If you read what was written then you would understand that the 101KS-U detects the missile threat and cues the 101KS-O which then acquires the threat and targets the laser.

Far more, original MiG-29A did not meet range requirements. Hence the hunchback C version (9.13). MiG made substantial changes in MiG-29M and internal fuel capacity increased by 30%.

http://alejandro-8en.blogspot.com/2016/07/fuel-load-in-different-mig-29-variants.html?_sm_au_=iVVHQ31n54p4fM5V

This comment by IAF MiG-29 pilot is worth pointing out:

This factor was also pointed out by Yugoslavian pilotos who evaluated MiG-29, F-16 and Mirage 2000.

The table doesn’t look right to me, based on various sources that I collected throughout the 90s already. According to these:
9.12 = 3190 kg
9.13 = 3480 kg
9.15/9.31 = 4500 kg
9.17 = 4775 kg
9.41/9.61 = 5200 kg

Don’t have the twinseat numbers in my head, from memory it’s 600 kg or do less on the 9.47/9.67.

Bear in mind that guel weight depends on fuel density, the capacity in litre is basically a more useful metric.

Concerning the SMT:
9.17 was the original prototype still with the N-019MP
9.17-2 became the 9.19 with the N-010M
9.18 for Yemen lacked the spine and thus increasef fuel and internal ECM, but was otherwise the same.

The original 9.15 was a very different aircraft with revised airframe incl. enlarged tailplanes with saw tooth, F/A-18 style airbrake, different tailcone with twin drag chute and reprofiled LERX. The auxiliary intakes were removed and tanks added (4500 kg in total, some state 4460 kg). It had a quadruplex analogue FBW for pitch control, uprated RD-33K with 5500 kg dry/8800 kg reheat thrust. Empty weight 11.5t, MTOW 21t.

Cockpit had reshaped canopy for improved visibility, increased seat inclination (30°), HOTAS and two monochrome MFDs controlled by HOTAS only.

Avionics included different chaff/flare dispensers with 120 rounds, L150 Pastel RWR, OEPS-29M, N-010 Zhuk (without M), new INS and IIRC new/improved radios, datalink and radio navigation aids.

Gun ammunition was reduced to 100 rounds, but the aircraft featured 4 pylons per wing with 4500 kg total payload.

Armament changes were supposed to comprise R-77, KAB-500L/KR, Kh-29T/L, Kh-31A/P, S-25L and Kh-25MT/ML/MP (never saw those on the aircraft).

That as a brief summary.

Hello Spitfire,

no they weren’t as I have outlined not long ago. So for the flight test evaluation it’s not being considered. But if Switzerland would select Typhoon, it would receive AESA equipped aircraft.

Great observation [USER=”7429″]Scorpion82[/USER]. But I think it’s the offset angle and the arrow on teh number 8 is the sensor range setting. Given also the “target” seems to react to the “lock”, we probably have a slew sensor (target is locked by the radar that pass its coordinates to the sensor).

It could be that the scale serves the double purpose of a range and elevation scale. The triangular marker moves slightly over video period, which may suggest marginal range changes at ~8 km. There is also a scale to the lower right which somewhat correlates with the arrow marker on the left scale, especially towards the end of the video. Whether or not the target aircraft reacts to a lock is difficult to say, as the maneuvers are too insignificant. Could well be that the target is bugged by the radar though as TV sensors typically lack autonomous search and are thus typically slaved by another senor. The eventual lose of lock is obviously owed to the target aircraft exceeding the sensor’s gimbal limit. Platans layout appears to have limited gimbal limits compared to a TGP with a moving sensor head.

Hello chaps!
https://www.instagram.com/p/BrW3Fg3H-UE/?utm_source=ig_share_sheet&igshid=1vt94x8gp6bpb
have a look at this , i don’t know if this has been posted before , but you can see a Su-34 taking a high resolution shot of the su-35 at 20 km then later at 40 km with no visible loss in resolution. Too bad the limit of the rangefinder seems to be at 40km.
Thermal image cameras gradually lose resolution at longer ranges , so i am fairly certain the Su-34’s image system can still recognize the shape of a fighter at much longer distances than 40 km but at lower resolution. Considering its crystal clear at 40km.

Ps: it may be weird to see an old system like platan perform like this , but i did hear about modernization plans for the su-34 earlier on , and that they aimed for the electronics complex. So it could be that the EO equipment got updated.
have a nice day.

That scale is not a range scale, considering how quick the marker changes its position and correlating the target aircraft’s movement it looks like an elevation scale. A range scale it’s not.

P1Ea standard but with Captor-E AESA, but no P3Ea standard prototype with the Captor-E? Hmm..

So they’re not demonstrating an AESA equipped Eurofighter then. That doesn’t seem like a good approach, given that all the other contenders now have AESA radar at the latest standard flying, including the Gripen E demonstrator and the Swiss may not be very happy to check its performance on a bench.

It’s quite hard to believe that there isn’t even 1 demonstrator at the technological level of the latest Eurofighter (P3Ea?) that is being built for Kuwait. I guess once again it demonstrates the drawback with the big consortium approach where each partner has its own priorities and its own set of equipment that it wants.

You must understand that P3Ea and Captor-E are completely unrelated, both contractually and from a configuration point of view.

As a side note, P3Ea was originally referred to as P3E only without “a”. I’ll continue to use the current P3Ea designation for the remainder of the post, to make the distinction. P3Ea was contracted as a UK only capability package using the 4-national contract route. P3Ea built on the latest 4-national baseline then on contract (not available) which was P2Eb incl. the Meteor capable Captor-M M-Scan radar.

The Captor-E development contract was signed in summer 2014 and thus after the P3Ea contract and before the Kuwait contract. It was a 4-national contract involving all 4 core nations, but it only covered design, development and qualification of the radar. The above mentioned DDQ activities were planned to be performed on the then latest actually available and mature 4-national configuration which was P1Ea. The designated industry test assets IPA5 & 8 are subsequently configured with a specifically tailored development configuration of P1Ea. Physical embodiment of the Captor-E was not part of that contract and the point of embodiment was subsequently undefined. Embodiment was meamt to be contracted separately and phased in with the next suitable 4-national phased enhancements package, supposed to be P4E back then.

The Kuwait contract was signed in April 2016. The Kuwaiti requirements incl. Captor-E were captured within a separate phased enhancement package. As the envisaged P4E timescales were incompatible with the Kuwait delivery timescales leading the P3Eb interim package was created based on the UKs P3Ea. This led to the eventual redesignation of the original P3E package for the UK into P3Ea.

The core nations have meanwhile contracted a tailored version of P3Eb which is still centred around the Captor-M. P3Eb is much more than just Captor-E integration for Kuwait and IPAs 2, 4 and 7 are already involved testing elements of it. ISPA6 and IPA9 are the assets used to test the Kuwait configuration P3Eb incl. Captor-E.

Hope that shades some light on the situation.

I would prefer to move the discussion to the Eurofighter thread if further questions arise.

IPA8 would be the second asset with an AESA and also a twinseat. However, the aircraft currently unavailable and is at a “Frankenstein” configuration with P1Ea and the Captor-E. You are certainly better served with mature operational assets at P3Ea standard and that’s what the RAF has deployed to Switzerland. Forget about one of them being equipped with an AESA. It’s not plug & play.

The Starfighter was considered to represent the overall better choice than the Mirage 3 back then and was operated as an interceptor, striker and reconnaisance aircraft. The nuclear strike role was only authorized by the US, France was reluctant to grant Germans nuclear weapons in a similar arrangement.

The F-4 was always considered as astop gap solution and the acquisition of F-4F was a logical choice after opting for the RF-4E to satisfy the recce requirements.

The MRCA requirement indeed included AA as a requirement, hence the Mach 2.2 specification. The IDS ended up as a dedicated strike aircraft to penetrate hostile airspace flying low and fast in all weather conditions and hit important installations and ground forces, plus recce and naval strike for the Marine. And yes its GMR featured AA capabilities, though they were limited. West Germany wasn’t a souvereign state at all and the Luftwaffe only augmented the RAFG and USAFE in the air defence/superiority role.