Russia Defence Forum

Would you like to react to this message? Create an account in a few clicks or log in to continue.

Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


+54
thegopnik
kvs
Mir
Mig-31BM2 Super Irbis-E
Yugo90
UZB-76
lancelot
Finty
limb
littlerabbit
Kiko
Scorpius
PapaDragon
The_Observer
GarryB
Backman
Flyboy77
Begome
Sujoy
LMFS
Isos
ahmedfire
flamming_python
Gomig-21
slasher
mnztr
medo
owais.usmani
mack8
MC-21
Cyberspec
AlfaT8
Rodion_Romanovic
marcellogo
MiamiMachineShop
southpark
Big_Gazza
Austin
_radioactive_
Nibiru
Hole
ATLASCUB
hoom
magnumcromagnon
Tsavo Lion
franco
ultimatewarrior
Stealthflanker
dino00
miketheterrible
JohninMK
George1
GunshipDemocracy
AMCXXL
58 posters

    MiG-29/ΜiG-35 Fulcrum: News #2

    GarryB
    GarryB


    Posts : 31568
    Points : 32098
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    MiG-29/ΜiG-35 Fulcrum: News #2 - Page 22 Empty Re: MiG-29/ΜiG-35 Fulcrum: News #2

    Post  GarryB Sat Oct 02, 2021 9:18 am

    I would say buying MiG-35s is a very good idea for them... they can then get someone who has flown the MiG-29M to fly the MiG-35 and work out if the more expensive and upgraded bits on the 35 make it worth the extra cost and it is also a chance for ground crews to find out how much extra cost their might be in operating MiG-35s over 29Ms.

    They might cost the same... in fact the 35 might cost less because AESA radars require less maintenance and degrade rather than fail.

    They might decide they want the new AESA radar but for everything else the 29M is fine and cheaper to operate... both are fully multirole fighter bombers, so the improvements in the more expensive model might not make a lot of difference depending on how they intend to use them.

    Or the differences might be critical... it might be a much more capable self defence suite they might want to adopt across their fleet.

    They wont know till they try it.

    They need another 96 to replace all the f-16 fleet which would be kept as a reserve plane.

    Or sold to Turkey or Pakistan or Venezuela... Twisted Evil Twisted Evil Twisted Evil
    Gomig-21
    Gomig-21


    Posts : 420
    Points : 422
    Join date : 2016-07-17
    Location : Boston USA

    MiG-29/ΜiG-35 Fulcrum: News #2 - Page 22 Empty Re: MiG-29/ΜiG-35 Fulcrum: News #2

    Post  Gomig-21 Sat Oct 02, 2021 5:46 pm

    GarryB wrote:
    The main purpose of the MiG-29M is a cheaper numbers fighter and I rather suspect both countries would actually have preferred to buy MiG-35s but they weren't ready for purchase in a useful time scale so they bought MiG-29Ms.

    The MiG-29M uses the same airframe as the MiG-35 so buying one does not exclude buying the other as they could essentially swap parts and spares between them... in fact that is how I think they should actually be used... if you need a numbers aircraft buying a mix of MiG-29Ms and MiG-35s means you are essentially buying the equivalent of two different versions of the same aircraft that are not so different as previous gen MiG-29s and the new aircraft... it is more like buying F-16 Block 50s and block 60s or some such thing (not totally familiar with what they are specifically, but it is not the case of buying block 10s and block 50s which are probably more like different aircraft).

    You could upgrade a MiG-29M into a MiG-35 by replacing internal parts and bits and pieces, but the reality is that if you have fleet of say 300 aircraft then you might only need a MiG-35 for say 50 of those planes and the rest could be MiG-29Ms that are cheaper to buy and operate and almost as good in most areas.

    After 5 years of service instead of scrapping them like the British did with their first Typhoons they could replace all the 29M bits with 35 bits which by then will be much cheaper I would expect, and by that time there will be new radars and engines and systems they could upgrade their MiG-35s with it all remaining affordable and easier to manage than if they bought different types.

    Pretty much what I was saying. I think when the MiG-35 was unveiled for the first time, but the radar wasn't ready, the EAF sent a delegation and they ended up with the 46 MiG-29 contract. I bet that had the MiG-35 been actually ready at the time, they would've certainly ordered that aircraft and not the 29M. The EAF was in a position where they were moving very fast in modernizing the entire armed forces and needed to put away their large fleet of MiG-21s and F-7s for newer aircraft, hence the decision to purchase the 29M at the time.

    Isos wrote:I mean they already fly the mig-29M which is a mig-35 without the aesa radar so they don't need to buy 2 of them for testing purpose. They already know the aircraft.

    Yes if they want to increase numbers they can buy it. Which could happen. They clearly want to get ride of US stuff quickly. Thry already bough 48 mig-29 + 24 Rafale + 24 su-35. So almost 100 fighters. They need another 96 to replace all the f-16 fleet which would be kept as a reserve plane.

    Ah, ok, I misunderstood you. My bad. Strange that they have to buy a pair just to test them? Was that always standard operating procedure?

    They actually ordered an additional 30 Rafales last year and plan to order more. Plus I think the number of Su-35s is closer to 30. But we won't know exactly until they start inducting them. Let's hope they didn't bend because of the Americans.

    GarryB likes this post

    Isos
    Isos


    Posts : 8206
    Points : 8190
    Join date : 2015-11-06

    MiG-29/ΜiG-35 Fulcrum: News #2 - Page 22 Empty Re: MiG-29/ΜiG-35 Fulcrum: News #2

    Post  Isos Sat Oct 02, 2021 6:01 pm

    Mig-29M is a mig-35 with no AESA. The only thing to upgrade is the radar to have a mig-35.

    The first AESA is finished since long time ago. But it had only 120km and they are not happy with it.

    They alread showed the 260km that is around 120kg. This is the one they want in the fighter. Lack of interest and investement in mig family by Russia which put all its money on sukhoi made the developement very slow.

    Su-57 got its AESA much faster even if it was started after the mig-35.
    Gomig-21
    Gomig-21


    Posts : 420
    Points : 422
    Join date : 2016-07-17
    Location : Boston USA

    MiG-29/ΜiG-35 Fulcrum: News #2 - Page 22 Empty Re: MiG-29/ΜiG-35 Fulcrum: News #2

    Post  Gomig-21 Sat Oct 02, 2021 6:30 pm

    Isos wrote:Mig-29M is a mig-35 with no AESA. The only thing to upgrade is the radar to have a mig-35.

    It actually lacks the built-in designator as well as the FLIR.  The built-in designator was applied through the T-220 pod but not sure how they solved the FLIR without adding it also as a pod, or if the T-220 had that capability also.

    We figured all this stuff out when Egypt first bought the MiG-29M and we were dissecting and trying to figure out exactly what was missing from it that didn't make it a MiG-35.  Then there was an interview from MENA Defense with the head of MiG and they asked him that question.  He was the one who mentioned those differences with the exception of the FLIR.  The FLIR we figured out just based on the photos since it's an obvious attachment on the underside of the aircraft and is on the MiG-35 but not on the MiG-29M.  So it's mostly those 3 differences.
    Isos
    Isos


    Posts : 8206
    Points : 8190
    Join date : 2015-11-06

    MiG-29/ΜiG-35 Fulcrum: News #2 - Page 22 Empty Re: MiG-29/ΜiG-35 Fulcrum: News #2

    Post  Isos Sat Oct 02, 2021 7:08 pm

    Mig-35 doesn't have it. It was only present on that old mig-29 build as a mig-35 for presentation to indians.

    Mig-35 has totally the same airframe as egyptian mig-29M.

    MiG-29/ΜiG-35 Fulcrum: News #2 - Page 22 Mig35_10
    Gomig-21
    Gomig-21


    Posts : 420
    Points : 422
    Join date : 2016-07-17
    Location : Boston USA

    MiG-29/ΜiG-35 Fulcrum: News #2 - Page 22 Empty Re: MiG-29/ΜiG-35 Fulcrum: News #2

    Post  Gomig-21 Sat Oct 02, 2021 7:59 pm

    What doesn't it have? I'm guessing you're referring to the FLIR since you posted a pic of the bottom of the aircraft.

    I realize it has the same airframe and much of almost everything the MiG-35 has. Kruger flaps on the LERX, the barn door flaps as well as the oversized rudders and all the mounted warning sensors etc.

    According to Wiki:

    For detection of targets in the infrared spectrum, the MiG-35 is equipped with the OLS-UEM (13SM-1) electro-optical targeting station with lookdown capability against ground, sea and air targets. Its forward-looking infrared (FLIR) sensor is capable to detect airborne threats up to 55 km and provides coverage in azimuth of +/- 90-degree and +60-degree to −15-degree in elevation. The OLS-UEM consists of:

    Infra-red search and track sensor
    TV camera with infrared search and track capability
    Multimode laser rangefinder with detection range up to 20 km
    There is also the OLS-K/OLS-KE podded electro-optical targeting system mounted under the right engine nacelle. It is designed to search, detect and track ground and sea targets. The system consists of infrared sensor and TV camera and is capable to detect ground targets up to 20 km and sea targets up to 40 km.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mikoyan_MiG-35

    That should certainly be part of the production model as it's a rather important feature.
    GarryB
    GarryB


    Posts : 31568
    Points : 32098
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    MiG-29/ΜiG-35 Fulcrum: News #2 - Page 22 Empty Re: MiG-29/ΜiG-35 Fulcrum: News #2

    Post  GarryB Sun Oct 03, 2021 3:14 am

    Mig-29M is a mig-35 with no AESA. The only thing to upgrade is the radar to have a mig-35.

    Not true.

    The MiG-29M and MiG-29KR and MiG-35 all share the same airframe but the contents and of course the tail hook and folding wings for the KR are differences.

    The Su-35 is not a Su-27SM with BARs...

    They alread showed the 260km that is around 120kg. This is the one they want in the fighter. Lack of interest and investement in mig family by Russia which put all its money on sukhoi made the developement very slow.

    Things like AESA radars develop best through mass production where they get made in large numbers and the design is improved and refined and components get smaller and lighter and cheaper and more efficient and more powerful.

    Without production they sit in labs gathering dust because making things smaller and lighter and cheaper happens on the factory floor and not in a lab.

    Su-57 got its AESA much faster even if it was started after the mig-35.

    It was fully funded and BARS radars are in production so they can test new technologies and materials...

    It actually lacks the built-in designator as well as the FLIR. The built-in designator was applied through the T-220 pod but not sure how they solved the FLIR without adding it also as a pod, or if the T-220 had that capability also.

    The new MiGs have two FLIR pods... one in front of the nose for air to air use and one under the engine nacelle for ground targets. They can also use external targeting pods as well.

    So it's mostly those 3 differences.

    It will also likely be hardware like chips and networks... the MiG-35 will have the best and fastest and more expensive chipsets and processors, while the other two aircraft will have cheaper slower less capable chipsets... that will get the job done but will limit the performance in some areas.

    Even with teh cheaper simpler bits they will still be streets ahead of MiG-21 and other similar aged aircraft.

    Mig-35 has totally the same airframe as egyptian mig-29M.

    All three new MiGs share the same airframe.

    There is also the OLS-K/OLS-KE podded electro-optical targeting system mounted under the right engine nacelle. It is designed to search, detect and track ground and sea targets. The system consists of infrared sensor and TV camera and is capable to detect ground targets up to 20 km and sea targets up to 40 km.

    It is a pod... you could attach it to any of the three new MiGs.

    Gomig-21 likes this post

    Isos
    Isos


    Posts : 8206
    Points : 8190
    Join date : 2015-11-06

    MiG-29/ΜiG-35 Fulcrum: News #2 - Page 22 Empty Re: MiG-29/ΜiG-35 Fulcrum: News #2

    Post  Isos Sun Oct 03, 2021 8:35 am

    Not true.

    The MiG-29M and MiG-29KR and MiG-35 all share the same airframe but the contents and of course the tail hook and folding wings for the KR are differences.

    Mig-29M is the same as mig-35 without the aesa. No one talk about the K which is the navalized version.

    The new MiGs have two FLIR pods... one in front of the nose for air to air use and one under the engine nacelle for ground targets. They can also use external targeting pods as well.

    It has just the one IRST on the nose. The one on the engine was removed. They instead put an external pod like you can see on my picture.
    Gomig-21
    Gomig-21


    Posts : 420
    Points : 422
    Join date : 2016-07-17
    Location : Boston USA

    MiG-29/ΜiG-35 Fulcrum: News #2 - Page 22 Empty Re: MiG-29/ΜiG-35 Fulcrum: News #2

    Post  Gomig-21 Sun Oct 03, 2021 3:37 pm

    GarryB wrote:The new MiGs have two FLIR pods... one in front of the nose for air to air use and one under the engine nacelle for ground targets. They can also use external targeting pods as well.

    Are you saying that the IRST also dubs as a FLIR?  Or the OLS-K/OLS-KE is actually built-into the nose instead of a pod?  

    Having the FLIR on the nacelle as a separate pod attachment actually makes a lot of sense, and I think you might be 100% right on that.  Why would they ever offer it on the original MiG-35 and then suddenly not make it available on this advanced, production model would make absolutely no sense at all!  It would reduce the ground attack capability of the aircraft which would be ridiculous.  Good point by you.

    Still wondering about the nose one.


    Last edited by Gomig-21 on Mon Oct 04, 2021 4:23 pm; edited 1 time in total
    GarryB
    GarryB


    Posts : 31568
    Points : 32098
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    MiG-29/ΜiG-35 Fulcrum: News #2 - Page 22 Empty Re: MiG-29/ΜiG-35 Fulcrum: News #2

    Post  GarryB Mon Oct 04, 2021 4:57 am

    Mig-29M is the same as mig-35 without the aesa. No one talk about the K which is the navalized version.

    No it isn't.... and the KR is relevant because all three use a new airframe that is different from all previous MiG-29 aircraft including the original MiG-29M model which has a single seat cockpit only.

    The MiG-29M and MiG-29KR and MiG-35 have a new twin seat capable cockpit able to be fitted with single or twin seat layout and changed between those layouts in use.

    According to migavia-.ru

    .Both the MiG-29M (single seat) and MiG-29M2 (double seat) aircraft are the "4++" generation multi-role fighters with the extended range, weapons increased load and airborne weapons broad nomenclature.

    MiG-35 fighter is the newest aviation complex and the top element in “MiG” aircraft family. MiG-35 (single-seater) & MiG-35D (twin-seater) aircraft are made with 5th generation technologies.

    I doubt having new AESA engines would qualify as enough of a difference between a 4++ gen and 5th gen fighter technologies...

    Which is not to suggest the MiG-35 is a 5th gen fighter, but that its avionics and systems could be used in a 5th gen fighter...

    Still wondering about the nose one.
    [/quote]

    The early ones were IRSTs only, but the newer ones include thermal TV cameras and may include digital video cameras.

    Having a thermal camera on its own there is not as useful as it sounds because to be useful you need to zoom in to get a good view of the target but the more you zoom in the less area you see so with a useful zoom you end up only seeing a tiny area of airspace scanning back and forth looking for things would be a waste of time. With an IRST however it automatically detects hot points, so a thermal imager or just a zoomed in video view allows you to have a zoomed in view directed at each hotspot so you can jump from potential target to potential target instead of having to scan the entire field of view.

    My understanding is that the MiG-29M has a thermal camera as well as an IRST for identification purposes, and that the laser range finder works to 30km for ground targets and to 20km as a laser target marker.

    IRSTs and thermals cameras are separate items though they could share the same mirror to get a good field of view.

    Also from migavia.ru :

    The MiG-29M/M2 fighters are equipped with state-of-the-art multi-channel IRST with target designation system to the anti-radar passive war-head missiles.

    Multichannel IRST means IRST and thermal camera or digital video... ie it does not just detect hot spots, it has channels to view targets for identification purposes...

    Gomig-21 likes this post

    GarryB
    GarryB


    Posts : 31568
    Points : 32098
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    MiG-29/ΜiG-35 Fulcrum: News #2 - Page 22 Empty Re: MiG-29/ΜiG-35 Fulcrum: News #2

    Post  GarryB Mon Oct 04, 2021 5:04 am

    MiG-29/ΜiG-35 Fulcrum: News #2 - Page 22 Foreig10

    MiG-29/ΜiG-35 Fulcrum: News #2 - Page 22 Mig-2910

    From the migavia.ru website... a Peruvian MiG-29 and a MiG-29SMT

    dino00, Gomig-21 and Finty like this post

    Gomig-21
    Gomig-21


    Posts : 420
    Points : 422
    Join date : 2016-07-17
    Location : Boston USA

    MiG-29/ΜiG-35 Fulcrum: News #2 - Page 22 Empty Re: MiG-29/ΜiG-35 Fulcrum: News #2

    Post  Gomig-21 Fri Oct 08, 2021 4:29 am

    Man this thing is an absolute beauty. I wish they would hurry the f**k up and get moving on the production and get it out there. I bet once it's flying in numbers and showing off in airshows, the orders will come raining down.

    MiG-29/ΜiG-35 Fulcrum: News #2 - Page 22 E-fdV2BX0AUrpzi?format=jpg&name=medium

    MiG-29/ΜiG-35 Fulcrum: News #2 - Page 22 E-VKNWtWUAcXIoM?format=jpg&name=medium

    MiG-29/ΜiG-35 Fulcrum: News #2 - Page 22 FASCtDgVQAY17AX?format=jpg&name=medium

    GarryB, George1, zepia, zardof, LMFS, Kiko, Finty and like this post

    Sujoy
    Sujoy


    Posts : 1553
    Points : 1715
    Join date : 2012-04-02
    Location : India || भारत

    MiG-29/ΜiG-35 Fulcrum: News #2 - Page 22 Empty Re: MiG-29/ΜiG-35 Fulcrum: News #2

    Post  Sujoy Wed Oct 27, 2021 2:16 pm

    Upgraded Mig 29SM

    MiG-29/ΜiG-35 Fulcrum: News #2 - Page 22 Mig_2911

    In the Su-30KN the N001 Radar display was replaced with MFD. Hoping RuAF will also upgrade the radar of the Mig 29SM to allow compatibility with RVV-AE's.

    Gomig-21, lancelot, TMA1 and Finty like this post

    Gomig-21
    Gomig-21


    Posts : 420
    Points : 422
    Join date : 2016-07-17
    Location : Boston USA

    MiG-29/ΜiG-35 Fulcrum: News #2 - Page 22 Empty Re: MiG-29/ΜiG-35 Fulcrum: News #2

    Post  Gomig-21 Thu Oct 28, 2021 12:02 am

    Sujoy wrote:Upgraded Mig 29SM

    MiG-29/ΜiG-35 Fulcrum: News #2 - Page 22 Mig_2911

    In the Su-30KN the N001 Radar display was replaced with MFD. Hoping RuAF will also upgrade the radar of the Mig 29SM to allow compatibility with RVV-AE's.

    Very interesting post and I'm glad you posted it. I've been a huge fan of the IAF for decades, simply because of the variety of fighters and of course, the MiG-21 Bison in particular followed by the steady growth of the Su-30MKIs was very impressive.

    But, back to this pic and the N001 Radar and as you might know from some of my previous "bitching" posts about the EAF purchasing the MiG-29M/M2 with the Zhuk-ME and why the frig would they settle on the 300 units of the 80km RVV-AE when the 110km RVV-SD is available?! This puzzled me to no end, even when I came here and bitched my ass off to good ol' Gary, who in his wise old ways gave excellent reasons and were convincing for the most part, but there was still this fire burning in the form of being pissed off royally at the EAF! Being essentially BVR-less in the true form of "fire and forget" since the dawn of A2A missiles, despite having the semi-active AIM-7 Sparrow (which BTW, has recently been modified with a VERY interesting modification I'll post about it on the EAF thread) and so why the frig would they settle for essentially the same missile in range, only it's active and fire and forget? But WHY NOT GET THE longer range BVR missile in the RVV-AE? This has been killing me to no end.

    It was a no-brainer to me they should've went with the longer ranged missile until I saw a few videos and posts on other forums and now yours which reminded me that the IAF also operates the RVV-AE in huge numbers and then suddenly, light bulb, it has to be the bloody radar. It's range is the primary deficiency in targeting and locking onto targets in the missile's range which the Zhuk-ME was not compatible (to use your word) to the RVV-SD. And only the Zhuk-AE (AESA) radar with the greater modules and greater range would be compatible with the RVV-SD, hence why the IAF and especially the EAF did not purchase any of the 110km RVV-SDs! Does that make sense to you? Anyone else care to chime in of the possibility of truth in this concept?

    The same must apply to the R-27ER/EM and why the EAF didn't order any of those deadly, longer range missiles despite they being even cheaper than the R-77/RVV-AE!

    Look at this, a gorgeous EAF MiG-29M/M2 saddling a pair of 80km R-77s RVV-AE! I could be wrong about the radar and that the longer ranged missiles could still be fired with the seekers and data links making mid-course adjustments etc., but despite all that, the radar must allow the missile to lock on prior to firing it and if it's not in the radar's range, it simply won't allow the pilot to be able to fire it. Hence the EAF purchasing 300 RVV-AEs and 300 RVV-Ms or R-73s. Terribly annoying.

    MiG-29/ΜiG-35 Fulcrum: News #2 - Page 22 FCtweMBXoAQwJZV?format=jpg&name=large

    Sujoy likes this post

    GarryB
    GarryB


    Posts : 31568
    Points : 32098
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    MiG-29/ΜiG-35 Fulcrum: News #2 - Page 22 Empty Re: MiG-29/ΜiG-35 Fulcrum: News #2

    Post  GarryB Thu Oct 28, 2021 6:16 am

    Active radar homing missiles do not require locks on targets.

    As an example when testing the first R-37 missiles on a MiG-31M that did not have a new Zaslon-M radar fitted, they test fired an R-37 at a target a rather great distance away. The actual target launch distance was not given but the missile is described as flying 300km to the point of impact with the target, which suggests if both aircraft were heading towards each other would need to be rather significantly further than 300km at the time of launch.

    To launch the missile they used an Su-30 with a fairly ordinary radar but flying much closer to the target to provide target information but no lock was or is required for such a launch... you just need to know where the enemy plane is roughly to launch a missile towards him. As you close the target and the target gets closer to you you can refine the flight path of your missile to ensure when it starts scanning for the target with its own built in radar that the target aircraft is nicely visible and does not require an extreme turn or manouver to intercept.

    The point is that you might never even get a lock on the target you are shooting at... most of an ARH missiles flight in on autopilot to get it to a position to then scan for the target with its own radar... the target information might be supplied by a ground based radar... another friendly aircraft closer to the target... or you might detect radar emissions from the target that suggests a presence.

    As far as I know the MiG-29C... often translated to MiG-29S which was in service in the Russia AF has been about the only Russian fighter able to carry the RVV-AE missile for quite a few years.... the E in RVV-AE stands for export AFAIK and the exported 29s during that period were MiG-29SEs, but even the base model MiG-29s the S, the SM and the SMT were all compatible with AEs.

    The radar of an aircraft does not do a lot except detect a target and plot an estimate of its expected course while the launched missile is in flight to determine where the launched missile will fly to before it starts scanning with its own radar to get a lock on the target... the launch aircraft does not need to continuously track the target and send continuous course corrections... in fact that is a good way to ensure the missile runs out of energy and falls short... when the missile is 3/4ths the way to the target a check of the targets position to make sure when the missile starts scanning for the target that the target is in its field of view... if it is do nothing... if it isn't calculate a new intercept point so that when the missile turns on its radar the target is directly in front of it and easy to fly in to.

    Launching BVR missiles at extreme ranges just ensures a low probability of a hit and is a waste... even just between when you launch and when the missile starts to scan for the target if the target aircraft turns around and heads away from the missile the lock and tracking range of a radar is much higher for a closing target and also much smaller for a receding target... no matter its RCS... few missiles chase targets well.
    Gomig-21
    Gomig-21


    Posts : 420
    Points : 422
    Join date : 2016-07-17
    Location : Boston USA

    MiG-29/ΜiG-35 Fulcrum: News #2 - Page 22 Empty Re: MiG-29/ΜiG-35 Fulcrum: News #2

    Post  Gomig-21 Fri Oct 29, 2021 3:15 am

    GarryB wrote:Active radar homing missiles do not require locks on targets.

    True, but the aircraft's radar still has to detect the target and track it to be able to give the pilot some sense of direction and allow firing it.  Otherwise it won't fire, which is what supposedly happened with that particular R-77 we talked about that started that whole squabble which we don't want to happen again!  That was the same Zhuk-ME and R-77/RVV-AE.  Unless there wasn't any truth to that, which is always possible.

    Active radar homing missiles are only independent of the aircraft's radar if the target is within the missile's own radar range, and the pilot can just fire and forget and let the missile do all the work, hence the longer range of the missile, the better.  If the target is out of the missile's radar range, it still needs the aircraft's radar (not necessarily to lock on, but to detect and even track) which is really one step short of locking on.  The pilot needs some initial and relatively accurate target information including IFF signals all performed by the aircraft's radar to send the missile in a relatively accurate direction.  

    This is what I think the problem is with the compatibility of the MiG-29M/M2's Zhuk radar and the R-77 and why they had to order those and not the R-77-1 or even the R-27.  

    GarryB wrote:As an example when testing the first R-37 missiles on a MiG-31M that did not have a new Zaslon-M radar fitted, they test fired an R-37 at a target a rather great distance away. The actual target launch distance was not given but the missile is described as flying 300km to the point of impact with the target, which suggests if both aircraft were heading towards each other would need to be rather significantly further than 300km at the time of launch.

    To launch the missile they used an Su-30 with a fairly ordinary radar but flying much closer to the target to provide target information but no lock was or is required for such a launch... you just need to know where the enemy plane is roughly to launch a missile towards him. As you close the target and the target gets closer to you you can refine the flight path of your missile to ensure when it starts scanning for the target with its own built in radar that the target aircraft is nicely visible and does not require an extreme turn or manouver to intercept.

    The point is that you might never even get a lock on the target you are shooting at... most of an ARH missiles flight in on autopilot to get it to a position to then scan for the target with its own radar... the target information might be supplied by a ground based radar... another friendly aircraft closer to the target... or you might detect radar emissions from the target that suggests a presence.

    I understand all that.  Lock on was the wrong term to use hastely.  My point is that there is a certain "incompatibility" with the radar on the MiG-29M/M2 to use the longer range versions on the R-77.  Which from what I understand is the R-77-1 or RVV-SD.  

    GarryB wrote:The radar of an aircraft does not do a lot except detect a target and plot an estimate of its expected course while the launched missile is in flight to determine where the launched missile will fly to before it starts scanning with its own radar to get a lock on the target... the launch aircraft does not need to continuously track the target and send continuous course corrections... in fact that is a good way to ensure the missile runs out of energy and falls short... when the missile is 3/4ths the way to the target a check of the targets position to make sure when the missile starts scanning for the target that the target is in its field of view... if it is do nothing... if it isn't calculate a new intercept point so that when the missile turns on its radar the target is directly in front of it and easy to fly in to.

    The only thing in this case that puzzles me a bit is that I do believe certain MiG-29s (be it the Indian MiG-29K or Russian SMT) do use the R-27 and must use other ways to detect targets at those greater distances than their own radars like you mention, including GPS even.  But with the BARS and IRBIS-E, neither of those longer range missiles should have any issues being detected by the aircraft's radar.

    GarryB wrote:Launching BVR missiles at extreme ranges just ensures a low probability of a hit and is a waste... even just between when you launch and when the missile starts to scan for the target if the target aircraft turns around and heads away from the missile the lock and tracking range of a radar is much higher for a closing target and also much smaller for a receding target... no matter its RCS... few missiles chase targets well.

    So why produce them?  Why improve on them?  There has to be a good reason that improves not only overall performance, but accuracy at greater range.  We saw the AIM-120C-7 react and work where unfortunately an R-77 didn't.  This has to be concerning without the notion that it's insulting or bashing or anything of that sort since that's not the intention here.  I'm simply trying to ascertain why the air force I root for chose the lesser missile of the 3 capable ones that are available.  Why didn't they go for the better of the best?  It doesn't add up and everything points to the aircraft's radar compatibility. Perhaps they might've purchase both, the R-77-1/RVV-SD and R-27R/AE had the Zhuk-AE AESA radar been ready and available back in 2015?
    Mir
    Mir


    Posts : 1105
    Points : 1109
    Join date : 2021-06-10

    MiG-29/ΜiG-35 Fulcrum: News #2 - Page 22 Empty Re: MiG-29/ΜiG-35 Fulcrum: News #2

    Post  Mir Fri Oct 29, 2021 9:06 am

    It would appear that all Indian Mig-29's radars have been upgraded with the Zuk-M. If it's the export version the radar is supposed to have a range of around 120km whilst the R-77 (export version ) has a range of around 80km which is well within the the detection range of the Mig's radar.

    The missile itself is not only actively guided but also has an inertial mode - which tells me that the missile can be launched or perhaps even guided by information received from a third party like an AWACS or ground based radar. If my assumption is correct then the missile can even be fired at oncoming targets well beyond the range of the Mig's own radar.

    There is apparently an IR guided version of this missile being developed as well which can be even more dangerous in inertial mode - if it has the legs.
    GarryB
    GarryB


    Posts : 31568
    Points : 32098
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    MiG-29/ΜiG-35 Fulcrum: News #2 - Page 22 Empty Re: MiG-29/ΜiG-35 Fulcrum: News #2

    Post  GarryB Fri Oct 29, 2021 11:19 am

    True, but the aircraft's radar still has to detect the target and track it to be able to give the pilot some sense of direction and allow firing it.

    It also depends on the target... a transport plane or inflight refuelling plane can be detected at distances well beyond the range of AAMs it might be carrying.

    The target might be scanning for targets in which case the EW might be able to work out their location and movements at ranges beyond which they can get a radar lock or track.


    Active radar homing missiles are only independent of the aircraft's radar if the target is within the missile's own radar range, and the pilot can just fire and forget and let the missile do all the work, hence the longer range of the missile, the better.

    Not true at all... as I mentioned one of the first tests for the R-37 air to air missile the weapon was carried on a MiG-31M but with a standard Zaslon radar... there is no way that radar could detect and track a target at more than 300km but the missile was launched at a head on closing target and the missile flew 300km to hit the target.

    Lets assume the R-37 flew at about mach 6 and the closing aircraft was say flying at high subsonic speed of perhaps 800km/h... to fly 300km at mach 6 would take the missile 2.6 minutes to fly that far and the target is moving at 800km/h so in the 156 seconds the missile takes to get 300km from the point of launch the target aircraft would have travelled about 35km... the launch aircraft probably travelled further as it was likely a high altitude high speed launch but once the missile is launched then the closing speed of the launch aircraft is not important... so the missile was launched when the target was 335km distant and while the high flying fast MiG-31 probably closed the distance at 2.5 times higher speed... so it would have moved about 87km closer to the target by the time of missile impact the chances of the MiG detecting the target at 335km with its own radar was zero... we know that because target information was relayed to the MiG from an Su-30 operating much closer to the target so there was no radar lock and no tracking done by the MiG-31 launch aircraft.

    At closer distances the aircraft might have launched its missile at 30km based on information from the IRST without using its radar... at 30km it is too far for an R-77 to get a lock before launch too.

    The pilot needs some initial and relatively accurate target information including IFF signals all performed by the aircraft's radar to send the missile in a relatively accurate direction.

    I does not need to be super accurate for a very long range shot... half way to the target area a turn of a few degrees will not burn off energy too much at all.


    This is what I think the problem is with the compatibility of the MiG-29M/M2's Zhuk radar and the R-77 and why they had to order those and not the R-77-1 or even the R-27.

    The MiG-29M and MiG-29KR and MiG-35 are compatible with current and new air to air missiles... the exception would be the R-33.

    My point is that there is a certain "incompatibility" with the radar on the MiG-29M/M2 to use the longer range versions on the R-77. Which from what I understand is the R-77-1 or RVV-SD.

    The website of the company that makes the RVV-SD says:

    The missile is designed to be used at Mig and Su aircrafts.

    Check it out yourself...

    http://eng.ktrv.ru/production/military_production/air-to-air_missiles/rvv-sd.html

    If the missile could only be carried by MiG-35 and MiG-31BM then they would say that... it is clearly compatible with MiGs.

    The only thing in this case that puzzles me a bit is that I do believe certain MiG-29s (be it the Indian MiG-29K or Russian SMT) do use the R-27 and must use other ways to detect targets at those greater distances than their own radars like you mention, including GPS even. But with the BARS and IRBIS-E, neither of those longer range missiles should have any issues being detected by the aircraft's radar.

    The original MiG-29 could only carry the SARH version of the smaller R-27 missile, which essentially replaced the R-23/24 SARH guided missiles... to start with there was no replacement for the long range R-23/24 IR guided missiles.

    The MiG-29 did not carry the R-27E models, nor the IR guided shorter range models, but upgrades changed that... the MiG-29S added the RVV-AE, the MiG-29SD was an exported model with foreign components. The MiG-29SM added the entire range of R-27s and R-77s to the R-73s, and SMT models include that performance as well.

    So why produce them? Why improve on them?

    Not all targets are aware they are under attack, and not all targets can evade even if they did know.

    An inflight refuelling tanker supporting a strike mission could end the mission if it is taken out early.... an R-77 might struggle to take down a Rafale at 110km, but it would be able to take down a 737 inflight refuelling plane easily enough...

    The fact that these missiles have a paper range of 110km and that the new replacements double that range presumably to 220km, the pilots will almost never launch at such ranges and will engage enemy targets based on the situation. A very long range missile has more energy to manouver at closer range so can be more effective at closer ranges than a shorter range missile fired against the same target.

    But the better question would be why are they making these longer range missiles if the only aircraft they have that can use them are the two new MiG-35s they have and their Su-30s and Su-35s and Su-34s... why would their MiG-29SMTs not be able to use them?

    Their MiG-29KRs are new and should be able to use any type of Russian missile for medium range aircraft.

    We saw the AIM-120C-7 react and work where unfortunately an R-77 didn't.

    When?

    I'm simply trying to ascertain why the air force I root for chose the lesser missile of the 3 capable ones that are available.

    You are assuming it is the lesser missile... the grid fins on the R-77 allow it to turn much harder without the grid fins stalling than an AMRAAMs tiny triangular fins can manage... meaning during the interception the R-77 can turn much harder without stalling which should increase PK at most ranges.

    Why didn't they go for the better of the best? It doesn't add up and everything points to the aircraft's radar compatibility.

    Why would it point to compatibility? The Radar in the MiG-29M and MiG-29K are not state of the art AESAs, but you don't need an AESA radar to use ARH missiles... photos of MiG-29SMTs in Syria shows it can carry R-77s.

    Perhaps they might've purchase both, the R-77-1/RVV-SD and R-27R/AE had the Zhuk-AE AESA radar been ready and available back in 2015?

    Why do you think an AESA is a requirement for long range AAMs?

    The MiG-31 doesn't have an AESA and neither did the F-14.

    Gomig-21 likes this post

    Rasisuki Nebia
    Rasisuki Nebia


    Posts : 73
    Points : 75
    Join date : 2020-12-25

    MiG-29/ΜiG-35 Fulcrum: News #2 - Page 22 Empty Re: MiG-29/ΜiG-35 Fulcrum: News #2

    Post  Rasisuki Nebia Sun Nov 28, 2021 5:06 pm

    Don't know how credible this source is, seen it from good ol Rob but looks like Mali is going to buy 3 MIG-35 from Russia

    Direct links:

    https://www.facebook.com/607312323078963/photos/a.607327469744115/1283272862149569/

    https://t.co/2RzggjnAhV?amp=1

    GarryB, dino00, Big_Gazza, Kiko, Finty and Broski like this post


    Sponsored content


    MiG-29/ΜiG-35 Fulcrum: News #2 - Page 22 Empty Re: MiG-29/ΜiG-35 Fulcrum: News #2

    Post  Sponsored content


      Current date/time is Tue Dec 07, 2021 6:30 am