Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


    MiG-29/ΜiG-35 Fulcrum: News

    Share
    avatar
    Isos

    Posts : 1234
    Points : 1232
    Join date : 2015-11-06

    Re: MiG-29/ΜiG-35 Fulcrum: News

    Post  Isos on Thu Feb 15, 2018 6:46 pm

    French spectra allow to use missile without activating the rafale's radar, just by processing the enemy signal. But with AESA you will know the direction where it comes from but not a precise position. I'm not an expert of radars but I always thought that this is the main advantage of aesa.

    I also expressed the idea of using the Mig-25 radar which produce something like 400k kW power but with modern technologies. Irbis-e is 20 kWt if I'm not wrong. Instead of being stealth you go full power to be sure to see everything. Could even be used to point the beam at missiles and burn them.
    avatar
    miketheterrible

    Posts : 1856
    Points : 1854
    Join date : 2016-11-06

    Re: MiG-29/ΜiG-35 Fulcrum: News

    Post  miketheterrible on Thu Feb 15, 2018 6:58 pm

    Radar is radar is radar. It all does the same thing. Sends out a signal, and the reflection of that signal back and that determine if you got a Target or not. The AESA doesn't move and the fact it has different transievers means it can designate various transievers to scan in different directions at same time, while PESA has either 1 (or two in Irbis E case) that moves with the radar while scanning. In the end, both are sending off signals that can be picked up. Difference is, PESA is sending one large signal out in it's respective direction, while AESA is sending small signals towards multiple directions. Doesn't mean that it's 10KW of power going into separate spaces. It's 10KW divided by the number of modules scanning. Doesn't have magic to it. It will be affected by it severely regarding it's low output. In that direction.

    Pros and cons on both sides. Doesn't mean it can't easily be picked up. Sensors just received that radiation and state that radio activity coming from so and so area.

    As for the French missile, they may have ability to launch missile whole it is tracked by french OLS system or it's an active radar missile meaning it will track on it's own. Or there is something else I'm not aware of.
    avatar
    Singular_Transform

    Posts : 588
    Points : 584
    Join date : 2016-11-13

    Re: MiG-29/ΜiG-35 Fulcrum: News

    Post  Singular_Transform on Thu Feb 15, 2018 7:41 pm

    Isos wrote:French spectra allow to use missile without activating the rafale's radar, just by processing the enemy signal. But with AESA you will know the direction where it comes from but not a precise position. I'm not an expert of radars but I always thought that this is the main advantage of aesa.

    I also expressed the idea of using the Mig-25 radar which produce something like 400k kW power but with modern technologies. Irbis-e is 20 kWt if I'm not wrong. Instead of being stealth you go full power to be sure to see everything. Could even be used to point the beam at missiles and burn them.


    The PESA radar using one big signal generator ( travelling wave tube example) and dividing it between a lot of phase shifter that steering the beam to different directions.
    The reflected signal going back through the shifters, and processed with a central processor.

    The AESA has a lot of small transmitter/received in the phased array radar, each of them working synchronous mode , and doing the transmission /receive function at the same time.

    There are radars that works in mixed mode ( like irbis-e), having one central signal generator, but independent receiver amplification elements for each antenna in the phased array.


    It means that in silent mode it has the same performance like any AESA radar.

    And the claim about the AESA radar multiple beam forming capability is just PR, in real life you want to send out as strong signal as you can in the narrowest beam, to look as far as possible.




    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 17226
    Points : 17832
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: MiG-29/ΜiG-35 Fulcrum: News

    Post  GarryB on Fri Feb 16, 2018 3:41 am

    French spectra allow to use missile without activating the rafale's radar, just by processing the enemy signal. But with AESA you will know the direction where it comes from but not a precise position. I'm not an expert of radars but I always thought that this is the main advantage of aesa.

    Actually the angular accuracy of IRSTs is better than radar and is totally passive.

    The MIG-29 was able to launch IR guided missiles at targets without using radar in the 1980s... it is not that big of a deal.


    _________________
    “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
    avatar
    Isos

    Posts : 1234
    Points : 1232
    Join date : 2015-11-06

    Re: MiG-29/ΜiG-35 Fulcrum: News

    Post  Isos on Fri Feb 16, 2018 11:30 am

    GarryB wrote:
    French spectra allow to use missile without activating the rafale's radar, just by processing the enemy signal. But with AESA you will know the direction where it comes from but not a precise position. I'm not an expert of radars but I always thought that this is the main advantage of aesa.

    Actually the angular accuracy of IRSTs is better than radar and is totally passive.

    The MIG-29 was able to launch IR guided missiles at targets without using radar in the 1980s... it is not that big of a deal.

    What I understood is that spectra works as a passive radar. In terms of range you can't do better. And it is as passive as IRST. And it is precise enough to allow you to lunch missiles but I don't know which missile. Maybe meteor so the target is dead because it will know only at last sec that it targeted when the missile goes active.

    IRST is good but I think r-27T don't have lock on after lunch and r-27r needs the radar of lunch fighter to work. Maybe r-77 could use the data from IRST.
    avatar
    Isos

    Posts : 1234
    Points : 1232
    Join date : 2015-11-06

    Re: MiG-29/ΜiG-35 Fulcrum: News

    Post  Isos on Fri Feb 16, 2018 9:33 pm

    Is it an impression or the ailerons on the Mig-35 are far bigger than on the mig-29 ? Is it because it is bigger and needs that to be as manoeuvrable as Mig-29 ?

    Look at 3:00.



    Svyatoslavich

    Posts : 360
    Points : 369
    Join date : 2015-04-22
    Location : Buenos Aires

    Re: MiG-29/ΜiG-35 Fulcrum: News

    Post  Svyatoslavich on Fri Feb 16, 2018 11:56 pm

    Isos wrote:Is it an impression or the ailerons on the Mig-35 are far bigger than on the mig-29 ? Is it because it is bigger and needs that to be as manoeuvrable as Mig-29 ?

    Look at 3:00.


    You are right. There are many differences in the frame and aerodynamics between older MiG-29 (9.12, 9.13, SMT which in reality are old incomplete frames from Soviet times) and newer MiG-29K/M2/35:
    https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-SdyTuMVdky4/WIyh7hCYPwI/AAAAAAAATHc/mb-jdmuBHm4bazP6gPcyUToRQaFsvdojgCLcB/s1600/mig-29%2Bvs%2Bmig-35%2Bcompar%2Bdif.jpg
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 17226
    Points : 17832
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: MiG-29/ΜiG-35 Fulcrum: News

    Post  GarryB on Sat Feb 17, 2018 3:44 am

    What I understood is that spectra works as a passive radar. In terms of range you can't do better.

    Actually in theory with the proper computing power behind it a MiG-29 from the 1980s could be used mostly passively and almost impossible to detect in that way too.

    Very simply the fire control system of the MiG-29 included a Helmet mounted sight, an IRST system and a radar.

    An aircraft like an F-16 of the time just had the radar so to find targets in that aircraft it had to scan the sky looking for a return... once it got a return it could then send a ranging pulse and get range and direction and speed etc.

    In the MIG-29 the IRST for BVR targets or Helmet mounted sight for WVR targets can be used to locate the target... for an IR guided missile that is enough because if the IR missile can get a lock then it is in range because the R-73 has a flight range of 40km and the R-27T has a range of about 65km and the R-27ET has a range of about 80km, so if it is in locking range it is within launch range too...

    With the IRST giving the radar precise angular details there is no need for scanning... just a short ranging pulse that could get lost in the noise of the combat zone...

    And it is as passive as IRST. And it is precise enough to allow you to lunch missiles but I don't know which missile. Maybe meteor so the target is dead because it will know only at last sec that it targeted when the missile goes active.

    Any modern Russian fighter will detect the missiles exhaust plume at quite a distance anyway... plus the Su-35 and Su-57 can scan the Eurofighter in L band... a frequency the Eurofighters radars don't operate in so they will be none the wiser...

    IRST is good but I think r-27T don't have lock on after lunch and r-27r needs the radar of lunch fighter to work. Maybe r-77 could use the data from IRST.

    Please... there are more than 2 dozen variations of the Alamo missile and it is being updated all the time... but why do you think lock on after launch is so important?

    Passive is passive, so if no one is using radar then the Russian fighters can be directed by ground radar/installations to the general location of enemy fighters and use their IRSTs to detect western fighters at 60km or more depending upon the model... with the 110km range of the R-77 that should be plenty to launch the missile and have a reasonable chance of a kill without giving away its own position by using radar...

    Is it an impression or the ailerons on the Mig-35 are far bigger than on the mig-29 ? Is it because it is bigger and needs that to be as manoeuvrable as Mig-29 ?

    The MiG-35 is not that much bigger than the MiG-29.

    Larger control surfaces just offer more rapid control manouvers in conventional flight. In superstall flight they make no difference at all.

    Edit... looking again... the ailerons are from the MiG-29KR and are for low speed flight to land on carrier decks.

    The horizontal tail surfaces are for most manouver control in dogfights... ailerons not so much, so there would be no manouver performance difference... only reduced takeoff and landing speeds.. (ie reduced stall speed).


    _________________
    “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
    avatar
    Isos

    Posts : 1234
    Points : 1232
    Join date : 2015-11-06

    Re: MiG-29/ΜiG-35 Fulcrum: News

    Post  Isos on Sat Feb 17, 2018 7:09 pm

    Please... there are more than 2 dozen variations of the Alamo missile and it is being updated all the time... but why do you think lock on after launch is so important?

    Passive is passive, so if no one is using radar then the Russian fighters can be directed by ground radar/installations to the general location of enemy fighters and use their IRSTs to detect western fighters at 60km or more depending upon the model... with the 110km range of the R-77 that should be plenty to launch the missile and have a reasonable chance of a kill without giving away its own position by using radar...

    Lock on after lunch would allow longer range engagement for R-27ET. Against a powerfull enemy with awacs and jaming plaines you can lunch a salvo of ER and ET at max range and be sure one of them will hit. Specially if your radar paint the target it will lunch only chaffs and not flares because he will think it's only a radar missile so your R-27ET has more chances to hit.

    If the enemy has awacs or has its radar turned on it will probably see a Sukhoi at long range. Passive isn't only good for silent engagement like you describ it by going radar tunred off. R-27ET is a very capable missiles and should be used with all it potentiel. It is marketed as a 110km missile while in fact it is more for dogfight with longer legs than a r-73.



    Edit... looking again... the ailerons are from the MiG-29KR and are for low speed flight to land on carrier decks.

    The horizontal tail surfaces are for most manouver control in dogfights... ailerons not so much, so there would be no manouver performance difference... only reduced takeoff and landing speeds.. (ie reduced stall speed).

    It's usefull for Mig-29KR but for the mig-35 does it change something to have smaller or bigger ailerons than a mig-29 ? It will operate Airport not from a carrier.

    I didn't know they have used the wings of Mig-29K for Mig-35.
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 17226
    Points : 17832
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: MiG-29/ΜiG-35 Fulcrum: News

    Post  GarryB on Sun Feb 18, 2018 11:30 am

    Lock on after lunch would allow longer range engagement for R-27ET.

    It is a chase down missile rarely used against head on targets.

    Against a powerfull enemy with awacs and jaming plaines you can lunch a salvo of ER and ET at max range and be sure one of them will hit.

    At max range against a powerful enemy you can be sure neither will hit.

    Specially if your radar paint the target it will lunch only chaffs and not flares because he will think it's only a radar missile so your R-27ET has more chances to hit.

    A powerful enemy with modern aircraft will detect the IR signature of both missiles coming...

    It is marketed as a 110km missile while in fact it is more for dogfight with longer legs than a r-73.

    110km in a high altitude high speed launch against a closing target.

    It is 80km for a fighter sized target high altitude closing.

    If the enemy has awacs or has its radar turned on it will probably see a Sukhoi at long range. Passive isn't only good for silent engagement like you describ it by going radar tunred off. R-27ET is a very capable missiles and should be used with all it potentiel.

    If the target is an AWACS aircraft then the weapon of choice should be the R-27EP passive homing ARM model.

    It's usefull for Mig-29KR but for the mig-35 does it change something to have smaller or bigger ailerons than a mig-29 ? It will operate Airport not from a carrier.

    Lower takeoff and landing speeds is not a bad thing, and lower stall speed is good too, though the TVC means there is no actual stall speed...


    I didn't know they have used the wings of Mig-29K for Mig-35.

    Structurally I believe the main difference between the two is the non folding wing on the 35 and the lack of a tail hook. Of course the electronics and systems are totally different and the 35 has various EO systems around the place too.


    _________________
    “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

    kopyo-21

    Posts : 166
    Points : 168
    Join date : 2013-08-21
    Location : Bangkok - Thailand

    Re: MiG-29/ΜiG-35 Fulcrum: News

    Post  kopyo-21 on Tue Feb 20, 2018 5:48 pm

    All of modernized Mig-29 get the RWR/ELINT L-150 Pastel that can passively detect air radiating targets, precisely determine their directions and guide R-77 or R-27P or R-27EP missiles to attake those targets.

    Sponsored content

    Re: MiG-29/ΜiG-35 Fulcrum: News

    Post  Sponsored content


      Current date/time is Sat Feb 24, 2018 1:27 am