Andraxxuswhat is the range and speed of anti ship missiles on F-16 and how many Antiship missile F-16 can operate.
MIG-35 has edge in antiship and anti radiation missiles. MIG-35 operates at much higher altitude and speed than F-16 that is likely to give it edge in AAMs range. with surplus power MIG-35 will be more manveourable with loaded weopons and ew/radar power.
F-16 carries same number of anti-ship or anti-radiation missiles as MiG-35; 4. Rest of your comment is irrelevant. Current F-16 flies with AIM-120D. Current MiG-35 flies with R-77-1. There is a significant performance difference between two missiles.
F-16 can fly with 18x Mk-82s, or with 16 GBU-39 GPS-guided bombs. How many guided/unguided bombs MiG-29 can carry?
F-16 can lift of with 4xMk-84s, 3700 kg bomb payload. What is the greatest payload MiG-35 can carry?
What is the MiG-35 counterparts for munitions like AGM-158B, Storm shadow, AGM-154, GBU-39, CBU-105 ?? What are the counterparts for projected replacements like GBU-53, or LRASM, JSOW-ER?
Only advantage on MiG-35 would be better maneuevability. Well, 2 deg/s better turn rate won’t be a game changer in a real-life dogfight. But AIM-120D or AGM-158B can be a gamechanger.
Besides, they’ve got Sparrows, Mavericks, various LGB’s and spare parts, etc. meaning, not only they’re vastly more capable than MiG-23MLD’s and Su-24M’s, but they will also be able to operate them outside of the hangars.
Vastly more capable?
Paveway series LGBs = KAB series bombs and Maverick etc = Kh-25 etc.
On the plus side Su-24 can also carry ARM or AShM missiles and a way larger payload.
On air-to-air role, AIM-7M is broadly comperable to R-24R; MiG-23-98 upgrade proposal offered R-77 and R-73M. MiG-23+R-77+R-73 vs F-16+AIM-7M+AIM-9M?? My money is on the MiG.
Also slightly irrelevant but, does anyone have there an image of Iraqi F-16s with AIM-7M or any guided munition?
AndraxxusWhat to buy? That is also related to munitions and equipment available for sale to the respective aircraft. If everything that could be put on the aircraft would be available, and a full envelope of capabilities is desired, then F-16 is an obvious choice.
It has AIM-120D capability, can carry cruise missiles with up to 600km range, compatible with most up-to-date targeting pods, which in turn gives ALL types of current and currently planned A-G munitions (be it laser-tv-autopilot-gps guided bomb or missile). Also F-16 has many operators, thousands of aircraft actively flying means it will still get upgrade packages from LM, Raytheon etc to stay up to date 15 years later. I cannot foresee a modern munition to see widespread use in western countries without it integrated (by whoever) to F-16.
Those would the prime reasons MiG-29, Mirage 2000 J-10 are strictly out of the question. Mirage 2000 is gone, Rafale replaced it. There is no truly up-to-date M2k flying today, and there won’t be any “modern” m2k in 10 years timeframe. MiG-29/35 is a capable aircraft, but cannot simply be equipped with all equivalents of payloads and pods available to F-16. J-10 cannot carry even what is available to MiG-35, and not as well proven as the others.
Then why F-16 over F-18C?
-Less operating costs.
-Better kinematics and range.
IF, however, such flexibility in capability is not desired nor available (and is likely not to be) MiG-29/35 can be a better choice; simply because Russian equipment tend to come with less strings attached.
For example, even to a friendly country like Iraq, US didn’t gave AIM-120 compatability at all. They didn’t gave AIM-9X or JDAMs or any other modern munitions.. Buying an F-16 with mere AIM-9M and mostly dumb bombs is a joke. Paying for the targeting pod (but not allowed lowlight navigation pod), JHMCS and all the other gizmos on blk52 but being denied the munitions that would actually use them is an insult… I would have bought a some second hand MiG-23MLD and some Su-24M before accepting that.
AndraxxusYeah, it obviously isn’t an SA-N-9, but where did you get an idea of SA-N-10 launchers on the Kirov class as there aren’t any photos showing them nor any Kirov specs which mention them?
Yeah they are PK-2 launchers. I stand corrected. Just by looking at the picture, and judging by the actual size of the missiles, For a second I’ve thought they were Iglas, it was 5:30 at night when I posted it. Igla launchers, 12,7 guns etc are not always included in the specs. I assumed that was the case, I was wrong.
AndraxxusThere’s even a photo on the Tor wiki claiming to be an SA-N-9 launch from the bow, but the location is obviously ahead of where the SA-N-9 bow silos would have been.
Wiki info is wrong on that one. That is pair of Iglas from the double SA-N-10 launcher.
AndraxxusEdit:
First time i’ve noticed those jammer pods on Su-33
Also there are FAB-500 pylons on 1st ,2nd, 9th and 10th stations on all Su-33.. I assume video is still training flights; ie pilots learn to land their aircraft with 4 AAMs + ECM pods. Afterall, this is the first time they actually take off from Kuznetsov with heavy payloads. When they get used to that, they will be taking-off with 4x AAM + 4 Bombs; probably from long station first few times, then they will start using short stations.
Andraxxus– Does anyone have a reliable E-M diagram of MiG-29 calculated basing on its manual?
Comparison of sustained turn rates 30k feet clean 50% fuel for all aircraft:
Though I did this several years ago; However, after making more accurate calculations on specific points for other purposes I do noticed it does contain slight errors and inconsistencies due to roundups (there are many interpolations involved). Data points I’ve picked up are also obvious (ie straight lines).
As far as MiG-29 is concerned, data is half from the aerodynamics booklet half from MiG-29G manual.
[ATTACH=CONFIG]249693[/ATTACH]
– How much truth is in the statement, that MiG-29 enjoys its advantage mainly in the low-speed region, as I’ve read that it both exhibits spectacular nose-pointing ability and is extremely sluggish in terms of handling in this region.
It truly depends on which variant of MiG-29 is facing which F-16 variant. Speaking for MiG-29 9.12A (only MiG we have data about), Blk30 has distinct STR advantage even at low speeds, but Blk50 is very comperable, sometimes inferior. MiG-29 has distinct ITR advantage vs blk50 throughout most of the envelope.
If you ask my opinion, slow is relative. Generally speaking, MiG-29 and Su-27 sees a slightly greater performance drop at transonic regime, probably due to their wide bodies disrupting its area ruling. However all 4th gen aircraft will sustain turns best around M0,85. This is due above this speed some pocket regions of start to become supersonic, much reducing the both lift capability and efficiency. Optimum point being a tad slower or faster doesn’t change this rule of nature.
In a MiG-29 vs F-16 dogfight, the MiG pilot won’t be struggling at M0,4 to use its superior ITR and nose pointing ability, and F-16 pilot wont constantly fly at M0,9s pulling 9Gs until his brain becomes one with the floor. Both aircraft’s speed will dynamically vary between ~M0,5 and ~M0,9.
– How greatly the MiG’s performance is influenced by the fact, that it’s limited to 7G for speeds higher than 0.85M?
Speaking solely about MiG-29, it depends primarily on payload and altitude. On the worst case scenario, pulling 9Gs at M0,9 will yield 16,4 deg/s turn rate. Pulling 7Gs instead will yield 12,7 deg/s. However excess power is unhindered, MiG-29 can still use its available energy for climbing while turning at 7Gs. Even on the horizontal, 3,7 deg/s turn rate difference will not make anyone win a dogfight. Starting at M0,9 a high yoyo maneuver will immediately bring airspeed back to 9G part of the envelope. At higher speeds this difference gets smaller, and at higher altitudes and/or payloads, MiG-29 may not be able to sustain 7Gs at all, so there would be zero difference.
What hinders MiG-29 relatively more is its AOA is also limited to 15degrees at M0,85+ and around M0,9 to M1,2 lift center of MiG-29 moves so much that its elevators are insufficent to increase AOA further This is phimax state. At 3km altitude M1,0 for example, Best available G for a clean MiG-29 is not 7G, but ~5,2Gs.
Speaking as a comparison with other aircraft is much more complex for numeric comparison. That being said, ALL aircraft have similar structural and aerodynamic limitations.
F-16 has 9G limit throughout the envelope, but it has an interesting structural limitation that G load defines its AOA limit. A MiG-29 can pull its Clmax of 1,5 at lower speeds @9Gs. F-16 has Clmax of ~1,72+ but it cannot pull it to 9Gs. So F-16’s 9G ability is good for small AOA sustained turns, if it has to pull a tight turn it has to do so at lower Gs, which is kind of counter-productive. This badly limits its ITR, and F-16 typically get its highest ITR around 8Gs, not at 9G. Aerodynamically, F-16 also suffers from similar phimax condition at high altitudes.
F-15 has quite strict G limits (7,33G maximum), but OWS relaxes it so that its dependent on payload, fuel and flight conditions. Even with OWS, F-15 is limited to less than 7Gs around M1,0 at some altitude conditions with perfectly normal 40000lb payloads. With full CFT, its sometimes limited as low as 5Gs depending on speed and altitude.
Su-27 has also strict G limits (8G maximum, just 6,5Gs at M0,85), but it also has an OWS-like system in its FCS that relaxes it. Nevertheless Su-27 can achieve 9Gs only at around half fuel.
Those being said, apart from F-16’s, none of those are hard limits. Speaking of MiG-29, it can not only pull but also sustain 10G+ at less than 1000m altitude for example. In a kill or be killed scenario, G limits are more of an arbitrary number, aerodynamic qualities would matter more.
– What are the real advantages and disadvantages of the lack of FBW system?
Advantages? None. FBW allows for care-free handling, better resistance to departures, automatic trimming etc etc.. Its simply a good thing to have for the pilot.
FBW itself does not necessarily put hard limits; F-16 is a BAD example in this regard. On Su-27, when you reach AOA or G limit, you get a verbal warning and some additional pressure on the stick. If pilot pulls harder to overcome this pressure and aircraft will exceed its limit. It will easily pull 9+Gs, or 24+ deg AOA; see cobra maneuver.
Disadvantages? Pilot has to fly at the edges of the limits of his aircraft, but not exceed it. He has to fight his aircraft as well as fighting the enemy. Other claims like sluggish or hard controls etc are all matter of taste.
FCS will not make an aircraft less sluggish. For example on FBW equipped aircraft, you pull stick to left to roll the aircraft 90 degrees; ailerons immediately fully deflect to overcome the inertia, then reduce their angle so aircraft maintains desired roll rate command given by pilot. When 90 degree mark is reached Pilot pulls the stick to neutral position, ailerons will fully deflect to counter the roll.
If pilot does the same on a non FCS aircraft, it would seem sluggish. An experienced MiG-29 pilot won’t be simply pulling stick to the left, however; he would be knowing how his plane behaves. If he desires quick motion he will pull the stick fully to the left, reduce it by hand, then stop the rolling motion by pulling it fully to the right.
This maybe seem like a hard work, but put a seasoned MiG-29 pilot in an F-16, and he will simply HATE it.. Aircraft’s aerodynamics will decide if its sluggish or not. And MiG-29 is not sluggish, its just harder to fly.
– How does its roll rate compare to other fighters?
I don’t know about that.
AndraxxusWhat exactly is the Oniks missile doing upon launch? Looks quite complicated..
0:40 -> 1st “small” rocket start rolling the missile.
0:41 -> 2nd small rocket stop rolling the missile.
0:41 -> 1st “large” rocket start pitching missile.
0:42 -> 2nd large rocket stop pitching missile.
0:43 -> pair of rockets detach the missile cap -which also probably house these tiny rockets- after making the corrections to reduce the weight.
Then the booster ignites. First rolling while the missile is on vertical will determine the direction missile will be facing after it pitches down.
AndraxxusA MiG-29K crashed at Mediterranean; Any info/confirmation about this incident from Russian posters???
http://www.combataircraft.net/2016/11/14/russian-navy-mig-29-in-mediterranean/
AndraxxusThe engines are run up to full power and when at full thrust, the ‘fingers’ retract, immediately releasing the aircraft up the ski ramp.
I’m no engineer or aerodynamicist, but the kinetic energy built up during that holdback and run up must be quite significant – and when combined with the ‘extra’ force provided by the ski jump, clearly adds to takeoff thrust available – over and above that provided by just the aircrafts engines alone???
Can anyone comment on the amount of kinetic energy added by such a sytem ???
None, without aircraft itself moving, Thrust itself cannot add to the energy. It allows full AB thrust without aircraft moving though.
Also, Yefim Gordon’s book is slightly inaccurate as the 105m is the distance between the heat deflector and the tip of the ship, actual distance from MLG is ~90m.
That being said, I’ve made an interactive excel file that draws flight path of a ski-jump and gives take off performance.
Here is the full fuel + 12 AAM Payload, including pylons and gun ammo etc, from short station with 90m run:
[ATTACH=CONFIG]249573[/ATTACH]
Su-33 can do such take off, but with difficulty as flightpath goes as low as 26,41 meters. I’d say this is a ballpark limit.
Here is an attempted MTOW take-off at 33000 kg;
[ATTACH=CONFIG]249574[/ATTACH]
Its no go as the aircraft crashes at some ~520 meters from the ship.
Though all this assumes Su-33 is just a Su-27 with customised flap configuration. It doesn’t include canards or probable airfoil differences. I can make a longer version as a seperate topic if anyone is interested and when I have time.
AndraxxusSpeaking solely about fighter aircraft;
#1 Typhoon: Overhyped maneuverability/climb/speed, overhyped payload+range. Its 17 years newer than F-15E, and does exactly nothing better. Despite that, people go on to claim its the bestest aircraft flying… Considering its delayed introduction, IMO it shouldn’t even have existed.
#2 F-22: Overhyped manerverability/climb/speed, dissapointing availability.
Those two actually deserve to be called overhyped and dissapointing in overall. If I were to go on;
#3 Su-47: Overhyped maneuverability and speed. It didn’t maneuver good, it didn’t go fast. Both due to structural problems with FSW.
#4 F-18E: Overhyped payload+range; it can carry 11 Mk-83 bombs at most, makes 5000kg at most if foregoes EFTs.. Its not enough to be used an excuse for its lesser kinematics while replacing F-14D.
#5 Rafale: Overhyped payload+range; theoratical 20 mk-82 capability to 4480kgs maximum if foregoes EFTs. No pictures even showing that. Yet some morons compare it with payload+range capacity of F-15E or Su-30/34s.
#6 F-15A: Overhyped top speed, nowhere close to M2,5. In reality it turns out to be slower Su-27S or MiG-29A.
#7 MiG-21: Overhyped maneuverability; it was good for 2nd generation, but not better -on paper- than F-4E, it was just smaller. It isn’t definately comperable to F-16 as some believe.
#8 F-14A: Overhyped radar; it was not significantly better than what is available on F-15 or Su-27 and it turned out to be inferior in lookdown modes over terrain (instead of sea) as Iranians found out.
AndraxxusSu-33 are 90s airframe and recently overhauled. They are ready to drop ordinance.
In US Navy analogy, 1990’s F-14D airframe is decomissioned some 10 years ago. Carrier operations are harsh. Don’t get me wrong, I like Su-33, I would love to see it taking-off with 32 FAB-250s just to see the looks on the faces of everyone claiming Su-33 can take off only when clean.. I just think that won’t happen. We will see about that in a few weeks.
AndraxxusAFAIK, the Kh-59 would at least require a proper display integrated with the datalink required, plus the weapon controls so I don’t see how should the Su-33 be able to use that?
Kh-59 uses an autopilot then TV, IIR, or Radar guidance depending on variant. It obviously cannot use TV or IIR versions, but radar guided Kh-59MK or MK2 look pretty usable to me.
As for satellite guided munitions, I already mentioned that you have no way of knowing whether the bomb is in the parameters to hit the target, plus you’d need another flight equipped with some proper sighting system to confirm whether a strike was made or not. So, why would anyone do that?
TBH there would be some scenarios about its utility; Su-33 can carry 8 KAB-500Ss, instead of 4 on MiG-29K. MiG can do the sighting and Su-33 could drop the bombs. Operationally this isn’t a longshot, most PGM drops are conducted in this way; no fighter aircraft actually illuminates its own guided bombs as the aircraft flies is faster than the bombs they release, and its just safer to illuminate from the distance instead of trying to do so by flying straight in level just above the target and wait for MANPADS and AAA hits.
Its mostly a theoratical discussion on whether Su-33 may be able to use it or not. In practice we are likely to see Su-33s with 4-6 AAMs because their airframes are probably too old to take-off with few tons of bombs.
AndraxxusActually after such threats are thrown, one off airstrikes would be more difficult. Its one thing to attack a lone Turkish F-16 and hope for a score, its another thing to target a squadron 30-40 F-16s. In both cases; Assad is very slowly winning their war againist seperatists. If he orders an attack on a Turkish military asset today, and makes Turkey involve in a full-scale operation, he will lose the war he is winning. For his own, Russia’s and Turkey’s sake, I hope he is not that stupid.
Andraxxussince the arrival of S300V4 gave more confidence to no fly zone area coverage. neither turks or Israelis talk about strike.
Your usual trolling in the past at least included some news relevant to discussion. The news is related to completely different thing from S-300. In brief summary, US and Russia agreed upon where their aircraft were supposed to operate. Turkey did not. Current Turkish air strikes use both the Russian and US operating areas. Otherwise, Assad throw his -empty- threat of shooting down Turkish aircraft in 21th friday. There have been like 5 airstrikes on Saturday, 4 on Sunday, 4 on 26th Wednesday, 1 on 27th Thursday.
In the last few days, there is a silence in Syria, possibly IMO some of the pro-Turkish FSA groups moved to Aleppo and there is a shortage of manpower. Today, however, there were pictures of desert camoflage Leopard 2A4s -hidden under tents- being moved towards Syrian border. This is significant because all Turkish Leo2A4s belong to 1st Army and had jungle camouflage; every single one. Those tanks aren’t hastily re-painted in the last few days just to stay on the Turkish side of the border. When operations continue, maybe even on a bigger scale, Turkish airstrikes will surely resume. Current absence of airstrikes -probably- has nothing to do with S-300v4 or any other Russian military equipment there.
AndraxxusSu-33 was supposed to fire Kh-41, right? Even without ANY modifications, why it shouldn’t be able to drop a pre-programable munition like GLONASS bombs or Kh-59? Surely it can’t designate a target, but it can easily fly to a pre-designated waypoint and drop the bomb/missile againist a static target. Should not be any different than firing Kh-41.
Sign In
