Why are then these numbers that i posted written in both hardcover literature, NIIP documents, and on some websites?

Nevertheless, i won’t argue because of few numbers, i’ll try to contact somebody from the VVS, see if i can get any info.

Got that PDF a while ago…someone on this site uploaded it to Rapidshare. Very, very nice reading. However, it stops at page 37.

ATFS, you are misrepresenting a lot of stuff written here, just like Nick noted;

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.

First of all, it’s not polite to make personal insults. Second, i wrote the confirmed data of detection, and tracking, for both bomber-sized and fighter sized targets. 300 km for 16m2 RCS detection, 200 km for 16m2 RCS tracking (lock-on), latter applying to head-on aspect. Data for the SBI-16 radar of MiG-31 Izdelye 01/01DZ, official numbers.

You just don’t seem to read what i write here.

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 have not confused anything. Zaslon inferior in range to AWG-9?

Ok mate, i really don’t know reiable sources about AWG-9 info, i’ll just check Wikipedia out, since it’s sometimes full of bull****, please correct me. It says there :

“The system incorporated the highest-power transmitter ever installed in a production fighter aircraft, and as a result was capable of detecting bomber-sized targets at ranges exceeding 100 miles (160 km).”

Therefore, the AWG-9 detects a bomber at 160 km. Says there “exceeding”, ok let’s add additional 20 km to that, getting grand maximum of 180 km for detection. SBI-16 detects a bomber at 300 km, locks-on at 200 km if bomber is flying at interception course.

So, it looks to me, while F-14 will vaugly see the bomber contact at that range, MiG-31 will already have a lock-on for some time.

Keep in mind; MiG-31BS – 30% more interception capability than MiG-31. MiG-31M, bit less than double than MiG-31.

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.

Look ATFS, show me the official source for AWG-9 ranges, where it can beat even the baseline SBI-16; 16m2 detection at 300 km. If you don’t believe me, go grab a couple of renomed MiG-31 books, or if you can read Russian, get yourself a couple of PDF’s from Tikhomirov NIIP, regarding Zaslon FCS.

The numbers are there. 300 km for detection, 200 km for lock-on, 16m2 targets. I’m standing and not deviating even slight from those numbers, since they’re official, and i have no other way than believe confirmed data.

Oh, found the defencetalk.com entry about it;

AN/AWG-9 Maximum Ranges

Pulse search – 73 mi (117 km)
PSTT – 56 mi (91 km)
PDS of 5 sq. m target – 132 mi (213 km)
RWS / TWS – 104 mi (167 km)
VSL / PRL – 6 mi (9 km)
CW for AIM-7 – 44 mi (70 km)

Look at TWS; radar won’t provide accurate telemetry of anything above that 167 km. Remember that 200 km lock-on of baseline SBI-16? Take a look at the CW illumination mode – 70 km, one channel. SBI-16; 200 km, four channels. Talk about power…

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.

Again, you are not contemplating two things; both Nick and myself were debating the export radar issue of MiG-31E. It has a little to do with AWG-9 to SBI-16 comparison. And, your standard detect/track issues.

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.

Illumination, painting, scanning, tracking, detecting, locking…a lot of terms are present in these kinds of discussions, but i have an opinion, when someone mentiones illumination, it’s about CW SARH mode. That context is most widely used.

Just like the rocket/missile issue we had on Aviapedia.

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

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.

Oh boy…you really haven’t figured out how this stuff works, yet. There is initial and terminal guidance. On radar missiles, common initial guidances would be inertial, and midcourse updates. Terminal guidances would be ARH and SARH.

Both ARH and SARH missiles can use same kind of initial guidance…just navigate inertially, or get command updates by one of respected channels. It’s the terminal mode that you’re confused with…ARH’s would power-up their own seekers once they’re in range, thus the platform doesn’t need to send midcourse updates anymore, and is free to go away. For SARH’s, platform needs to illuminate with CW all the way, and simultaneously provide initial flight data (if any) to the missile, because the platform doesn’t know when will the missile pick bounced beams with it’s SARH seeker. So the CW is on all the time, once the missile goes terminal, it’ll pick out bounced beams, so you still need CW.

So saying that AIM-54 is half-SARH missile or whatever doesn’t make any sense. The AWG-9 needs to track the target until 40-50 km (or whatever the missilehead’s range is), so it can provide midcourse updates to the missile. It wouldn’t even need to do that, if the missile’s seeker could lock at 150 km distance.

Keep in mind, AMRAAM / R-77 / anything ARH are only fully fire-and-forget once the head goes active. That would be, engaging a target 20 km away (for those mid-rangers). Anything above that would require target tracking and missile datalinking, to provide updates. Yes, you could fire them just on inertia, and hope that your target would still be on the same course when missile reaches it’s terminal stage. Any deviation from that flight profile by target would drasticlly reduce PK.

current radar is Zalson-AM and LCD screens according to mdb.cast.ru

Star49, i presume that would be the radar of the in-upgrade MiG-31BM’s. Any numbers on that one. AM designation rings a SBI-16A modernization. Did they get it up on the SBI-16M level?

I wouldn’t put it past the program to develop a powerful datalink system together akin to the F-14D’s where four or more aircraft can chain their radars together to more than double their effective scaning scope.

I don’t quite understand what you were trying to say…but if you’re saying that MiG-31 should get squadron datalink, it has it for 25 years now.

Several years ago I saw both of them posted on the Internet and some articles. From what I remember the range of the SBI-16M was about equal or slightly more than the AWG-9. The SBI-16A was considerably less range then the AWG-9. I think the Soviets released the figures to the public as part of a campaign to promote weapons sales.

≈“A range of 250 miles (400 km) is claimed for the Zaslon-M compared with the 112 miles (180 km) for the standard Zaslon system, based on a target RCS of 205 ft.² (19 m²)”

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;

Maximum detection range for 16m2 : 300 km
Maximum tracking range for 16m2, head-on : 200 km
Maximum tracking range for 16m2, tail-on : 120 km
Maximum tracking range for 2-3m2, head-on : 90 km
Maximum tracking range for 2-3m2, tail-on : 70 km

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’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. Those are the “teeth” of the Foxhound, they aren’t up for export, and they won’t be for a while.

MiG-31 is one of the significant factors in Russia’s integrated air defence. Whole point of the MiG-31B/BS, SBI-16A and R-33S comes to betrayal of information. West receieved key specs of SBI-16 and R-33. Now, 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. The “credible assumptions” i’ve read in hardcover Foxhound literature claim that SBI-16A/R-33S combo provides 30% more interception capability than SBI-16/R-33, while SBI-16M/R-37 combo prodives roughly doubled capability, than SBI-16/R-33. That’s about it.

Evidently the Zaslon radar was inferior because it apparently had to have the targets so far apart. The AWG-9 was able to engage to targets that were as close as 600 m @ 50 miles, while also engaging for other targets over a much wider separation. It is really impressive that back in the 70s the AWG-9 had the resolution and control to distinguish separate targets with only 600 m separation at 50 miles, let alone be able to engage them.

Inferior?. Heh. It’s technologically more superior than AWG-9, for a magnitude. Mechanical antenna can provide more coverage, but ESA can provide more precision. Argon has a comparable number of FLOPS to i8080, and that’s key for separation…backbone processing power than can discriminate two targets from a feedback signal. AWG-9’s memory technology is clearly superior (reflected in number of scanned targets), but that’s irellevant for this issue.

It was my understanding the missile and radar was designed for large targets like AWACS and the aircraft did not have powerful enough radar to illuminate and track 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.

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 helluva 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.

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

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? Compare directed power illumination output of AWG-9, to the one of SBI-16, just multiply SBI-16’s output by four, because it can do a directed power output on 4 different channels, each on one target.

Because if we rule ourselves just by peak power output alone, than we would have to conclude that RP-25 Smerch is the uber-radar, and won’t be matched in decades to come.

≈”October 1993, a MIG-31M fired a K-37 and successfully shot down an aerial target from a distance of 149 miles (240 km). By the design bureau’s own estimates the MIG-31M is more than twice as effective as the basic MIG-31.”

The R-37 300 km test occured in 1994. Few posts on this topic, in sequence, were only about that. You have a nasty habbit of ignoring what people are saying here.

Huh. My MiG-31 books are still unlocated, so I can’t reference anything other than memory, but it’d seem that this should be an R-33S test then, not a basic R-33. That’s a 120 NM launch range, outside the range envelope of the basic R-33.

Also, baseline MiG-31s with modifications were used to test the R-37. Given that the R-37 was still classified then, it could be that the missile designation was purposely misreported. Either way it’s a good test.

The R-37 test was in 1994. The missile destroyed a flying object 300 km away. Thus, Pit’s source could be right on track. Since R-33S is still classified material (given what happened to original SBI-16 and R-33, that’s quite logical), it could be involved in 1992 test Pit is talking about. To be frank, this is the first time i heard about that ’92 testing.

And, baselines weren’t used in ’94 R-37 test. MiG-31M was used. At that moment, six MiG-31M’s were operational for testing. Seven in total were produced, 052 was lost in testing, 051 was put on display at Zhukovsky, and first aircraft that wasn’t carrying any bort (just original Izdelye 05), was tested to destruction.

Personally I’d want nothing to do with the business end of a FOXHOUND unless I was in an F-22A.

Here here.

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.

Correct. They have always noted radar ranges against “bomber-sized”, and “fighter-sized” targets. Having said that, here are official SBI-16 specs;

Maximum detection range : 300 km
Tracking range (bomber-sized RCS, front/rear aspect) : 200 / 120 km
Tracking range (fighter-sized RCS, front/rear aspect) : 90 / 70 km
Horizontal coverage span : 140 deg / 240 deg
Vertical coverage span : +70 deg / -60 deg
Crossing target tracking span : +- 70 deg
Antenna diameter : 1.1 m
Maximum sim. engaged targets, in SARH mode : 4
Maximum scanned targets : 10

SBI-16A specs are not given out to the public, nor is R-33S and R-37 performance, nor are SBI-16M specs. The stuff we know is that SBI-16A as a whole system with R-33S on MiG-31B/BS should give 30% more performance, and SBI-16M should give a bit less than doubled numbers of SBI-16.

The sufficite of larger scanned targets number on the AWG-9 side comes to superior memory / bus technology. However, AWG-9 can engage six targets with AIM-54 in TWS mode, and SBI-16 can provide quadruple CW illumination all the way for SARH missiles. AWG-9 can only illuminate one target for AIM-7. I’d like to see power comparison there : if someone can dig out how much kW’s of power can AWG-9 grant in CW mode, and then compare it to kW’s of SBI-16’s CW illumination, multiplied by four.

To have sheer power doesn’t grant anything without supplementary systems. Look at MiG-25’s set, and compare the ranges to MiG-31’s set. Foxbat’s radar is (x) times more powerful, yet it’s internals cannot distinct targets at excessive ranges, like the SBI-16’s Argon computer can.

Leninets V004. Tail should contain V005 radar.

Except for standard AA missiles (R-27, R-73, R-77), can carry H-25, H-29, H-35, H-41 and H-59 missiles, and KAB-500/1500 bombs.

That’s all that i know. Hope that this topic will grow, too!