AndraxxusI’ve never heard of such use, but its possible for some SAMs like SA-N-6 to target ground/sea targets. Illumination radar is just pointed towards the target on the ground and SARH/TVM missile homes in, without knowing the specifics of the target.
Theoratically, IF there is a way for pilot to override the automated tracking algorithms, and IF he can manually steer the CW illuminator, he can direct a CW beam to any target he wants(via hat etc) and use SARH missile for A-G roles. It would be very similar to manual laser-guidance, but with a radio signal implementation. Newer missiles like AIM-120 are smarter and A-G roles are impossible changing the software on the missile.
AndraxxusMaybe not impressive but rare; MiG-23 with 4xR-23 missiles.
[ATTACH=CONFIG]234986[/ATTACH]
[ATTACH=CONFIG]234985[/ATTACH]
AndraxxusThe Soviet airframes were not particularly terrible compared to Western designs so much as your typical Soviet designs were not armed with anywhere near the same level of quality ordnance. Their kinematics were excellent. Their guns were fine. Their guidance systems were a decade behind. Their communications equipment substituted brute strength for finesse and couldn’t keep pace with developments. Give the Soviets any advantage and they would have had reasons to act aggressively.
The Su-15P, MiG-23P, MiG-25P, and Tu-128 were bomber destroyers. That pretty much eliminates them out of the contest.
Well another thing is Western and Soviet aircrafts were designed with completely different set of expectations, which is very difficult to make apples and apples comparison. Technically MiG-23 was soviet’s light class fighter of 3rd gen, like F-5E. Should we compare it to F-4 or F-5E? It falls right in the middle, both in terms of weight and capability. In Soviet heavy weight class, F-4’s generation counterparts are Su-15, MiG-25 and Tu-128; all are designed for different tasks, and again, difficult to compare.
AndraxxusI think the 1 to 1 thrust to weight ratio of the F-16 is only thing that gives it an edge on the Mig-23. If they had made the Mig-23 a fixed wing, the weight savings could have put the thrust to weight ratio near to that of the F-16
Well I would disagree on that. You can’t simply compare MiG-23 and F-16 by their static T/W. If MiG-23 was a fixed wing aircraft, it would have been something similar to F-4. In fact according to MiG-23MLD manual’s data, around M1.3+ excess power improvement between 45 and 72 deg wing sweep is anywhere from ~40 to 300+%. No amount of weight saving would balance such improvement. TBH I find MiG-23 to be an interesting aircraft;
At M1.7 30k feet, a clean F-16 blk50 has ~400 FPS specific excess power which it could use it for sustained maneuvering, climb or acceleration. At the same conditions a MiG-23MLD armed with 2xR-23 missiles has ~560 FPS, 40% better than a clean F-16. And I do talk about -229 engined Block-50, not relatively underpowered F-16A. In fact MiG-23’s high&fast kinematics could possibly a match to PW-100 engined F-15As.
Though if speed falls to M0,9, F-16 has 50% better SEP, I am not getting into that.
AndraxxusIt would not be fair to include the F-16 either.
Not fair? I think MiG-23MLA was far capable aircraft than F-16A; better acceleration, better high supersonic maneuverability and better climb performance at most of the envelope, and BVR capability, at the cost of less horizontal maneuverability when low and slow.
MiG-25P was not available in 1970s
Oops I meant 1970s 😀
AndraxxusNo. You cannot simply rotate tail fins fast enough to correct side slip and give appropirate elevator angle to maintain flight AOA. Such quick rotations would also destabilize aircraft in roll axis due to high torque and rotational inertias involved. A more realistic solution is to delete verticals completely and provite lateral stability with airbreaks or TVC. Then again it would mean trading-off stability during maneuvering to fuel economy during cruise.
AndraxxusOk. I am just ignoring you after so much BS. have fun.
AndraxxusWell heres my list;
1-F-4E. Which was the only aircraft of its time that could do everything back then; BVR, VWR combat, Ground attack, anti-radar, anti-ship etc etc, be it land based or carrier based.
2-F-14A. Good A-A performance, during tests it did carry bombs, Harpoon AShM.
I like F-15, but without AIM-120, and immature as it was, and all the lack of A-G capability, it wasn’t a better option than F-4E to me. F-16A back then was a more maneuverable F-5E to me, nothing more.
If I were to build an airforce in 1970, there would be only two aircraft on my list; F-4E and MiG-25.
AndraxxusI don’t think you have bothered to check numbers, at all. T129 has 60 airframes on order thus far.. Nine T129A EDH and 51 T129B final production version. Compare to signed orders for 214 Mi-28N/NE and 197 Ka-52.
Oh, I did bothered -at least about Mi-28, and I believe you are missing my point to which I have replied -pls see below.
Russia has already signed contracts a while ago for 97 Mi-28, and it is 100% gurenteed they will continue buying (Mi-28NM) past that. No wishful thinking here. Plus that does not include Mi-28UB, which I am not sure if a contract has been sighned for serial production of or not, but the talked about numbers were 40-60 airframes.
-97 Mi-28N ordered by RuAF, 71 delivered according to wikipedia, 26 remaining to be produced for RuAF. plus 15 Mi-28N ordered by IrAF remains to be produced. Totaling at 41 contracted orders remaining.
-This is compared to 60 T-129s, ordered by TuAF, 4 delivered, 56 remaining to be produced.
Algeria is supposed to (since 2009) buy 42 Mi-28Ns (along with 6 Mi-26s) and there are some news citing “unnamed russian representitive” which said deal is signed around February 2014, but since then 1 year passed and there is nothing concrete about it.
I am sure Russia will eventually order more Mi-28s after current deal is complete, but that was my not point;
JSR insists Mi-28 and Ka-52 is cheaper than T-129, based on his assumption that mass production and high production rates will decrease its manufacturing costs. Fact is, cost will be dependent on contracted numbers, not desired numbers of their respective buyers. Mi-28N’s unit cost is determined for the number given the contract. In an extreme example, his point MAY had been true if there were only 4-5 T-129 were ordered, where all development costs would need to be added to cost of each helicopter, possibly exceeding the cost of Mi-28/Ka-52. With 60 helicopters on order, this is simply not the case.
If Russia were to order more Mi-28Ns, its unit costs would go down, and its also same for if more T-129 is ordered. However, Russia will not. It will buy upgraded Mi-28NM/UB variants, which will certainly have their own development costs, which will be reflected to unit cost WHEN their deals are signed. Turkey, however, will buy the same T-129 they are developing today accordingly to the agreement. (50 + 50 optional was the original agreement, order for 60 is signed, 40 is still optional). In any case, Mi-28N->NM costs will increase and T-129’s costs will go down. I really don’t see how Mi-28 will cost less than T-129. This was my point.
It is not the signed orders but yearly production rates that matter Turkey can sign up for 1000 helicopters but it may take 1000 years to produce.
Well speaking of recent days, TAI produced 30 F-16 Block 50s in just over 14 months. (October 2011 to December 2012). If you are into pissing contest, how was your beloved MiG-29’s production rates were recently?
Seriously, just for one second put your idiotic nationalisim aside; For a brief period in late 80s, TAI pumped out 38 F-16s in 7 months, averaging at 5+ aircraft per month, which makes 60+ per year. As T-129 is a much simpler product than F-16, and from any reasonable point-of-view, TAI could possibly build all 56 in a one year if required.
Current problem of T-129 is not production, but systems integration; Indigenous flight control system, networked combat architecture, RWR, DIRCM, on-board ECM, fire-control computer, imaging infra-red guided anti-tank missile series (UMTAS-OMTAS), laser guided missiles are all new, clean sheet designs, and are truly a leap ahead for Turkish avionics industry. I am not even talking about severe modifications of base A-129 (which is made together with AW).
Currently, T-129 is not complete and its NOT in production. Its just stupid even commenting about the production RATE now.
F-15 was cheap in era when over 200 F-16 were produced in a year.
F-15 was never cheap to operate; Along with Su-27 and F-14, they were the most expensive fighters to operate back then.
F-15 is 4 times the weight of Yak-130. there is not much difference in weight between T-129 and Mi-28NM
Funny thing is, I had specifically selected F-15E and Yak-130 for their weight relations. Operating F-15E (14300kg) is more expensive than Yak-130 (4600kg) because it has 3.1 times the weight, as you admit. How operating a Mi-28 (7890kg) is LESS expensive than T-129 (2530kg) despite having 3.15 times the weight? This kind of logic is the prime reason why people tend to ignore you, and so should I.
Andraxxus@Vnomad, I am just saying it doesn’t mean anything. From another point of view, Turkey chose A-129 over AH-64, Ka-50, Mi-35, Tiger and AH-1Z, does it make A-129 best helicopter around? I can name 3 different bids where Typhoon, F-18E and Rafale entered among others, and each country ending up ordering different aircraft. Obviously, every single one of them ended with claims like “It was the best according to our criteria”.
@JSR According to your logic F-15E is cheaper to operate than Yak-130 because its more mass produced, and shares its engines with F-16.
By the way, if we are to ignore usual “Russia will buy”s and look at the SIGNED orders, currently T-129 have more signed orders than either Mi-28 or Ka-52.
Andraxxus“Apache was widely reported to have come off much better.” Such comments always amuses me. Reported by whom? If one looks at different sources, any one of these helicopters may happen to come on top.
I don’t deny AH-64E is better than Mi-28 or not, but such statements, even finalized purchases are not a direct indication of superior performance.
AndraxxusJust ignore him. Not only what he say is pure BS, his comment is completely irrelevant, and doesn’t answer/reply what I am saying.
Andraxxus@Martinez, you are right I stand corrected. TBH I merely took common internet knowledge and didn’t bothered looking at the manuals. MiG-29 is not my favourite aircraft anyway.
Here’s the MiG-29 1500l tank:
[ATTACH=CONFIG]234845[/ATTACH]
Like you said; CFT rotates around the hinge (9) after the mechanism below (60) (according to what I’ve understood) cuts the fuel supply and pushes the tank from the aircraft, the tank rotates 90 degrees and hinges release, then tank moves away from the aircraft.
[ATTACH=CONFIG]234846[/ATTACH]
To answer haavarla’s question, flight manual says its droppable for up to M0.85 at above 100 meter altitude with zero sideslip and less than 1.5Gs, and a warns pilot about CG shift at above 900 km/h airspeed. Edit: Martinez beat me to it 😀
Flight manual also say MiG-29’s centerline tank is usable up to M1.5 and 4Gs when full, 9Gs when empty. Its even less restrictive than wing tanks, which are limited to 6Gs even when empty, and limited to M0,9 empty or full. So my previous comment was pretty on a baseless assumption, centerline tank can be easily used for combat.
Note to self: never take internet knowledge as fact, look at the manual before typing. BTW, I am think the centerline tank MiG-29K carries is not 1500l tank, its larger. 2150 liter was what I’ve read, can anyone confirm this??
AndraxxusEvery equipment that makes an helicopter fly is different between T-129 and A-129 (other than the tail rotor). Main rotor, transmission, engines, flight controls are all different. Comperatively, 52% improved engine power and an additional rotor blade (5 vs 4) has to count for something.
AndraxxusHis comments make it plain he flew in only F110-equipped Tomcats, otherwise he would not have made that comment about being able to add power and outrun the Hornet in the vertical – the TF30-equipped F-14s could not do that (20,900 lb thrust each vs 27,000 lb each for the F110).
IIRC, best F-14s in terms of maneuverability, speed and climb were late F-14As equipped with new TF-30-P-414As, which gave 25100 lbf thrust. Its true GE-F110 gave additional 2000 lbf thrust, but latter variants gained much more significant weight. New engines did reduced compressor stalls though.
Sign In
