If this is true, then a comprehensive overhaul of the inventory, storage and tracking systems is required. Im still scratching my head as to how this could have happened given the multiple levels of clearance required before they could have been moved from the facility.

I suspect that is exactly the wrong thing to do. I think it was likely a case of complacency and taking shortcuts and taking things for granite. I don’t think the system/book was broke. I bet they didn’t go by the book or PROPER system. I bet it was systemic complacency.

I doubt the system needs to be overhauled, I think they need to start going by the book.

I bet this is a case of “that’s how I was shown how to do it”, instead of going by the book. Or a case of we agreed not to go by the book, much like how the USS forestall conflagration.

What they likely need is some *“jerks” to start enforcing the rules and to make sure that things go by the book unless there is real good reason to do otherwise.

People were likely going though the motions.

* To put it politely. Sometimes they are called really bad names and disliked, but often they do it for the good of their own men. Often the command or safety people that are really strict is not being strict because of a power trip, they should do it for safety.

I suspect you meant the same thing as I, but it didn’t sound that way. 😉

I think it’s partly tradition to make light of such situations and gently harass/rib the people involved. I would be tempted to see if I could make some temporary kill markings for the B-1 and the F-16; like a silhouette of an F-16 on its side.

Perhaps a trophy for the pilot of the F-16; such as trophy with a bicycle, inscribed with something like drives an F-16 like a two wheeler. Or a Tour Le France/Alaska award.

LOL. The cameraman didnt even notice the F-16 tipping over XD

The camera operator had a form of target fixation, he was likely so involved with operating the camera and watching the B-1 that he didn’t notice the F-16 on its side until the second pan.

Where did you say some?

Where did I say “all” or something all inclusive?

Why should I spoon feed you like an infant?

It’s like how some people use unequal types of figures

You define those that like Soviet equipment (ie Soviet Advocates) as being propagandists. ie all people who like Soviet equipment = propagandists. Where is the “some”.

When I was using the word propagandist, I was obviously using it in the context of excluding the Soviet enthusiasts that are not unfairly prejudice.

My peversions? So now I am saying all Soviet enthusiast are propagandists? I am the bad guy. It is all my fault.

Yes it is your perversions and it is your fault. You obviously took when I said out of context because you’re blinded by your prejudice. You’re the one that said “all” not me.

Why am I offended by an individual who asks to start a discussion who starts that discussion by telling me because I like Soviet equipment that what I say is propaganda… ummm I think it is pretty obvious. Makes the debate simple of course. Anyone with enough indepth knowledge to successfully show your hypothesis is wrong is obvoiously one of those Soviet propagandists that should be ignored.

Once again your post shows that you are still blinded by your own prejudice/bigotry. You obviously perverted what I said by taking it out of context, even after explaining it to you, you’re still so blinded by your bigotry/prejudice you still take what I said out of context and are using that to lay false accusations on me.

If what I said was wrong, how come you haven’t shown any data that proves otherwise? Instead you pervert things by taking things out of context as a basis for attacks and abuse.

No. You said:

You’re still perverting what I said by taking what I said out of context, that is obvious by the quote you posted.

My quotes in proper context are as following.

I said that “fighter size target” aka “fighter-type-of-target” was unscientific values. Like I said it took some considerable research to come up with the alleged scientific values of 16 sq m.

using the vague term “fighter size target” aka “fighter-type-of-target” where as the US usually use 5-sq m (a scientifically quantitative value).

Like I said repeatedly “fighter size target” aka “fighter-type-of-target is not a scientific quantitative value. How many times and how many ways do I have to spoon feed at to you before I get it through your head?

You seem to have this obsessive-compulsive ADD thing that I might issue is the size in meters. Different sizes in meters can be converted however vague unscientific terms like “fighter size target” aka “fighter-type-of-target is not a scientific quantitative value. Like a lot of things that seems to go over your head, because you’re chasing ghosts because of your misinterpretations and lack of knowledge/understanding.

It’s like saying you have a truck size vehicle, that is a vague unscientific term. How do I know what size your truck is? It could be a compact pickup that is smaller than most American cars or it could be a massive mining dump truck.

There is a considerable difference in RCS between an F-22 and a MIG-31. The radar cross-section for an F-22 in meters is very small, whereas the radar cross-section for a MIG-31 is humongous.

First of all 16 sq m is not the size of a large bomber, and certainly no where near the size of a battleship. You state that the Soviets often use misleading RCS values, yet 16 sq m is actually a rather small RCS value for the Mig-31s radar because the RCS of a B-52 will be 5-6 times bigger than this. The Mig-31s radar is a high frequency set and therefore the Mig-31 would be relying on long wave ground radar to get it close to a target like a B-2 or its IRST.
But then that might just be Soviet propaganda… :

You don’t have a clue what you’re talking about, as usual you are taking things out of context.

If you don’t believe me why don’t you believe Paul (aerospacetech).

The two main target sizes used by Russian radar designers were 3 sq m and 16 sq m for MiG-21 and Tu-16 respectively.

Radars designed to engage fighters are generally quoted vs 3 sq m targets. In Zaslon’s case, the primary target was bombers, hence the 16 sq m target. Zaslon-M range was quoted vs 19 sq m – perhaps this is Tu-22M?

Paul.

I obviously wasn’t talking about the B-52, the B-52 has an exceptionally large radar signature for a bomber with all those angles, engines, ect.

BTW the MIG-31 and F-15 look unusually huge on radar for fighters due to their construction, particularly when they are substantially loaded. So even they can have a return as large as a large bomber like the Tu-16.

Many of you still don’t get the point it is best to judge a radars capability by the size of a standard return rather than trying to use guesstimates based on aircraft because a return on an aircraft is not a constant, it can change based on aspect, load out, ect.

Instead of trying to anticipate and fudge all those variables it is more scientific to use a standard radar target to eliminate the variables for comparison.

certainly no where near the size of a battleship

False. When you compare vague unscientific values like “fighter size target” it is possible to compare the size of a fighter to a battleship.

The front view of a battleship could have a similar radar cross-section then the bottom veiw of a F-15 or MIG-31 heavily loaded with ordinance.

That is part of the reason that you should give scientific values in area instead of vague unscientific reference to type of vehicle.

The Mig-31 defends the arctic borders from B-52s and B-2s… how many escorts will have the range to fly with such aircraft with or without external fuel tanks?
The places where the Mig-31s will be intercepting will be a long way from the incoming bomber aircrafts targets… even just making any escorts (carrier based) drop their tanks will be a mission kill for them as they will not be able to escort all the way to the target area and still make it back.

Once again you show your lack of knowledge of aircraft operations. It is routine to burn the fuel out of the drop tank’s first so that if they have to be dropped odds are they will be empty by the time and enemy is engaged. So dropping tanks in an engagement obviously wouldn’t be a mission kill as you claim.

it is a feature, not a bug. The AWG-9 has a conventional radar that scans by turning the radar. The Zaslon is electronically steered. The AWG cant simultaneously track targets that are both very high and very low because of the width of the scan beam. The Passive array on the Mig-31 can scan both high and low and in the middle at the same time because it is electronically scanned. You assume that the Zaslon can’t illuminate targets close together. What proof do you have?

You consider it a good feature that Zaslon apparently wasn’t able to engage long-range targets in very close proximity to each other? It sounds like a primitive weakness to me. I think it is a huge advantage to be able to attack several aircraft simultaneously in a formation, whereas Zaslon seems less capable of engaging several aircraft simultaneously that are traveling in formation.

If Zaslon had the capability don’t you think they would demonstrate and test it like the US did with the AWG-9?

As I said there are some situations where phased array can be more effective, however for a relatively slow speed aircraft at long-distance it is not necessary to have continuous illumination. It might help if you’re tracking something fast like an incoming ICBM, satellite, or meteor or if you’re at close distance.

It is much like your TV set/monitor or fluorescent lights; they are flashing, however they are flashing fast enough that you can track most slow moving objects.

Once the missile gets close enough to a target that the refresh rate starts to becomes important the missile goes active so the target is continuously illuminated.

The other weakness of continuous illumination, is that it gives the enemy a better chance to detect the threat and located and avoid it. The other problem is that it helps home on jam type missiles, home in on the radar. So if you use continuous illumination you increase your detectability and vulnerability.

The K-37 is ARH and therefore does not require the Mig-31M to illuminate anything. Target data can come from the ZASLON-M or from third parties like AWACS or ground radar. The forward deployed Su-30M detected the target and passed its location to the Mig-31M via datalink. The Su-30M did not illuminate/paint the target. You only paint targets for SARH to home in on. Why bother illuminating a target for a missile that has its own ARH seeker?

It seems that the MIG-31’s (host aircraft) radar didn’t the range to fire the missile during the tests. It seems that’s why they used a forward deployed aircraft to illuminate the targets during the tests.

The target has to be illuminated in order for the missile to know where to go. Otherwise it would just be a blind shot.

Some advanced missiles can be fired blind, however I’m not sure if the K-37 has that capability. Firing blind lowers your hit probability, reduces your range and increases the risk of friendly fire.

It may not necessary for the target to be tracked or painted by first or second party aircraft however it increases the hit probability.

So in effect the missile tests that the Soviets were using was like a turkey shoot (something easily accomplished; piece of cake).

The most famous test involved the K-37 flying 300km to the target to hit it so this is another test.

I am obviously aware of that

Do you have ADD or obsessive-compulsive disorder? Zare already posted that test this thread. I posted the other test for comparison.

Like I said before the missile and radar was designed for large targets like AWACS and the fighter did not have enough radar range to guide with telemetry or enough radar range or radar power to track or illuminate the drone at the distance of the test, so they used a forward deployed fighter to illuminate/paint the target and provide telemetry/data link.

The four target limitation of Zaslon may be due to its coded pulses for which it illuminates a target. It might only have the ability to send four specifically coded illumination pulses at a time whereas the AWG-9 used coded data links separate from the single illuminator carrier signal. Don’t get me wrong, there are probably a near infinite number of coded sequences to send out the illumination signals

I suspect what you say is correct or close to it. From what I understand the AWG-9 was actually capable of engaging more targets at a time than what is commonly quoted, the proposed AIM-155/AIM-152 missile was supposed to exploit this capability. Allegedly the AWG-9 would have been able to engage 8 targets at a time with the AIM-155/AIM-152. So I think part of the limitations that is commonly quoted is based on how many radar missiles the aircraft can carry.

That’s highly incorrect. Standard Zaslon, SBI-16 can detect fat RCS (and “fat” is not 19m2, it’s 16m2) at a range of 300 km, while it can lock-on at 200 km in head-on aspect. Don’t misrepresent numbers : the 180 km detection is average, that’s function between detecting 16m2 at approx 300 km, and 2-3m2 at approx 90 km. I’ll do again the confirmed data for SBI-16, i wrote it several posts ago. Don’t ignore the data i’m mining from specialized literature, and post data you’re getting from websites that aren’t putting it in context right

You seem to be all screwed up and taking what I said out of context. For the most part I didn’t disagree with your data, because I agreed with most of it however now you seem to be using your data in a different context. There is a difference between the range of first detection and the range that you can attack. To keep it an even playing field I am trying to compare the range that you can track well enough to attack a target. You seem to now be doing a dissimilar comparison by comparing detection range to attack/track range.

You seem to be getting confused with your “fat” the range I listed is correct for 19m2. The track range for a 16-sq m target is 120km, the track range for a 19-sq m target is 180km. You seem to be confusing the two. The range a target can be tracked is determined by the size so a larger target you can track farther away.

I even asked if someone wanted to crunch the numbers to make them the same size target so it would be a similar comparison. Your response seems to show you think you did, but you didn’t, instead what you did was give me the figures for a more vague 2-3 m2. I even responded by telling you that’s not crunching the numbers I posted, however you still don’t seem to comprehend.

You also seem to become confusing detect range with track/lock/attack range.

And, you seem to confuse SBI-16 and SBI-16A. Those are two different radars. There are three types of Zaslon : SBI-16, A, and M. First was used on MiG-31(01/01DZ), second on MiG-31B/BS, third on MiG-31M/BM.

I do confuse them because people don’t differentiate between them, I know they are different radars. It seems that you also have them confused.

Just because I say I have a Chevy doesn’t mean I have a Nomad.

In any case, like I said before it wasn’t until Zaslon-M that a Zaslon model (or apparently any Soviet fighter radar) was able to equal or beat the range of AWG-9 or ASG-18.

I’ll repeat again; whole public comfirmed data about Zaslon is about SBI-16 variant. There’s no credible info about SBI-16A/M, or about R-33S, or about R-37.

I obviously heard you the first time, like I said I disagree.

I doubt the numbers are exact, however they should be close enough for arguments sake.

Those are the “teeth” of the Foxhound, they aren’t up for export, and they won’t be for a while. Russia is offering MiG-31E for export, with baseline SBI-16, and export R-33E. They won’t export anything more capable, and they have not released specifications either.

As far as your claim that they’re not up for export is much like the F-22. The government is like a stroke victim the left-hand always doesn’t know what the right hand is doing. The cash-strapped Soviet Union has been courting countries like India and there has been in negotiations so some of the general specifications have been shared.

Perhaps you don’t remember India and other countries being disgruntled with the export version because it didn’t have Zaslon-M, so they were stuck with a fighter with less radar range than the F-14 with AWG-9.

Anyway MIG-31M Zaslon-M was much like the F-22 is now in respects of exports. The F-22 much like the MIG-31M Zaslon-M is barred from export however as time goes by in the technology becomes more outdated and our governments look for ways to fund newer technology. They will often consider selling some of the older technology and during these negotiations basic specifications are obviously discussed and demonstrated as a buyer wants to know what he is buying.

You might not look a gift horse in the mouth, however if you’re paying dearly for it, you would be stupid not to.

Inferior?. Heh. It’s technologically more superior than AWG-9

As I said before the early versions of Zaslon are inferior it wasn’t until they got to the M. model several decades later that they equaled or beat the range of the AWG-9.

As I said, there was a few aspects of Zaslon that were better from the first model, such as scan rate or field of view.

Garry explained nice, there’s no need for illumination if you have ARH missiles. How on earth can F-14 engage six targets at once, when it’s able to illuminate only one? If you have ARH missiles, you just need to steadly detect the target. That’s )*&%)*& less precision than lock-on, but the missile will burn to target’s whereabouts, and it’s seeker will home on once it goes active. Regarding SARH’s, they need a feedback signal from the target, thus you need to lock-on, use high-power narrow beam to illuminate the target, so your radar beams can bounce off and get caught by SARH missile seeker.

You don’t seem to understand how the AIM-54 (and most ARH missiles) works. SOC already explained at once, with the following.

During the six missile test (which was really a five missile test as one of them failed if I remember right); AIM-54 is SARH guided for a good deal of the flight profile.

There is something to be said in the AWG-9’s credit if the vertical separation was in fact that small (I can look up the specifics later once I find the right books that are, lazily, still in boxes 😀 )-it had the ability to discriminate targets at range and during the SARH guidance phase.

In case you still don’t understand the AIM-54 (and most ARH missiles) are essentially SARH missiles for the first part of their flight, many are capable of going full autonomous however they are usually supplemented by the target being illuminated by the host aircrafts radar tracking. The illumination may not be as constant as multiple been phased array, however it is normally illuminated unless the host aircraft switches off their radar or turns out of sweep parameters.

But the whole topic is about power, ain’t it?

The main premise for my arguments is based on range.

However your quote shows I did screw up my statement/post.

I should have put it better by saying.

It was my understanding the missile and radar was designed for large targets like AWACS and the fighter did not have enough radar range to guide with telemetry or enough radar range or radar power to track or illuminate the drone at the distance of the test, so they used a forward deployed fighter to illuminate/paint the target and provide telemetry/data link.

You just provided peak power output number for AWG-9, and compared it to average power output of SBI-16. That’s like comparing the maximum kinematic range of one missile, to engagement range for fast target in tail-on aspect of other missile.

Please try to follow, we already discussed that they were dissimilar figures.

I even posted an example responding to SOC showing how average power can be different for the same radar depending on the mode. I even discussed things such as input power versus output power.

There are also subtle differences that we haven’t discussed that I think would be inferred such as the difference between peak to peak and RMS.

Perhaps the SBI-16 is dubbed as the most powerful inteceptor radar around because of amount of directed power it can put out. Did that ever crossed your mind?

It obviously did. You need to work on your reading comprehension. I even said.

omitted the condition, so once again it could be another to dissimilar comparison. It very well could be an average versus peak issue. It also could be a consumption versus emission issue.

I was hoping my posting the challenge that someone would correct me or back me and clarify. Hopefully with some links supporting their claims.

It’s like with the stereo just because you pump 100 W into a stereo doesn’t mean that you’ll get 100 W of sound out.

If you pump a gigawatt of power into the emitters doesn’t mean that you’ll get a gigawatt of power out. It’s even more true if you go downstream, for instance if you pump a gigawatt into the radar system it doesn’t mean that a gigawatt will even get to the emitters, efficiency is lost in conversion and power is lost to other resources, from what I understand the Zaslon radar computer consumes a tremendous amount of power.

Apparently you missed or did not comprehend my horsepower analogy.

I’m still waiting for clarification SOC is the only one to narrow the gap, however it still is a chasm.

The R-37 300 km test occured in 1994. Few posts on this topic, in sequence, were only about that.

I am aware of that test, you and Gary keep on posting it like you have ADD or obsessive-compulsive disorder.

Are you not aware that there was more than one test? Since you are unaware or don’t understand why I posted it, I posted it for comparison.

You have a nasty habbit of ignoring what people are saying here.

On the contrary it is not a bad habit, it is intelligence, like they say you can’t always believe what you hear (see or read). That’s particularly true on message boards. Sometimes oftain overlook things or under estimate the value, however that doesn’t seem to be the case this time.

So are you gullible enough to believe everything you hear?

I take virtually everything with a grain of salt. The media, governments all distort what they say. The Internet and message boards are even worse. Wake up and smell the coffee.

Why should I take some John Doe’s statement as fact, particularly on a message board. What kind of person takes posts on a message board as gospel? Why should I take anyone’s word if they don’t give a good explanation, or and evidence (hopefully with credible verifiable sources).

Besides in many cases I know better, a lot of people don’t have a clue what they are talking about.

Why would the Mig-31 need to hand control over to the Flanker. ………. datalink reaches that far

Like I said the host aircraft apparently did not have radar had enough range to track or lock on the target at that range (if it were as an actual active AWACS there is a chance it could of since it is a larger target, there is also a chance the missile could’ve homed in if it was an AWACS and its radar was active) (Since they were using drones that were smaller RCS and had less at emissions than an AWACS, they apparently resorted to making accommodations).

Also I don’t think the rated range of the datalink is far enough for the test. The datalink may have adequate range under idealistic conditions, however I don’t think it was certified for that much range.

having the Mig-31 control the missile all the way via datalink from launch to where it goes live and attacks the target itself would be a more logical test.

It would be a more realistic and practical test. However it was a test using target smaller than an AWACS.

I think they also didn’t care so much about realism as they wanted to set up conditions that virtually ensured an unrealistically easy kill (turkey shoot) (fish in a barrel). Them

Once the fighter has scanned and found the target the only illuminating would be low power signal bursts every once and a while to ensure the target is where it should be

That is a essentially what the AWG-9 does. However it is an ability that you seem to ignore/deny in the AWG-9, yet you just pointed out for Zaslon.

Or may be because the Mig-31 was designed to only ever carry 4 R-33s so being able to guide more than 4 missiles is rather redundant.

I would agree that the public figures that are typically flaunted are probably based largely on the numbers of missiles that are carried. From what I understand the AWG-9 was capable of attacking 8 targets at a time with ARH missiles and an additional 1 more using IR guidance and but initially targeted with radar. So in effect the AWG-9 was apparently capable of engaging 9 targets at a time with radar.(However that is a pretty abstract way of looking at the capability, so I think they use a type of protocol that is more easier for the general public to understand).

So I agree it might be possible that the early models of Zaslon might be able to engage more than 4 targets at a time with radar.

Thanks, Nick. The figures aren’t for SBI-16M, for sure. I checked Rosoboronexport’s catalog (from where you quoted), and you’re right, 200 km detection for 19m2.

But i wouldn’t presume that’s SBI-16A, because the baseline SBI-16 has detection for 16m2 at 300 km, tracking at 200 km. I would conclude that MiG-31E has even downgraded baseline SBI-16, like it’s mentioned in books; MiG-31E features downgraded Zaslon radar, simplified R-33 missiles. Avionics are changed, especially ECM equipment.

Thus, MiG-31E would feature crippled SBI-16 (Zaslon-E?) with R-33E missiles.

However, i concluded that SBI-16 being out of active service, could prompt Russians to export the baseline model in the original variant. Looks like i was wrong. It’s still downgraded first-batch that’s offered for export.

That could be correct, even on some casual payloads it carries three R-33’s, fourth place reserved for APP-64TD control pod for R-40TD operation.

MiG-31M can lock six targets, or it can engage six in TWS. Depending on used missiles. The M’s avionics could possibly even provide more targets in TWS, but that wouldn’t make much sense. You aren’t going to engage multiple targets with R-37 in head-on, if they’re 50 km away. You would use R-77 instead.

I don’t think that illumination is the right word for this. TWS mode should provide three coordinates in suspectable margin of error for this kind of operation. You’re getting info about your target by just scanning airspace, no locks, no “illumination”. This differs from RWS mode, where processing is used for precise ranging, thus completing threat priority allocation.

QUOTE “The radar can detect a target with a 19 sq.m radar cross section at 200 km”

Thanks for confirming the 19 m².

However I’m not sure that it is the same figures I was talking about because I wasn’t talking about the range of detection I was talking about the range that a target can be engaged/locked on. The first detect range is not the same figure as the track or lock on range. Some people seem to be trying to compare the Zaslon’s first detect range to the lock on range of the AWG-9, cases of trying to compare to dissimilar types of figures.

The detect range is greater than the lock on/attack range. It would be like trying to compare IC horsepower to taxable horsepower, they are dissimilar types of figures.

I don’t think that illumination is the right word for this.

I’m not sure but I think illumination is the correct word. I think you might be thinking of painting. I think illumination covers the broad-spectrum, it usually includes low-power and scan flashing. Whereas I think paint usually refers to a higher powered, saturation more continuous mode such as a SARH mode.

It is very unlikely to fly constantly correcting its trajectory to manouver to the precise location of the target as that would increase drag and greatly reduce range.

There is some truth to what you say however the converse can also be true. It is true that constantly changing the trajectory can reduce the actual range of the missile. However part of the reason for changing directions is to try to outrun the missile if it is not frequently updating the course. If a missile is fired autonomously using initial inertial guidance based on the last reference point or projected/predicted intercept point, a target that changes direction can increase the flight path that a missile will have to take if the missile is not acting on real-time or frequently updated positioning. So even though constant course controls can reduce the actual range sometimes there is more effective range by allowing frequent course corrections.