stealthflankerhmm why USD 30 M of difference O-o. Hmm and considering the raw materials are still sourced from Russia i guess 51% local content is not that all satisfying.
stealthflankerKeep in mind he is talking about the old half (or even more) “Ukrainian” R-77, which was never even accepted for service by the VVS, nor bought in any serious numbers.
Every missile that is popping up on VKS planes today should be the R-77-1 (I keep forgetting if that is actually the real designation).
and now since Artem is basically cutoff.. i assume any country bought R-77/RVV-AE should be getting R-77-1 instead ? Or does Vympel still have other manufacturing plant for it ?.
I found it rather interesting, despite some people claim the loss of Artem was significant as it does assemble the R-77/RVV-AE. Artem only offers R-27 family, no real mention of overhaul or even new built RVV-AE offered.
stealthflankerAny reason why Su-30SM is not seen carrying R-77 only R-27 variant and R-73 , Which variant of R-27 does RuAF have atm and have these been modernised since the 80’s with better electronics or Active variants ?
The only reason is because you were found one with R-27.
[ATTACH=JSON]{“data-align”:”none”,”data-size”:”full”,”title”:”9zpn56pinudx.jpg”,”data-attachmentid”:3871285}[/ATTACH]
[ATTACH=JSON]{“data-align”:”none”,”data-size”:”full”,”title”:”8oaUjT3gC4g73LybUbarKFT6WK847qlW7vKARKORZ3w.jpg?auto=webp&s=91c7455bac04cf9807c9c8382b8f7f3ce055c07d.jpg”,”data-attachmentid”:3871286}[/ATTACH]
stealthflankerThanks for the correction Scorpion82. I wasn’t aware that the MiG-29M had improved radar and avionics. Upon reading up, I stand corrected. Zhuk-ME radar and MFDs. Plus, the FBW that addressed the issue of the pilot having to manually make sure that the G-limits were not exceeded. Would’ve surely made the Fulcrum even easier to fly even for inexperienced pilots.
How much internal fuel did the MiG-29M carry as opposed to the original MiG-29A or the SMT?
Quite an improvement i see.
The MiG-29A izd 9.12 can carry about 3600 Kg of fuel internally.
The MiG-29M izd 9.15 which flew in 1986 is able to carry 4460 Kg of internal fuel.
The SMT since there are multiple variants which designated as SMT from barebone SMT which basically a MiG-29A with Zhuk radar to Egyptian 2 seaters (Which was at some point designated as “SMT-2”) The fuel load varies. The latest one however which Egyptian flies (Which now designated as the M2) can carry about 5200 Kg of internal fuel.
stealthflankerEnding of R/D work doesnt mean the plane will fly right away. A real design program starts like this :
Conceptual-Preliminary-Detail-Prototype assembly then you can move to various in-ground test and fly the plane. The “R/D” part is in the Conceptual and Preliminary stage. We might not even see iron bird (It is a ground based testing rig where all electronics, hydraulics etc are tested for functionality) in this stage but rather computer models or mock-ups in various sizes. 2025-2030 seems more realistic as first prototype roll out and flight test instead of delivery.
stealthflankerIs there any potential for Chinese-Russian revival of R-79V-300 ?
stealthflankerThe indians would be wise to get those planes up to super flanker standard, asea radar, new engines, new electronics, radar absorbing materials, new missiles. Get it up to su-35 standard with some su-57 measures. Its is a good plane, but 90s-2000s architecture. Or go all the way with the su-57. That argument again.
I would love to see the AESA upgrade package. The thing is that NIIP Seems to still pre-occupied bringing one for Su-57. Little to no attention seems to be given for the older variant.
stealthflankerexplain?
Btw, it could be a recce pod no?
It’s a Camera pod to record weapon release. There are 3 cameras. Basically a podded version of this
https://forum.keypublishing.com/filedata/fetch?id=3868244
—–
As for reason why does it has to be podded. The Russians prob need a more aerodynamic view. as they were testing weapon release from the internal bay, probably in much wider range of speed compared to the earlier camera.
stealthflankerHow about benchmarking the tool on some representative applications.
If range against a specific RCS is known as other parameters details like element power output could be calculated.A example would be the Gamma-DE ground based L-band radar:
Element number and aperture size is known to determine operating band.
Range figures against two different RCS are also known.
Duty cycle can be approximated to get an idea about element power output.
If the numbers make sense, we can have increased confidence, specially if results make sense for some different applications (airborne, ground based early warning, ground based engagement radar)Most interesting would be to see how Russians, Chinese, Europeans, Israelis and Americans are doing in regards to the technology for their elements (which can be extracted if element power output is known via the tool).
Just duty cycle must be approximated somehow to get reasonable numbers for PRF and pulsewidth. But that may be quite accurately possible if general TRM power levels are known.
Regarding Gamma-DE tho. There are many unknowns, especially the exact frequency, the scan time (thus dwell time) and loss figure of the array. Plus as i mentioned before the sheet only works for non-rotating radar, so in this case the Gamma-DE must be on “sector scan” mode. Where the antenna is static and target search is purely electronic scan, the result will likely be overestimate. Another problem is whether Gamma-DE is actually capable or designed to perform such sector scan. In order to further reduce cost, an AESA radar for air surveillance purpose may not have horizontal scan capability, only vertical. The Gamma DE also limited by instrumented range, this is the range where the detection of approaching target is “allowed” to be announced by the radar instruments/devices. This is usually set to be 20-40% Lower than the “design range” where the radar can actually detect. Thus the range capability of the Gamma DE is, taking the 40% “excess” range would be about 504 Km. Sector scan however may allow longer dwell time which wouldnt possible with rotating scan (as longer dwell time means longer revisit and your target track updates may suffer) Thus more range.
The other numbers for input, one can work out by finding relevant literature. The Gamma-DE’s module appears to have following parameters :
Peak Power : 55 Watt
Average Power : about 10-12 Watt.
Duty Cycle : 10/55 = 0.18 or 18%
Frequency : This one is a guess of 1250 MHz.
Number of antenna elements : 1024
Pulsewidth can be estimated from the range resolution which known to be 300 meters. Technical paper (which i would link below) about Gamma DE mentions compression ratio in excess of 100. Finding how much however is difficult. One way i sought is looking at AN/TPS-59 Radar as it seems Gamma DE have similar parameters.
The AN/TPS-59 have following data :
[ATTACH=JSON]{“data-align”:”none”,”data-size”:”full”,”data-attachmentid”:3866917}[/ATTACH]
The Pulsewidth is then can be “guessed” to be 1000 ms with 0.18 KHz (180 Hz) PRF. For 18% Duty cycle. The pulse compression ratio would then be 500 which appears reasonable with LFM (Linear Frequency Modulation) The LFM apparently the only pulse compression method where target velocity is not limited (Others like Polyphase etc are doppler sensitive and can only be used for target in Subsonic speed or less). The higher PRF and shorter pulsewidth could be exist too mainly to compensate for short range target detection. Transmitting at long pulsewidth and pulse compression solves resolution BUT not the minimum range.
The scanning limit is 30-45 degrees which i think is the electronic scanning, Which i input only on vertical. so the radar is a standstill and scan vertically.
So plugging in the number will yield following result for GAMMA-DE :
[ATTACH=JSON]{“data-align”:”none”,”data-size”:”full”,”data-attachmentid”:3866918}[/ATTACH]
[ATTACH=JSON]{“data-align”:”none”,”data-size”:”full”,”data-attachmentid”:3866919}[/ATTACH]
The dwell time is selected based on received pulse number which looks “reasonable” as Signal processing requires at least 1-3 pulses for 1-3 pulse canceller MTI processing and based on the expected design range. Longer dwell time which is 0.3 seconds available from the sheet yields 656 Km range.
The smaller 0.13 Sqm Yield range of about 301 Km or about 16% more than what is available in the export literature for the radar. This case would show overestimate of the sheet which might result from the limitation of the scenario (sector scan mode)
As seen the result looks quite close to the “40% design range” at 90% detection probability margin for 1 sqm RCS with 16% overestimate for 0.13 sqm. There of course horizon limit for low flying target Further verification however requires other calculations and perhaps better literature especially regarding the losses and other variables. I would also need to incorporate the “rotating” radar mode to allow prediction of range of air surveillance radar which only scans electronically at elevation.
This is a Technical paper by I.Immoreev regarding the design and development of Soviet/Russia ground based AESA. It contain good information on design and considerations about Gamma-DE Radar.
https://id.scribd.com/document/415262162/Immoreev-I-Active-Transmitting-Phased-Antenna-Arrays
@Moonlight
This might be interesting for you.
https://id.scribd.com/document/415262324/Schleher-D-C-LPI-Radar-Fact-or-Fiction
stealthflankerThe tail appears to be foldable. Looks interesting. The missile itself looks bigger than usual Ataka or Vikhr. prob at least 180mm like Hellfire or larger diameter in order of 200mm. The length seems in order of 1.6-2 meter.
stealthflankerHowever there was reports that KnAAZ has overhauled two older Flankers to something very similar the the Su-35S in terms of capability.
Not sure if this was only to see what kind of cost prospect are involved, IMO is it even worth the Bucks..
Then the owner of KNAAZ flankers may have no options except replacing the aircraft with Su-30SME ?
stealthflankerNo. Why would some someone carry-on with large fins when efficient carriage inside a WB dictates to minimize them? Fins are draggy, bulky and add complexity to your logistics.
How about design the IWB to accommodate those weapons you have first then optimize the missile later ? Chinese have similar layour in their PL-10 and happily make J-20 Internal Weapon bay accommodate them. We also have Iris T, Which German doesnt really care for much that it deviates so far from what it was originally ASRAAM.
Fins and logistics, Are you for real ?
The less the better when you can rid of them.
The less is better when your design needs it.
Is the Mica a super alpha missile? No.
It has TVC so it’s very maneuverable. So yes
Is the Mica a super long range missile that use glide boost better than others? No.
No but again what the hell is wrong with having strakes ? Can i have some numbers ?
Seriously. I’m having difficulty seeing whether your post is simply not well thought out or plain flaming.
stealthflankerA new missile that will be fully compatible with new Stealth requirements will invariably be compatible with the Rafale. It does not make much sense to finance a new missile just for the older design. However fantastic it is in your say, Mica aerodynamic configuration is a dead end per se.
are you serious ?
stealthflankerDo we have any, news on possible upgrade options for KNAAPO Su-30 family ? As known KNAAPO at one point made a two seater Sukhoi, the Su-30M family which become Su-30MKK,MK2 and MK3 with other variants like MK2, MK2V, MKV and older Su-27 like Su-27SKM. These flankers are similar in terms of avionics and capability. With Mk2 have more options for maritime strike. However in coming decades or less, these aircrafts will require modernization, Like N001 Radar, this set may no longer have any future compared to the other sets like Bars or Irbis. the Pastel RHAWS may need modernization too, mainly to contend increasing trend of fighter radars going ESA.
Currently as far as i know for Indonesian flankers, only Extension program exist, which overhauls and zero the airframe after 2000 hrs and engine after 1500 hrs. But no additional capability. I wonder if Russia’s upgrade on Su-30SM can also made way to Su-30M variants.
stealthflankerRCS on fighters are always about X band and Ku Band (8-12 GHz), all fire control bands, if it is not specified.
Is this already an “official” and established practice ?
Sign In
