Scorpion82That makes me wonder if the radar missile datalink could use data of other sensors as well or if the common datalink could be used for such purposes as well.
Scorpion82Well I think they will stay out, though an offer without investing to much anymore for marketing would at least give them a chance. I personally would like to see the Typhoon in norwegian colours. Norway was in fact the first foreign nation which evaluated the type back in 1998. But much has changed since then. The original schedules couldn’t have been held by Eurofighter anyway.
Scorpion82Asraam has the range to qualify as a marginally BVR IR AAM, and also has LOAL & a datalink – and has been in service with the RAAF & RAF for years.
This isn’t “next-gen”, it’s live, operational, current generation.
ASRAAM and datalink? Would be new to me. I know that a datalink is proposed as possible option, but it isn’t available in current versions. For the moment the ASRAAM relies on the IIR+INS combo.
Scorpion82Eurofighter Invited To Rejoin Norway Competition
By Gerard O’Dwyer
Published: 16 Apr 16:47 EDT (12:47 GMT)HELSINKI – The Norwegian government has invited Eurofighter to re-engage with the fighter replacement program and present a final bid by April 28, the binding information deadline set by the Ministry of Defense (MoD). The invitation comes amid fears that technical delays to the Lockheed Martin’s F-35 Joint Strike Fighter could see the company request an extension of the April deadline, while Saab confirmed that its updated bid would be presented on time.
“We would certainly welcome a decision by Eurofighter to re-enter the competition, even though it suspended its bid last December,” said Espen Barth Eide, the state secretary at the MoD. “We would like all three aircraft, the Gripen, the Joint Strike Fighter and the Eurofighter, to remain part of the process.”
The Eurofighter consortium informed the MoD by letter that it was “ill at ease” with the competition process and believed it favored the JSF, a suggestion denied by the MoD. “We have a very fair and open contest, and everything is correct,” Eide said.
Problems associated with the development of a number of the high-tech components in the newest version of the JSF could leave the U.S. binding information report “light” on all technical specifics, an MoD source said. “We may see a request for an extension to the deadline,” the source said. Some Oslo-based analysts agree.
“It will be very difficult for the Americans to respond to all of the many Norwegian demands within the deadline of April 28,” defense analyst John Berg said.
Secretary Eide said he had no information that Lockheed Martin might seek a deadline extension. “We have no information to suggest the JSF bid will not be received by the binding information deadline,” Eide said.
posted by Georg Mader from JDW on airpower.at forums
Scorpion82To be produced by 2009… I’m guessing “G5” is a new name for the PAK FA. Perhaps it’s a local Brazilian designation?
G5 = 5th generation fighter 😉
And the article stats “created” not produced. It just means that the first prototype should be finished by then.
Scorpion82D’oh!
😀 Well anyways, your list cleared up everything. Thanks. Well, actually, now I have more questions. 😮 I know, I know, I’m sorry for abusing you guys! This is the (probably) last question then I’ll shut up. 😉
So would you say that the original 9.15 Mig-29M and 9.31 Mig-29K have avionics comparable to, say, an FA-18C?
EDIT: I just read that the indian Mig-29K has avionics and radar comparable to the Su-30MKI! Wow!!
Well the MiG-29Ks Zhuk-ME is different in many ways from the Su-30MKI’s BARS, both are from different manufacturers as well. But there some some kind of commonality for other avionics.
Well the MiG-29M/K’s avionics were roughly compareable to that of the F-16C/F-18 at that time (in the 80’s).
Scorpion82Well you basically got it, though there are still some errors.
Here is a basic list of the MiG-29 derivates including their manufacturer internal designations:
MiG-29 (9.12): Singleseat baseline model
MiG-29A (9.12A): Export variant of 9.12 for warsaw pact countries
MiG-29B (9.12B): Export variant for non Warsawpact countries
MiG-29UB (9.51): Twinseat trainer
MiG-29 (9.13): improved single seat version
MiG-29S (9.13S): Further improved variant on base of the 9.13
MiG-29SE (9.13SE): Exportvariant of the 9.13S
MiG-29SM (9.13): Planned multirole version of the 9.13SE
MiG-29SD (9.12SD): Exportvariant of the 9.12 featuring most of the improvments of the 9.13S/SE
MiG-29 (9.14): Proposed multirole version never realised in favor for the MiG-29M
MiG-29M (9.15): Improved singleseat multirole fighter
MiG-29ME/MiG-33: Exportvariant of the 9.15, the 29ME designation was replaced by 33 from 1994
MiG-29UBM (9.61): Planned but never realized twinseat derivate of the 9.15
MiG-29K (9.31): Navalized version of the 9.15
MiG-29KU (9.37): Planned but never realized twinseater of the 9.31
MiG-29SMT-1 (9.17): Upgrade for 9.12/13
MiG-29UBT (9.52): Upgrade for the 9.51
MiG-29SMT-2 (9.18): Further improved derivate of the 9.17
MiG-29SMT (9.19): Variant of the 9.18 for Yemen without the enlarged spine
MiG-29UBT (9.53): Further developed variant of the 9.52
MiG-29K (9.41): New singleseat CV variant (further development of the 9.31)
MiG-29KUB (9.47): Twinseat variant of the 9.41
MiG-33/33D: Planned designations for the 9.41/47, was abondoned
MiG-29M1 (9.61): Landbased derivate of the 9.41
MiG-29M2 (9.67): Twinseat variant of the 9.61
MiG-35/35D: Improved versions of the 9.61/67 with new avionics
Notes:
1.) The list is not fully complete
2.) RSK MiG used some designations twice (usually when the old type which woar this designation didn’t exist anymore)
3.) The MiG-29M2 demonstrator is just a testaircraft which was converted from the 4th MiG-29M prototype a production modell will look different
4.) MiG-29OVT is also just a testbed converted from the 6th MiG-29M prototype
5.) The current MiG-35 prototype is the former MiG-29M2 demonstrator
Scorpion82So the Mig-29M1/M2 is an upgrade of the original Mig-29M?
It’s more a further developed updated variant. There are many new features including airframe improvments, FCS, engines, systems etc..
Scorpion82Type of weapon , type of weapon on store , fuel tanks ? RCS of each is different , not all can be economically coated , Moreoever each aspect will have different RCS . I havent talked to any 1 if this is possible but seems rather a complex thing to have for all round RCS .
I think we speak about different things here. I mean it should be possible to calculate the RCS with stores from different angles enabling the ESM equipment to determine the enemies effective detection range…
The issue is sensor location . Look with an AESA and integrated sensor suite i doubt these rubbed on stealth features would mean much specially on airframes such as the SH which cant really conduct any usefull mission without the use of jugs . Ofcourse comparing to older 4 gen radars these might shrink the SENSOR – DETECTION – WEAPONS RANGE Parity so that their exists a tactical advantage but the advantage isnt much and should be negated within half a gen of sensor advancement (such as AESA , Integrated EWR and EOTS type of setup)
Well even against AESA systems the range will be reduced, of course the range will be higher, but if you have 2 platforms with similar radars/sensors but different RCS the one with lower RCS will enjoy an edge. As mentioned this isn’t compareable to real stealth and doesn’t provide the same tactical edge, however if you can detect the enemy earlier and be it 20 km, it gives you the time to react and might be the decisive factor in the end game. Lower RCS might also increase the effectivness of ECM as it is already more difficult to target the lower RCS type.
Scorpion82The raptor has an ability to predict its own RCS (using modeled software) at any given point in sky , and can provide information to the pilot so that he may present the best aspect to the defensive radars , using his EWR . I am not sure this would work with external stores.
Remember once you put external tanks you loose complete stealth from certain aspects ( some aspects present a bigger targets)
Why shouldn’t it work with external stores? If the values are known and the detection range of the AN/ALR-94 is high enough it can work as well. What I bascially say is that hanging external stores on an aircraft won’t neglict all LO treatments. If so no one would design LO treatments for non stealth aircraft such as the SH, Rafale or whatever. Do you guys think they do something like that without taking into account the operational configurations? That this is not compareable to full stealth with internal weapons carriage is out of question.
Scorpion82Of course you would need hard numbers to make any real assessment…..:rolleyes:
Well lets assume the external load will increase RCS by lets say 5 m². So sum up 0.001 m² + 5 m² and 10 m² + 5 m². Do the math… Of course these are more generic round about values, but they should underline what I’m refering to. That the effect would be more limited for normal aircraft with only some LO treatments (i.e. SH) is clear, but it’s still valid.
Scorpion82What’s the point of trying to reduce the RCS of a 4th Generation Type. If, you are just going to hang all of those Stores, External Tanks, Missiles, etc. during a typical mission anyways????:confused: :confused: :confused:
Even then the RCS is still lower which might bring the aircraft a few km closer to the enemy without being detected. In some situations this might be sufficient. The same goes for stealth aircraft, even with external stores they will be detected later etc. Claiming the RCS advantage would be gone at all is nonsense. A F-35 with external stores will still be much later detected than say a F-15.
Scorpion82The ‘MiG-35’ is a single MiG-29M2 with some stenciling on the side that reads ‘MiG-35’ and that’s all it’ll ever be.
Well th current MiG-35 is nothing else than an avionics testbed for a possible production version. It’s airframe and most systems are not representive for the definitiv MiG-35.
Scorpion82Scorpion provided extensive history of the type, I will try to reduce that to answers to your questions:
1. MiG-35 is indeed a new bird. It is based on the same lightweight airframe of the MiG-29M like OVT also has, but avionics-wise these two aircraft have nothing in common. AFAIK, MiG-29OVT is not combat capable at all, it is just a tech demonstrator like Su-37 was.
2. That’s correct, MiG-35 is basically a modernized MiG-29M2 with modernized avionics, AESA, fully digital cockpit and minor structural changes. It does not have thrust vectoring of the OVT at the moment but you can order that as an option.
3. MiG-29K is pretty much a navalized M variant, right.. But this is the original K from early 90s. Indian MiG-29Ks are different, they have the same twinseat canopy like MiG-29M2 have but the rear cockpit is full of electronics and completely covered. Basically we could say that Indian MiG-29K/KUB are pretty much navalized MiG-29M2 with some upgrades (their cockpit comes from MiG-35, for example).
Well that’s a little bit wrong. The MiG-29M2 demonstrator was in no way production representive. If the MiG-29M1/M2 would be produced they would be more like the MiG-29K/KUB rejected the folding wings, arrestor hook, with smaller flaps and missing the other naval relevant features except for the anti-corrosion protection. All these types share the same engines, subsystems including cockpit and basic avionics, though RSK is flexible and offers integration of various avionics depending on the customers requirements. The main difference is as said the sensor suite include EWS, radar and EO systems. BTW it is also said that the MiG-35 will feature 10 wing stations rather than 8.
Scorpion82The whole story is a bit more complicated, but not to difficult to understand at all. The MiG-29M (9.15) was designed from the mid 80’s to replace the baseline model and attack aircraft such as the Su-17 and MiG-27, as the Soviet Navy had similar requirements RSK MiG developed a navalized version designated MiG-29K (9.31). The end of the cold war and the collaps of the Soviet Union prevented both types from entering service and initial efforts to sell the MiG-29M to export customers failed. In the later 90s India insisted that it might buy the ex soviet aircraft carrier Admiral Gorshkov. The Russians made clear that they would only sell the carrier in combination with russian made carrierborne fighters. As the Su-33 was obviously to large India insisted that it would buy the MiG-29K. By that time the original MiG-29K (9.31) was already outdated and RSK MiG therefore developed a new version of the MiG-29K (9.41) together with a fully combat capable twin-seat derivate MiG-29KUB (9.47). The potential order from India motivated RSK MiG to develope new land based derivates as well resulting into the MiG-29M1/M2 (9.61/9.67). The fourth MiG-29M prototype (no.154) was converted to the MiG-29M2 demonstrator while the sixth prototype (no.156) acted as testbed for new TVC engines, this variant become known as MiG-29M-OVT. As the naval derivate had the priority due the potential India order and a great degree of commonality was desired for cost reasons alone the naval derivate became the baseline model for the new unified family of land and seabased single- and twinseat Fulcrums. The MiG-29M2 demonstrator proved that its new canopy wouldn’t affect the aircraft’s aerodynamics at all unlike that of previous MiG-29 twinseaters such as the MiG-29UB. It was ultimately decided to take the MiG-29KUB as the baseline model for the entire family of new unified Fulcrums. The Indian Navy finally placed an order for 16 MG-29K/KUB on 20th January 2004 with options for 30 further aircraft. As the IAF already started its MMRCA tender RSK MiG initially offered the land based derivates MiG-29M1/M2, but due the higher requirements of the IAF RSK MiG decided to further develope the type which resulted in the MiG-35/35D. The less complex MiG-29M1/M2 is still offered by RSK MiG to customers with less strict requirements. The main difference between the MiG-29M and MiG-35 is indeed its avionics suite which mainly includes a new sensor suite. But there’re additional airframe changes as well such as reshaped fins, tailstinger and probably new separate airbrake anymore. TVC engines in form of the RD-33MKV are offered optionally, but they aren’t part of the baseline configuration for the MiG-35.
Sign In
