RuAF ended up with the birds.

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15458
    Points : 16165
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: MiG-29/ΜiG-35 Fulcrum: News

    Post  GarryB on Thu Jan 17, 2013 6:50 am

    In full agreement there mate.

    I think the Mig-29 gets a really bad rap... for a while it was the soviet super fighter, but then after they got their hands on them and learned their strengths and weaknesses before they actually came up against them for real I think they have been hugely underrated in the west.

    The West Germans were able to shame most western pilots and they were using downgraded obsolete old warsaw pact models. The upgrades Mig has worked hard on for all these years are ignored by "western experts" and it seems most westerners think Migs are easy beats.

    The facts of the matter are that if you put almost any plane in the same situation and it would have failed too.

    The main problem of course is that the Mig is often compared with modern western fighters armed with AMRAAMs, so while the R-77 remains untested in real combat it is a real unknown quantity that is easy to dismiss.

    One of the claims to fame of the SMT upgrade of the Mig-29 was something like a 40% reduction in operational costs, plus the huge advantage of adding precision guided air to air and air to ground capability. These two features alone should make it worthwhile to impliment an upgrade program on 100-150 Mig-29s in the best condition from storage with the lowest hours on the airframes.

    Cheap to operate, multirole, able to use the latest weapons... what more would you want?


    _________________
    “The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion […] but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact; non-Westerners never do.”

    ― Samuel P. Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order

    Sujoy
    Lieutenant Colonel
    Lieutenant Colonel

    Posts : 914
    Points : 1082
    Join date : 2012-04-02
    Location : India

    Re: MiG-29/ΜiG-35 Fulcrum: News

    Post  Sujoy on Thu Jan 17, 2013 9:13 am

    GarryB wrote:I think the Mig-29 gets a really bad rap... for a while it was the soviet super fighter, but then after they got their hands on them and learned their strengths and weaknesses before they actually came up against them for real I think they have been hugely underrated in the west.

    Most of the criticism of Soviet fighters in general and the MIG 29 in particular were made by Western analyst who were either jealous of their performance or had no idea of what they were talking about .

    However, if you are interested in an unbiased assessment of the MIG 29 you may choose to read this :

    How the Fulcrum buzzed the Falcons

    http://indrus.in/articles/2013/01/16/migs_over_kargil_how_the_fulcrum_buzzed_the_falcons_21659.html

    Mindstorm
    Captain
    Captain

    Posts : 734
    Points : 917
    Join date : 2011-07-20

    Re: MiG-29/ΜiG-35 Fulcrum: News

    Post  Mindstorm on Thu Jan 17, 2013 2:17 pm



    The main problem of course is that the Mig is often compared with modern western fighters armed with AMRAAMs, so while the R-77 remains untested in real combat it is a real unknown quantity that is easy to dismiss.


    As usual also factual reality (even those in mere air to air exercises, DACT or not) of the so called BVR engagements between early MiG-29 and western aircraft had been deeply deformed in widely accessible open media to provide a guided perception of reality, useful at promote confidence in western products and tarnish ,for what was possible, MiG's products name and ,even more, theirs MARKET .


    First some historical facts on operational "BVR engagements" from the same NATO pasted conflicts that can aid anyone to get a more realistic picture of how things stand in actual Air to Air combat between agile aircraft:

    1) In ALL pasted successful engagements involving western medium range radar guided missiles, enemy aircraft was NOT AWARE to be under attack, not reacting in any way to evade or suppress the incoming missiles (see down to discover what was the main reason for that...) .
    2) A VERY HIGH AMOUNT of engagements involving radar guided medium range AA missiles with potential BVR capability was in reality executed well WITHIN VISUAL RANGE distance from enemy aircraft (one more time read down what was the reason for that...)
    3) In ALL pasted successful BVR and WVR engagements western aircraft enjoyed a crushing numerical and training advantage over enemies equipped ,moreover, with very few samples of the export version of the older model of Fulcrum -lacking, among others, even of any type of integrated ECM suit- and often reduced in disastrous conditions (even with RWR and the main radar totally out of service !!)
    4) ALL pasted enemies aircraft of western F-15 and F-16 was armed with inferior export version of AA missiles outdated by ,at least, one or two generations

    And now the MOST IMPORTANT FACTOR :

    5) In ALL pasted successful Air-to-Air BVR engagements western aircraft's squadrons was attentively directed and guided by AWACS , not menaced by any type of enemy aircraft or armament


    What up-explained and the few operational instances where the up-mentioned conditions not materialized (almost always conducting ,even in those absurdly unbalanced war's conditions in favor of NATO aircraft, to failed attempts of engagements or enemy aircraft capable to easily avoid a great amount of enemy BVR missiles before egressing and escaping from NATO much bigger number of pursuers and ,in one instance -early export version of MiG-25 vs a F/A-18- ,even to down the NATO aircraft with a Bisnovat R-40E ) highlight that the ,by far, most important, even allowing, element to successfully complete few attacks from BVR ranges was PRESENCE and ACTIVE GUIDANCE by part of AWACS.


    The analysis ,by part of this assets, of enemy aircraft relative route and direction of motion allowed ,in all pasted conflicts, NATO aircraft to turn literally around the radar cone footprint of coverage of opposing aircraft's main radars ,from outside theirs maximum detecting range, attacking them ,in vast majority of the instances, from theirs rear hemisphere (and in fewer instance from rear-beam aspect) and from higher altitude.
    In this way western F-15s and F-16s obtained kills ,with AIM-120 missiles, without that the enemy would get any chance to realize to be under attack , preventing so to him to react maneuvering to avoid them or accelerating outside missile's effective engagement footprint for that particular engagement geometry.


    Note : Low Observable air superiority aircraft like F-22 and F-35 or PAKFA or J-20 which ,as explained more times, show tactically relevant RCS in the order of 0,2 -0,5 square meters, realize the same type of "undetected" kills circumventing enemy aircraft's radar cones of coverage footprint ,but without the formerly indispensable guidance of AWACS, a short-numbered asset considered today totally not survivable against an advanced enemy Air Force.
    THAT is the way F-22s in REALITY engage and "kill" F-15s in USAFs' exercises, exploiting to the maximum an important tactical advantage offered by low observability in medium range air combat and is also the main reason leading to the true race for adding some kind of all-around sensor coverage in all latest generation aircraft Wink



    Returning to EMPYRICAL PROOFS of what just said about the real BVR engagement exchange ratios ,even between early Fulcrum armed with export first version of Vympel R-27 and much up-to-date F-16s armed with AIM-120 series, can be useful to cite a relatively recent Polish DACT exercises.
    First coverage - 2007 DACT exercise- is included in the article of Armia magazine 2009/ 3-4 "MiG-29 kontra F-16" by Adam Gołąbek, Krzysztof Barcz the salient point of which has been translated in this post of ff1987 at keypublishing forum :


    http://forum.keypublishing.co.uk/showthread.php?t=120736&page=3



    From the above link:

    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


    Comment to this engagement by Lt. pilot Mariusz Wiąckowski,not contained in the ff1987's summary :

    "The air space above the North-East Poland, five thousands meters a.s.l, was the place of the simulated battle.
    In the first so-called air raid, four MiGs and two F-16 participated. The battle was carried at long distance. American planes had the advantage, since they have long distance rockets. Nevertheless, MiG have shown to be more effective since they "shot down" two F-16s, while they lost only one machine.
    Our numerical advantage did not matter. According to a scenario, we were patrolling, and the F-16s supposed to attack us, hence they could choose any tactics they wished" - explains Lt. Wiączkowski"


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



    Practically E3's presence was the main "overturning element" allowing much up-to-date (F-16 Block-52) armed with the latest AIM-120s AMRAAM against the most outdated MiG-29s armed with early export R-27s to gain the upper hand in BVR engagements !!!
    A BVR relative exchange ratio of 2:1 in favour of MiG-29A ,after several missiles of both sides evaded, transformed instantly in a 4:0 BVR exchange ratio in favour of F-16 Block-52 with MiG-29A with Fulcrums incapable to even reacting to the enemy missile attacks (naturally those early MiG-29 are devoid of any MAWS Wink ) or to mount any counter-engagement on F-16s for the mere presence of E3 AWACS ,capable to direct air engagement geometry outside of each single enemy aircraft sensors' footprint, exactly as had happened in pasted NATO conflicts .


    Also in the other two scenarios recapped, from "Fruit Fly" internal Polish Air Force DACT exercise , where 4 MiG-29As was used in the interceptor role aggressor against an opposing intruder group composed by 4 SU-22 escorted by 4 F-16s Block-52 (in the first scenario MiG-29As must attack the escort group of F-16s ,while in the second the "enemy" SU-22 bombers ), remain very evident not only the very low Pk of BVR missiles, but also that ,one more time, all engagements invariably comed to WVR where (with the obvious exception of the last scenario where Fulcrum's mission task become exclusively to destroy Su-22 bombers) even those super outdated export MiG-29s gain easily the upper hand against Block-52 equipped with AIM-9X .


    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



    Now anyone could easily argue how a modern and domestic MiG-29-SMT, with : enormously improved and refined aerodynamics performances ,full fly-by-wire guidance, latest ECM suit, latest MAWS ,latest radar and OLS and armed with....Izdeliye 170-1 and Izdeliye-760, would fare against those latest version of F-16s that obtained similar embarrassing results (also in BVR and ,not now , but since the first DACT exercises after Germany reunification ),against deeply downgraded export version of the most outdated model of MiG-29. Cool Cool


    So much for the so much vaunted BVR capabilities of western aircraft ,totally AWACS-depending ( and also NATO is perfectly aware that the 20 E-3s would have been totally worthless and not-survivable against the Air Force of any advanced nation ) and in reality in need of overwhelming numerical, support and technological generation's advantages to gain the upper hand over few , ridiculously downgraded early version of Fulcrum. Laughing Laughing








    dino00
    Junior Sergeant
    Junior Sergeant

    Posts : 116
    Points : 161
    Join date : 2012-10-12
    Location : portugal

    Re: MiG-29/ΜiG-35 Fulcrum: News

    Post  dino00 on Thu Jan 17, 2013 3:14 pm

    Great post as always

    Sujoy
    Lieutenant Colonel
    Lieutenant Colonel

    Posts : 914
    Points : 1082
    Join date : 2012-04-02
    Location : India

    Re: MiG-29/ΜiG-35 Fulcrum: News

    Post  Sujoy on Thu Jan 17, 2013 3:21 pm

    Mindstorm wrote:
    4) ALL pasted enemies aircraft of western F-15 and F-16 was armed with inferior export version of AA missiles outdated by ,at least, one or two generations
    And now the MOST IMPORTANT FACTOR :
    5) In ALL pasted successful Air-to-Air BVR engagements western aircraft's squadrons was attentively directed and guided by AWACS , not menaced by any type of enemy aircraft or armament

    During the 1999 Kargil War the Indian MIG 29 s were also export version of the MIGs and were not the latest MIG 29 UPG currently flying with the IAF . Inspite of that the MIG 29s were able to achieve a lock on with the export version R 77 on the F 16 Block D of the PAF which were supported by Saudi AWACS.


    BVR can never become tactically feasible . The fog of war and the complexity of air combat dictates that pilots must wait until their targets come within visual range before they can be shut down. Even if they dare to fire, the chances of a BVR missile kill are too small for the strategy to work.

    RAND states that since 1991, the USAF has fired 13 AMRAAMs to achieve six BVR kills, a 45% success rate. It is important to note here that half of the 13 AMRAAMs were fired from WVR .

    According to our friend Carlo Kopp the odds of failure at each step in the BVR kill-chain.

    1. Active missile confirmed on launch rail -- 0.1% (chance of failure)
    2. Search and track radar jammed -- 5%
    3. Launch or missile failure -- 5%
    4. Guidance link jammed -- 3%
    5. Seeker head jammed or diverted -- 30%
    6. Chaff or decoys seduce the seeker -- 5%
    7. Seeker chooses towed decoy -- 5%
    8. Aircraft out-manuevers missile -- 40%
    9. Fuse or warhead failure -- 2%

    The probability of a BVR hit therefore is somewhere in the vicinity of 17% .




    Mindstorm
    Captain
    Captain

    Posts : 734
    Points : 917
    Join date : 2011-07-20

    Re: MiG-29/ΜiG-35 Fulcrum: News

    Post  Mindstorm on Thu Jan 17, 2013 5:22 pm

    MIG 29 s were also export version of the MIGs and were not the latest MIG 29 UPG currently flying with the IAF

    Sujoy you know perfectly that India and Russia are linked by a totally unique bi-lateral partnership and alliance since URSS's era, you cannot even put on the same plane the MiG-29s models exported to Middle East nations and those exported to India and same can be said for theirs armament (the green light for RVV-AE to India was almost a decision unique in its kind , for the time).

    What we talk about here ,debating of engagement of F-15s and F-16s against Fulcrum in pasted NATO conflicts against third category enemies, is early downgraded Fulcrums (izdeliye 9.12B), with N019EB main radar -moreover ,in great part of the instances, even not operative for lack of spare parts Rolling Eyes - devoid of any type of ECM suit (in Iraqi case even the chaff/flare dispenser was out of service !) and armed ,at best, with Molniya R-60E and first export version of R-27R !!

    Those aicraft have NOTHING to do with the IAF's MiG-29s that mantained "looked" Pakistan's F-16s with theirs RVV-AE , we here talk of two completly different worls.


    Those DACT BVR engagements involved 9.12B Fulcrums successfully engaging F-15A/C and F-16 Block-50/52 equiped with domestic US radars and armaments infinitely more up-to-date and ,as pointed out previously, that happened since the first DACT exercices with ex-DDR MiG-29s (see for example “Mig-29 downs F-16 in Mock Dogfight” Jane’s Defence Weekly November -10- 1990).

    The only point i was attempting to make is that ,in order to counterbalance in some way ,in the common perception's realm, the crushing superiority of MiG-29 WVR western PR operatives have disseminated the idea that "Fulcrum" was however much inferior to "western aircraft" in the BVR arena .

    Even only to give some kind of credibility to this thesis ,them had been forced to put on the other plate of the balance ,against those old and widely downgraded MiG-29 9.12B, much more up-to date F-15s and F-16s armed with the most modern AA missiles and to point at engagement results obtained in war's conditions ridiculously unbalanced in favour of western aircraft moreover with full AWACS support.

    That, by itself, speak volume on how things stand behind PR's mist Wink .


    RAND states that since 1991, the USAF has fired 13 AMRAAMs to achieve six BVR kills, a 45% success rate. It is important to note here that half of the 13 AMRAAMs were fired from WVR.

    Yes and that Pk percentage was achieved thanks to unilateral AWACS support a crushing numercal overmatch and against inferior enemies in majority of the instances totally unaware to be under attack and not executing so any type of defensive manoeuvre or employing any ECM countermeasure ! (even only chaff release).

    Anyone with even a minimum of knowledge on the subject is perfectly aware of the realistic Pk of AA BVR missiles against modern advanced aircraft.
    A today agile fighters, for unavoidable kinematics reasons ,enjoy a significant advantage in manoeuvre outside engagement envelop or the warhead's lethal radius of a typical AA missile (at least until reliable new types of propulsion and aerodynamic actuators are developed for them ) and the question worsen even more with supermanoeuvrable targets equiped with modern integrated self-defense jamming pods, decoys and chaff/flares.



    Corrosion
    Sergeant
    Sergeant

    Posts : 196
    Points : 213
    Join date : 2010-10-19

    Re: MiG-29/ΜiG-35 Fulcrum: News

    Post  Corrosion on Fri Jan 18, 2013 4:42 am

    Its always a system vs system. Everything is designed by keeping goals in mind. To check what Mig29 is capable of, one has to give it an optimal environment to operate in, for what it is designed for. Most of the time Small air forces can't provide that. If you cant give it conditions needed then you have failed strategically and Mig 29 wont give you a tactical win if taking on a superpower, well lets say 97% of the time, it wont.

    Off Topic.... Iran for example is playing very intelligently here by not buying any Fighters. They know, they cant beat US + EU + Israel AF with an Air-force they can afford even if they push the hardest. So they are playing it un-conventionally. All is fair in love and war. The west is also playing un-converntionally by using Sanctions etc.

    Sujoy
    Lieutenant Colonel
    Lieutenant Colonel

    Posts : 914
    Points : 1082
    Join date : 2012-04-02
    Location : India

    Re: MiG-29/ΜiG-35 Fulcrum: News

    Post  Sujoy on Fri Jan 18, 2013 3:37 pm

    Mindstorm wrote:Sujoy you know perfectly that India and Russia are linked by a totally unique bi-lateral partnership and alliance since URSS's era, you cannot even put on the same plane the MiG-29s models exported to Middle East nations and those exported to India and same can be said for theirs armament (the green light for RVV-AE to India was almost a decision unique in its kind , for the time).

    Yes, Mindstorm I am not just aware of this but I also cherish this on a regular basis .

    The point that I was trying to make is that the IAF's MIG 29 of the 90s were no where as advanced as the current MIG 29 UPG which as you would know comes with a state of the art avionics package . Also , the Ilyushin -76 were not there to help queue up the F 16s for the MIG 29 , something which is now available . The Mig 29 therefore had the thankless job of escorting the MIg 21 , Mig 27 and the Mirage 2000 while at the same time fending off the invading F 16s . The situation described in the link that I had provided in my earlier post actually relates to a situation where 2 Mig 29 were challenged by 4 F 16s of the PAF . Now PAF pilots are among the best in business who constantly hone their skills in Saudi Arabia & Turkey . The idea on that day was to ambush the Mig 29s so that the Mig 21, Mig 27 and Mirage 2000 are well exposed to the Pakistani F 16s and SAM batteries .

    What made the job even more difficult for the MIG 29 pilots was

    a) Extremely high altitude ( 15,000 ft + )
    b) Precarious nature of the battlefield where there was every possibility of straying into Chinese territory
    c) The presence of SAUDI AWACS that supported the PAFs F 16
    d) Numerical superiority of the opponent ( 4 F 16s vs 2 MIG 29s)

    Therefore , under such testing conditions to establish BVR missile lock on the F 16s was not an easy job .

    The point is Western manufacturers would mostly use anecdotes like how western aircrafts shot down a MIG/Sukhoi that was being flown by Iraq or Vietnam or some African countries without disclosing that those aircrafts were practically obsolete aircrafts that the host countries were flying exactly for the same reason why western nation still fly legacy aircrafts . Most often NATO can target the opponents aircrafts because they had overhelming numerical superiority . Infact NATO will NEVER go to war unless it has numerical superiority . As Lenin once said "quantity itself has got a quality " .

    Since Russia does NOT tell the rest of the world how Russian aircrafts have repeatedly won the battle against western aircrafts a number of countries draw the conclusion that Western aircrafts are superior . I will quote Lenin again - " a lie repeated often becomes the truth " . Smile


    NickM
    Sergeant
    Sergeant

    Posts : 184
    Points : 131
    Join date : 2012-11-09
    Location : NYC,USA / Essex,UK

    Re: MiG-29/ΜiG-35 Fulcrum: News

    Post  NickM on Fri Jan 18, 2013 6:02 pm

    Mindstorm wrote: Note : Low Observable air superiority aircraft like F-22 and F-35 or PAKFA or J-20 which ,as explained more times, [b]show tactically relevant RCS in the order of 0,2 -0,5 square meters

    I disagree about your paragraph, it is not so easy to detect stealth aircraft just by using longer wavelength and infrared signature. They also cool the exhaust gas before releasing atmosphere to reduce IR signature. According to electromagnetic scattering theory, if you use wavelength that is longer than length of aircraft, you get a region of Rayleigh scattering where the shape of scatterer is less or no importance, but RCS is very low in this region. Since they are designed basically for reducing monostatic RCS, today, maybe the only way to detect F 22 is to use bistatic radar or forward scattering phenome which has not been perfected in Russia and certainly NOT in third world countries like India and China .

    Mindstorm
    Captain
    Captain

    Posts : 734
    Points : 917
    Join date : 2011-07-20

    Re: MiG-29/ΜiG-35 Fulcrum: News

    Post  Mindstorm on Fri Jan 18, 2013 7:54 pm

    I disagree about your paragraph, it is not so easy to detect stealth aircraft just by using longer wavelength and infrared signature.


    Longer wavelength ? Shocked Shocked


    Who has talked here about longer radar wavelength or IR signature ?


    What you see up exposed are the average tactically relevant RCS of "stealth" fighter aircraft in X band, clear ? Very Happy

    The "epic" figures you can read around -on the order of -30 /-40 dBSM Laughing .....- refer instead simply to some frontal "hypercritical", re-radiating cones, obtained (mostly in RCS tests) with pencil beam irradiation.
    Naturally them don't represent in any way the tactically relevant RCS exposed by similar aircraft to enemy radars in actual air combat.

    Low observability provide surely ,to the aircraft integrating it, an important and potentially even deciding tactical and survivability's advantageous factor in air to air combat ,but nothing even only close to the comical ideas and imaginative capabilities circulating on it in public media Wink .

    The most important domestic names, just from the same Scientific Institutes that have discovered and validated the Physical principles and the entire Theoretical architecture a part of which, literally imported in USA, allowed US community of the sector to realize the VLO F-117 and B-2 bombers and, after, the LO F-22 and F-35 fighters (...yes, F-22 and F-35 are compromise designs with a significantly greater average RCS ,also in X band, than F-117 and B-2 Wink ) are all adamant in asserting that ,for example, F-22's RCS is not inferior to 0,2 - 0,4 square meters.


    By the way the same requirements of F-35 is for an improvement of about 20 times of the radar signature over previous generation aircraft





    You will find that this correspon perfectly and stand firmly in the 0,4 - 0,5 square meters cited by the most authorative names at world in the sector for this kind of aircraft.

    I always love to repeat that the day the real average RCS figures for those aircraft will be revealed also by western sources to theirs public opinion ,we will see one of the worse epidemic of mass suicides. Razz Razz




    George1
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 9424
    Points : 9916
    Join date : 2011-12-22
    Location : Greece

    Re: MiG-29/ΜiG-35 Fulcrum: News

    Post  George1 on Sat Jan 19, 2013 1:09 am

    ΜiG-35 is better than F-35

    Sponsored content

    Re: MiG-29/ΜiG-35 Fulcrum: News

    Post  Sponsored content Today at 11:24 pm


      Current date/time is Sun Dec 04, 2016 11:24 pm