ijozicECM cannot fully prevent SVP-24 from computing the relative position of the carrying aircraft in respect to the intended target for precision weapon delivery. In fact the system also allows the matching of positional television data (from Kaira subsystem) with an electronic map of the area. Ergo even at a slow speed the precise delivery of the bomb on the target cannot be stopped
How can ECM stop any other plane equipped with a targeting system from doing the same? SVP-24 doesn’t bring any new capabilities to the Su-24 AFAIK, just allows more precise unguided munitions strikes, especially if maneuvering the plane during the target approach phase (which messed up the solution on the old system). So, it’s not that it’s anything special as you make it to be, but the original computing system was obviously rather limited.
ijozicNice piece on the SVP 24 Targeting System being used by the Su 25 in Syria[/url] In other words by virtue of using the SVP 24 unguided bombs can be used as guided bombs.
It’s a Gefest-made system and installed on some Su-24M’s. It’s not a targeting system (the old one is retained), but a computing system used to enhance the weapon release calculations. Unguided bombs can be dropped rather more precisely than it was possible with the older system used on those planes, especially when maneuvering while approaching the target, but it does not turn unguided bombs into guided ones.
Why so? Its CEP even from 5000m is said to be around 20m. Moreover, SVP 24 is useful in circumventing enemy ECM. Do you think LANTIRN is better? Thanks.
That’s much worse than LGB CEP and about twice worse than GPS guided CEP. Again, it’s not a targeting system like LANTIRN (which in turn doesn’t calculate weapon release, but hands the target information off to the airplane’s WCS) so those two systems are incomparable.
Useful in circumventing ECM? How so?
ijozicTaking the bait, what system do ISIS have that can hit a plane at 11,000m altitude? If they had such a capability, all coalition and Russian planes would be targetable during routine sorties, except maybe F-22s.
Of course none, but there is a theoretical possibility of planting a bomb on the plane.
But, again, there were reports hinting that the plane was in poor technical condition (plus, it did suffer some damage around its tail before) and the operating company has liquidity issues and a history of technical problems on its rather old planes (like, catching fire, but they were Tupolev’s FWIW) so it shouldn’t be conveniently presumed that it was foul play before the investigation is over.
ijozicCan’t we wait for investigation ? Instead of making sudden allegations.
Exactly. Coincidences do happen (e.g. the Malaysia Airlines), especially given the supposedly iffy state of the crashed plane.
ijozicDoesn’t the Bear carry some internally too.
Supposedly it will, but aren’t those Kh-55’s?
ijozicWhy are you bringing up AN/APG-65 comparison to reply to a post that was specifically mentioning AN/APG-66 & 63?
Obviously because it’s a contemporary of the MiG-29 radar and there’s a direct comparison by direct users of both (Luftwaffe pilots). The original “problematic” AN/APG-63 and 66 are not really contemporaries of the MiG-29’s N019 radar; by the time MiG-29 started entering service (from 1983), the AN/APG-63’s were long updated to PSP standard (from 1979) which resolved the processing issues, while AN/APG-68 was entering service from 1984.
ijozicOn simplest analysis, MiG has 3300kg fuel capacity feeds 162kN thrust at 188 kg/kN-h SFC, not very off from F-16 block 60, which has 3175 kg internal fuel, which feeds 143kN with 200kg/kN-h SFC. Granted, early F-16A was better in this area (it had less SFC, and less thrust), but in a WW3, several hundred km range MiG-29 have would have been more than enough. Its true, when MiG carry wing tanks it can’t carry BVR missiles, but F-16 of 1980’s wasn’t BVR capable anyway. So with EFTs, it was better than F-16 because it still had R-73 + HMS. With R-27R replacing wing EFT, it was pretty comperable to AIM-7 capable F-15As. (obviously not in range, but in BVR capability)
“But if we start a mission with 4400-kg of fuel, start-up, taxy and take off takes 400-kg, we need to allow 1000-kg for diversion to an alternate airfield 50-nm away, and 500-kg for the engagement, including one minute in afterburner. That leaves 2500-kg. If we need 15 minutes on station at 420 kts that requires another 1000-kg, leaving 1500-kg for transit. At FL200 (20,000 ft) that gives us a radius of 150-nm, and at FL100 (10,000 ft) we have a radius of only 100-nm.”
The opinion on the usefulness of its 200-300 km range, I’d rather leave to its users. While Luftwaffe pilots didn’t consider it useful at all, I’d be interested to hear what the Soviet Frontal Aviation thought (as I’d guess they had no choice on the type anyway); in any case, all I said is that with so little fuel, the plane is pretty much limited to intercepting a relatively close single target assigned and provided by the GCI with its BVR load, perhaps finishing it off with the SRM load and then getting back to the base. I really wouldn’t draw comparisons with an F-15A because they are not in the same class and furthermore seem incomparable operationally.
MiG-29’s N019 radar was not any more problematic than F-16A’s APG-66, F-15A/C’s APG-63, Su-27’s N001; all these radars were similar in that they were constrained by processing power. These were adressed in APG-68, APG-63(V)1, N001V, N019M. Those were upgraded even futher, but unfortunately for N019M radar, MiG-29 had little priority after the cold war. Even with its problems, original N019 radar still has better head-on range than APG-68 due to high PRF mode, and its -on paper- range is more than 1.5 times range of APG-66, which equipped 90% of F-16’s in 1980s.So I completely disagree that MiG-29 needed GCI guidance. However, it would most definately benefit from it: In 1980s, when F-15/16 lacked datalinks, but MiG-29 had lazslo/lazur datalinks. So in a WW3, when we would be seeing hundreds of aircraft in air, coordinating 40+ MiG-29s in the air would have been much simpler as they would autopilot to their targets as GCI dictates, and GCI decides which aircraft will perform what task, and engage which target.
The Luftwaffe pilots would disagree here as well.
“The radar is at least a generation behind the AN/APG-65, and is not line-repairable. If we have a radar problem, the aircraft goes back into the hangar. The radar has a poor display, giving poor situational awareness, and this is compounded by the cockpit ergonomics. The radar has reliability problems and lookdown/shootdown problems. There is poor discrimination between targets flying in formation, and we can’t lock onto the target in trail, only onto the lead. We have only the most limited autonomous operating capability.”
“The only possible missions for NATO’s MiG-29s are as adversary threat aircraft for air combat training, for point defence, and as wing (not lead!) in Mixed Fighter Force Operations. But even then I would still consider the onboard systems too limited, especially the radar, the radar warning receiver, and the navigation system as well as the lack of fuel. These drive the problems we face in tactical scenarios. We suffer from poor presentation of the radar information (which leads to poor situational awareness and identification problems), short BVR weapons range, a bad navigation system and short on- station times.”
Besides its radar, it’s limited range is also why it’s so dependent on GCI – even if its radar was more useful than it was, it cannot afford the time to search for targets autonomously. The datalink you mention is not really a datalink per se, as it just gives GCI-provided directions to the assigned target to help the pilot with the poor radar to acquire the correct target. With those GCI sites taken out, the plane would have been next to useless.
I won’t dwell into the provided WW3 analysis as it seems rather subjective as you said yourself (e.g. “You can park a MiG-29 80 km from the war zone, arm&refuel it there with mobile trucks (to avoid retribution from SRBM and cruise missiles), and MiG-29 would enter combat two minutes after take-off.”).
ijozicThe usual comparison between the MiG-29 and the F-16 repeated ad nauseam is 99% flawed by the fact it usually compares the original vanilla version in service with former Warsaw pact allies with late eighties C&D version of Viper.
Just the S version of the Fulcrum addressed much of those shortcomings you listed, it was available at the end of the eighties also but to Soviet Union only, so no direct comparison was made.
Sorry, are you replying to me? Because I was not comparing it to the F-16 except mentioning it as the likely reason for developing and introducing the MiG-29 to service in the first place.
Regarding those fixed shortcomings, 9.13 entered production in 1986, added only 75 liters of fuel and an ECM. It could carry two more external fuel tanks, but then the two BVR missiles could not be carried so that’s not really helpful for the primary intercept mission. The 9.13S variant had somewhat improved radar processors allowing for an additional TWS mode and could support R-77 missiles (so, e.g. it could carry two extra fuel tanks and four of those which would have been useful), but was only produced in less than 50 units starting in 1990 or so, two dozen of which were put to service before the collapse of the Soviet Union while the rest were modified and exported IIRC, plus the fact that all the available R-77 missile stocks were also given for export.
So, between 840 9.12’s built and 207 9.13’s, those two dozen 9.13S’ type examples (which kind of tackled the fuel issue, but was still rather GCI dependent) hardly seem representative of the type for comparisons (of course, there were a few dozens more if we count those exported after the collapse of the SU).
In every case during the Kargil war situation was reversed: Indians had an improved versions of the Fulcrum with AA-12 while Pakistan got the block 15 F-16 with Sidewinder only and never even tried a match.
I saw some claims about (presumably only a few) modified MiG-29’s, but the details are shady. With the Pakistani F-16’s armed with short range missiles only and no ECM to speak of, Indian MiG’s hardly needed R-77’s; their R-27’s would have been enough to provide an advantage.
ijozicNot sure if that two-seater MiG-23UB is supposed to be an example of a better looking variant? 🙂
But, I’d nominate the MiG-29M2 over the MiG-29M (9.61) simply because both share the same large canopy which IMHO looks ridiculous on the single seater.
ijozic-MiG-29 was good for exactly Soviet airforce wanted. For late 1980s, it would have been the best aircraft for WW-III IMO, good trade-off of ruggedness, simplicity, avionics, kinematics and cost. But in last two decades world has changed, and MiG-29 needed much bigger advancements to fit in this new world and be competetive on the market with F-16/18, Rafele or Typhoon; advancements that MiG failed to make in time.
Was it really? I get the impression they wanted to parry the F-16, but the MiG design had twin engines and not nearly enough fuel for them (partly due to those auxiliary fuel tanks). Thus it did bring improved maneuverability, cockpit visibility, HMS and superior (all-aspect) short range missiles, but without fuel it couldn’t make good use of them. It’s radar was problematic (some sources say less useful than the MLA/MLD one) so it still depended on the GCI guidance to its targets at which it was supposed to fire both medium range missiles given the limits imposed on its maneuvering with an asymmetrical BVR load. One gets the impression that in practice it wasn’t much more useful than a MiG-23, even less so with its smaller range and being more expensive to operate. The MiG-29M would have been something else with a much more advanced radar, more fuel (larger wings plus removal of those intakes) and weapon points, but the Soviet Union fell apart and stalled its further development long enough that its future seems uncertain (besides the K variant having some success; not sure if anybody will buy the M2 in the end if RuAF doesn’t introduce it or the MiG-35 into service, although there is some interest for it).
ijozicWould RuAF stay without ARH all the time?
That doesn’t seem likely. Beforehand, they had no reason to procure them having no planes to carry them, but I’m not sure what’s the cause of the delays now. It could be financial reasons (e.g. these missiles are not the priority currently), or perhaps the development of the R-77-1 got delayed or the production lines (or availability of some components) are not yet fully ready?
ijozicThe MiG 31B/BS had been using improved versions from R 40R since the 80’s, and AFAIK the R 40R were phase out only in 2010.
The MiG-31 was only using the R-40TD IR-variant AFAIK (which is probably the only variant which remained in service that long – the rest were withdrawn with the MiG-25PD/PDS fighter variants).
ijozicLeader of Al-Nusra apparently killed in combat with regime forces around Aleppo.
ijozicTrue, which makes me wonder; A MiG-25 can carry 4xFAB-500s to M2,6 speeds and release them at any speed it desires. What prevents a KAB-500S from being used in similar fashion? KAB-500L, or Kr, I understand seeker glass maybe a problem, but for GPS/INS guidance? That is, I am assuming KAB-500s are essentially FAB-500 bombs with add-on guidance system, similar to mark series and GBU kits.
Besides the obvious lack of active MiG-25RB’s, apparently those FAB-500 bombs were not plain ones, but specially made to withstand high temperatures at such speeds. So, not sure if the GPS guidance kit can be protected from such heat, but even if so, it would require a special variant.
The GPS guided bombs would certainly make more sense for such a high speed toss, but with the longer range SAM’s, I’m doubting that the standoff range achieved (what was the maximum anyway?) is sufficient – it seems better to design a weapon like JSOW which can then also be used by other strike aircraft.
ijozicQatar want to talk from position of strength by threatening to intervene
http://news.yahoo.com/qatar-says-could-intervene-militarily-syria-prefers-political-142231010.html
I wonder how exactly would they do that and with which Air Force?
Sign In
