No. 16m2 is an arbitrary number pulled from somewhere, the question is where it came from and why that number is given. …………..

In all soviet radar manuals I have studied so far (e.g. RP-21, RP-21M, RP-21MA, S-23E, N-003E and the N-019EA), Russians always prefered to use the Mig-21 as an etalon for the RCS value. The RCS of the Mig-21 is stated to be 3square meters head-on. Sometimes, for further information manuals also contain an additional radar range for bomber sized targets, Tu-16 with its 16sq.m.

Ok Arthur I understand, heavily edited my post, hope it will go through…:D

Second, the weapons system has been integrated with the original Russian one. And there are interface modules used in several places. But I see in the last line that you have started to get some clue of what was done!! Even if you have little idea of what was actually done in entirety. But I am sure you are such an expert and are aware of everything that I dont even need to mention it.

What didn`t I mention? calculations of the c.g. position before/after avionics upgrade, analysis of electric power demands and cooling(air volume) requirements of the avionics upgrade whether it fits to aircraft electric system or maybe arrangement of new antennas, their avionics blocks, cabling and new instruments in the cockpit, installing resolvers/converters(GUS, LUN, …) to the MIL-STD line between remained analogue blocks of the Mig-27 weapon system and new laser gyros, radioaltimeter, nav. computer, HUD…..then fastening antennas on the airframe skin, el.blocks inside the front/middle/aft section of the airframe (avionics bays if you like), …etc, etc. What exactly you want to hear from me , but please say at least something technical to the topic.:rolleyes:

And after RSKs job with the Bison, the IAF didnt want to touch them with a barge pole till they completed their contractual provisos. Even the RSK offer for the MiG-29 was sent back for modification based on the Bison experience and MiG-27 one.

Despite complaining at the RSK, India is still buying aircrafts from them, Mig-29K, maybe also the Mig-35. Wondering why is that ?

Gentlemen, Lets not take this into unhealthy debate.

As rayubik has pointed out from Rupaks article,

So there might be a new interface developed for handling PGM’s et al and the soviet era bus is left alone for using the weaponiries and integrated where they matches.

Simple as that 🙂

No, it wont work, simple as that!!…..the weapon system SUV (better PRNK) installed in the Mig-27 is not just one grey box which you can trick with a bypass switch. The whole PRNK system comprises of BCBM computer, laseranger/designator KLEN, targeting system PBK with a gunsight and some selfcontrol/feeding blocks DVK, BUP, BSR installed in the airframe. The system is closely tied with nav. complex KN with RSBN/RSDN, autopilot SAU, inertial heading SKV, radioaltimeter RV, airdata sensors DV or DVS, pilot helmet and weapon selectors/control panels in the cockpit. The weapon system has its own cooling unit and weights a lot of kilograms.
By removing one of these items and replacing them with new ones e.g. head-up display, new navig. system, laser gyros, new altimeter…etc, the old Mig-27 weapon system simply stops working until you develop special A/D interfaces between them to support one of the inserted 1553B bus line.
When seeing the old PPRV switch inside the modernized indian Mig-27 I was wondering why would they leave this 70s vintage technology which is unreliable and weights a lot of kg in the aircraft. Although to be honest just by seeing the PRRV switch in the cockpit doesn`t prove the old weapon system PRNK remained intact. I`ve no doubts that the offer from RSK included removing the old weapon system.

Therefore the popular word “goulash”, which is not offending at all. I hope that people in India know what it means.;)

Familiarity…some weapons which are being retained..could be a bunch of reasons..why replace something that works?
1553 B…whats the big deal, why wouldnt the Goulash work? The MKI is no different in some ways.

Hehh, kinda funny reasoning….For those who do not know what the PRRV switch is used for. The FLOGGER pilot sets with this “archaic” rotary switch the operation mode of the analog weapon system computer “SUV”. The switch has been used with the whole Mig-23/27 aircraft familly. It means that pilot has to put his left hand down from the throttle and handle the rotary switch according to weapon (unguided missiles S-24, S-5, cannon, guided missiles, bombs, spec. bombs) he wants to use.

So, why they claim that the modernized Mig-27ML will feature HOTAS???!!! 😮 😀

Why do you think you must have the PRRV switch installed to be able to fire the soviet weaponry?. Already, the next generation of Migs(namely the Mig-29) have been using a digital weapon system computer, no need for similar switches in their cockpits.
I think the explanation is quite simple. Despite the fact that Indian HAL assembled a large amount of Migs-27 in the past, they do have little or no knowledge about some systems installed in their Mig-27. As being said the modernized Mig-27 will retain original autopilot “SAU” and the old weapon system “SUV” as well….who knows what else. Now it seems that Indian were uncertain to replace those systems because they rejected the offer from the RSK MIG to modernize the Mig-27. As Harry said before the Indian Mig-27 upgrade is an indigenous one, the Russian assistance has been ignored or turned down.

Honestly, saying that the “Su-30MKI is no different in some ways” is another nonsense. AFAIK the Su-30MKI avionics/weapon systems package has been designed from the scratch to match customer requirements. They`ve developed an open architecture based on the MIL-STD standard where all systems(electronic blocks) including modern russian are connected to the digital bus. Who cares about some analogue gauges in the MKI cockpit, they mean absolutely nothing in this case.

But pairing the analogue Flogger weapon/flight control system with modern western computers/avionics without russian help, that needs an extra effort to get that working correctly if you ask me. Well, therefore I`m affraid if the “Indian goulash” would ever perform as expected.

M

This debate is really getting on my nerves….:mad:

But you have no idea that sustained turn rate and angle of attack are not related. A plane with a low angle of attack can still maintain a high sustained turn rate by navigating through an outer wider circle faster. What does AoA has to do with sustained turn rate?
AoA is seperate from sustained turn rates. In fact, with every wing, once the AoA reaches 25 degrees, you begin to get more drag from lift, and the ratio of drag rises as lift lessens as you increase AoA. To have optimal turn rate, plane has to be around 20 to 25 degs AoA.

Angle of Attack is connected to the STR as well as the L/D and Ps, it is one of the most important flight parameters because L/D depends on Cl and that depends on the AOA, which at the end mean pulled G`s. Of course you have to get the optimum among all those parameters such as lift/drag/AOA and Ps/altitude/engine settings, but the same deals for the speed. Explain why the STR increases and then decreases with speed, see graphs below.

LD ratios has nothing to do with compound sweep. The lifting area of LERX is too small to offer significant lift, when compared to canards. LERX plus main wing do not make a compound sweep wing..

You are going to be surprised, but the LERX/WING on the Mig-29, Su-27,F-18 works the same way as double deltas, where the vortex system created on LERXs decrease wing`s actual AOA and produce a non-linear gain of the lift. Call it whatever you want a compound, hybrid, double delta, LERX plus WING…etc The same way behave canards, but with more effectiveness at critical AOA because they are better adjusted to main wing AOA.

Look at the graph below, it shows the effect of leading edge extension size on maximum lift.

The Russians also didn’t build a double seater version of the MiG-19, and that’s a totally different airframe, with significantly different aerodynamics and power levels than the MiG-17. So where is the logic in that? So called “MiG-19UT” are really all Chinese JJ-6s.

No, No, there is a logic too. Soviets built the prototype Mig-19UTI in late fifties, but due to the fact that the Mig-21 arrived very quickly the double-seaters Mig-19UTI were not produced at all. As Sens already pointed out, the Mig-19 was an interim aircraft in the Soviet military aviation, the progress was indeed unstoppable whereas Chinese were not able to design a new aircraft, they`ve stuck with the old soviet tech.
Many Mig-19 prototypes have been developed to verify new principles and solutions, the aircraft type literally worked in favour of the Mig-21. Also true is that the double seater Mig-21 came very late….pilots trained with Mig-15UTI, before they changed to Mig-21F13. :rolleyes:

Probably the prority was on LO against Long Tracks and Square Pairs, not Tall Kings and Pat Hands. Hi-altitude, hi-speed flights are no secret anyway, thanks to IR signature alone, plus in case of the SR-71, aerial support assets.

I find this argument a bit alibistic, bcs the “KRUG” SAM system might be fed with target coordinates from another radar systems. The Long Track dedicated radars worked in conjuction with SPOON REST “P-18”, FLAT FACE “P-19” and height finding radars such as THIN SKIN “PRV-9,PRV-11” via the semi-automatic C2 system K-1 KRAB. The S-200 Vega worked well with TALL KINGs, BAR LOCKs and BAR NETs radars. Did they know that during that time?

Organizational structure of the Krug PVO brigade. I hope there is no need for translation. Picture source(Nase vojsko magazine, KRUG, the PVO umbrella of the SU.)