star49Target aspect, altitude, and speed make a difference, as do the speed and altitude of the launch aircraft. However, they’re saying that these are not relevant insofar as target prioritization is concerned, and that the four most critical will be engaged.
If system is priortizing targets without giving consideration to target size, speed, altitude and automatically picking it up it means that missile has the same capability under all conditions as they say success is guaranteed.
The equipment picks the four most dangerous targets by itself
and the next statement said success of attack is guaranteed.
star49Launch range is the maximum range a target can be when you fire the missile and still get a hit. That will be the same thing as max effective range. The missile won’t necessarily fly 280km, but it has a 280km range because it can be fired at a target 280km distant. It’s a little confusing, but not really, if you give it a bit of thought.
Maximum effective range of missile depends on target speed. slow moving target can be hit at more distance compared to some thing moving away at Mach 2.
agan they say in the above size and velocity of target are of no relevance in case of MIG-31. quite a little bit of baosting involved.
star49Are they planning on incorporating the R-37 as part of the BM upgrade still? Or did they give up on that idea?
this is from 2003 Paris show
http://www.ainonline.com/Publications/paris/paris_03/pd1agatpg85.html
“This seeker is unique in its capabilities and performance over previous generation models,” he explained, “and it is also unique in that no other firm in the U.S. or Europe or anywhere else has ever designed such a system.” Akopyan’s new seeker is capable of locking on to targets at more than 44 miles, which is two to two and one-half times the range of other active radar homing seekers, and–depending on the speed and altitude of the target–the missile has an effective range of 125 to 188 miles. “Any weapon that it is fitted with becomes the longest range active homing missile in the world,” he stated.The ARGS-PD displayed at the AGAT stand is visibly of a larger diameter (an 11-inch antenna) and weight (about 77 pounds) in comparison with a standard medium range air-to-air missile, such as the Vympel R-77 or R-27 models. The size of missile that would employ this type of seeker would be more in the class of the Raytheon AIM-154 Phoenix or the Vympel R-37 missile, the latter of which was a follow-on to the R-33 and was developed for the now-abandoned modernization of the Mikoyan MiG-31 interceptor
and now this new news look at the wording “Launch Range” which does not mean maximum range. it is the same Target speed and missile speed confusion.
NTV Mir, Moscow, in Russian 0751 gmt 26 Mar 06
Voice-over with video of plane armed with missile] The combat effectiveness of the plane depends directly on the nature and capabilities of its armaments.
[Presenter, crouching beside plane, stroking missile] Here is the main weapon of the MiG-31 – the R-33 missile. Launch range is 120 km. The plane can carry four such missiles.
[Voice-over with video of man checking exterior of plane, close-up of missile, details of control panel and dials, missile destroying airborne target, plane in air] Only American F-14s have missiles of a similar class. But the Tomcats have practically been taken out of service. Now new R-37 missiles with a launch range of 280 km have been designed in Russia.
Aside from that, the aircraft also carries several close-manoeuvre combat missiles. It can simultaneously detect and track up to 10 targets travelling at different altitudes, following different paths and with different velocities. The equipment picks the four most dangerous targets by itself. Their size and velocity are of no relevance.[ A small cruise missile creeping just above the ground, a helicopter lurking in the folds of the terrain and a supersonic spy plane streaking at an enormous altitude will all fall within the sights of the MiG-31. Even the famous Stealth plane will not evade the MiG-31. The success of an attack is guaranteed irrespective of weather conditions or time of day and however intensively the enemy applies electronic countermeasures
star49this impressive. fly like a crusie missile towards target and destroy incoming missiles. it has much better chance of survival than many others.
A “34” for the Air Force
((GIST: Author compares the designation Su-34 with that of the famous T-34 tank from World War II. States the Su-34 will be the standard for Russia’s tactical might. Points out there is a new 3-year contract for manufacture of this aircraft that will replace the Su-24. The first 10 aircraft supposedly already are in experimental service. Further states prototype was a series-built Su-27 originally called the Su-27IB, originally intended as a trainer for carrier landings. As it turned out, the enlarged cockpit showed great promise for additional applications.
First Su-27IB flight was in the spring of 1990. The first pre-series variant flew in December 1993 and received the designation Su-34. It actually was a second prototype, but already in series-built configuration. Combat payload was increased owing to use of an integrated configuration, the newest composites and titanium while maintaining the takeoff and landing qualities of the Su-27.
There is space behind the seats where a crew member not only can stand up and stretch, but lay down and rest during extended flights. NPO Zvezda built a variant of the K-36DM ejection seat that massages the crew in flight.
The Su-34 uses infrared and television guided munitions and can fly in any weather conditions with day/night capability. In particular, the aircraft can destroy an enemy’s guided missiles (presumably from an enemy fighter), something no other aircraft worldwide can do. The aircraft has a lower radar signature than the F-15E, in part thanks to the absence of a ventral fin. At low altitudes, the aircraft supposedly has the same radar cross section as a contemporary cruise missile.
Flight performance, combat survivability, mobility and ease of operation all combine to make the aircraft a formidable foe in any geographic region where it can destroy ground, surface and under-water targets.))
Source: 23.03.06, Krasnaya Zvezda, Correspondent: Yuriy Avdeev
star49Why second hand, and why CIS countries.
DO you really think if Iran orders 200 Migs the Russian will say no ” we don’t want the 3 Billion
Dollars”?
so u can collect 200 air worthy airframes in such short time without scourling whole of CIS.
Furthermore, why minimum upgrade? Iranians seem to be more advanced than some think.
Then again, if the Iranians would have to get a plane and then have to upgrade it, why wouldn’t
they just get an advance one in the first place. The Russian would sell them just whatever they
want, relatively speaking. SU-34 comes to mind, like SOC suggested.I wonder why wouldn’t the Iranians place an order for 100 SU-47s. The Russians would never
say no to 4 Billion Dollars.
where is the time for them to order new built aircraft and induct aircraft? Flanker is new platform for them so it will take more time to learn and develop training and tactics with. Russia can certainly help in other way like flying A-50s over caspian sea and giving air picture to Iranians along with satellite images. the bottom line is prolong war and higher oil prices for rest of the world that is alone enough benefit for russia.
star49Amusing last 2 posts.
Guys, pay attention, Iran can not buy European or American planes. So, they are left only with
the Eastern Block and China. Doh.I was wondering why no Migs were suggested by anybody???
MIG-29 is the only logical choice for Iran if they want to go through airforce route. get 150 to 200 second hand MIG-29s from CIS countries and gave it mimimum upgrade like BVR. because iran has the pilots and infrastructure for MIG-29 so these can be quickly inducted like 6 to 12 month period. it may not win air war for them but through proper strategy it will provide decent aircover for ther inflitration into persian gulf and billistic missile launch safety.
the longer the war the more costly it becomes due to Oil.
star49That’s funny, were you there? Did you witness the engagement? Your statements sound more like wishful thinking on your part. Nothing about this is news, nor is it surprising. The Raptor is a far more advanced aircraft than the F-15C in every single aspects of flight performance, including radar, stealth, avionics, cockpit design, maneuverability, speed, etc. A Raptor can certainly achieve that kind of success over a 30+ year old aircraft.
Put Rapator radar, avionics into F-15 along with 35,000 lbs engine not to mention advance material constrution. F-15 can certainly fly faster and can detect better , jam better and can certainly put up a better fight. netcentric war fare gives edge to those who have more in numbers. what if all ur AIM-120 does not work or F-15 manage to dodge it. F-15 can certainly chase F-22 to its airbase.
star49Well the ADF was exported to Jordan and Italy, to be correct. And if 1,5 F-16 are losts in normal use compared to 1 MiG-29, then it speaks a lot for the F-16, as it di in fact perfrom 50% better, as it is single engined.
It is 8 out of total 40 for F-16. so 20% loss. similar or more is for M2k if u include hanger loss. MIG-29 is 6 out of 70. less than 10 %. so gap is 100% if u want to look at raw statistics.
star49How many losses per sorties/flight hours are that for the aircraft?
MIG-29 is the front line interceptor of IAF. so its flight hrs should not be less than other fighters in IAF especially strike fighter which dont do combat airpatrol duties. except for brief time in early 90s. it was used in 99 war and i think first to receive R-77.
What kind of losses are we talking about? Engine failures are surely on thing, operational losses like mid-air collision or controlled-flight-into-terrain are independant of the aircraft. Things like take-off and landing accidents may be due to aircraft, but various other reasons are more important.
there two engine related flames out of F-16s. others are all kind of losese. and i havent seen any loss of MIG-29 specially due to engine. but that is mute point because we are comparing 20 year record in similar conditionn which speaks for itself.
regarding growth of M2K/F-16/MIG-29 over period of time. look at this way F-16 has added 3 tons of weight from F-16A to F-16E with no corresponding increase in internal fuel capacity except for CFT. and aerosdynamics has not been improved by some marigin.
MIG got higher thrust engine and substantial increase in internal fuel capacity not to mention 4 channel digital FBW system for MIG-29K but empty weight is much closer to orginal model. MIG-29 has much larger nose to begin with compare to M2K/F-16 and here we are discussing carrier version to land jets not propose MIG-35. so its brilliant jet hampered by past collapse of Soviets.
about MIG-29K
http://www.migavia.ru/eng/news/?page=1&tid=4&id=18
The aircraft has modern 4-channel digital “fly-by-wire” flight control system
star49MIG-31 is i think priority over Flanker and what will be new armament.
Sokol aircraft plant to continue MiG-31 fighter modernization in 2006
MOSCOW. Nov 22 (Interfax-AVN) – The Nizhny Novgorod-based Sokol Aircraft Plant plans to step up modernization of MiG-31B maneuver unit fighters into MiG-31BMs, Sokol Director General Mikhail Shibayev told Interfax-Military News Agency on Tuesday.
“Under the state defense order, Sokol will continue modernizing the unique MiG-31 fighter in 2006,” he emphasized.
The MiG-31 fighter has no foreign rivals. It has a maximum speed of about 3,000 km/h.
The MiG-31 was mass-produced at the Sokol Aircraft Plant, boasting unique aircraft production technologies, based on employing stainless steel and titanium. A total of about 500 MiG-31s have been produced.
The MiG-31B, fitted with the air refueling system, was the last mass-production modification. Several dozen MiG-31Bs were manufactured in the early 1990s.
Alexei Frolov, head of the MIG aircraft corporation, has recently stated that the MiG-31 has been upgraded for a long time. According to him, it is one of the few programs, enjoying stable and timely funding by the Defense Ministry. The upgraded MiG-31 will be submitted for state tests in 2005, after which MiG-31BMs will be fielded with the Russian Air Force.
The MiG-31BM is fitted with the modernized Zaslon-AM radar and new armament. The cockpit is equipped with new displays, and the aircraft’s target detection range has been increased by 40-60% due to new signal processors.
The upgraded radar is capable of detecting up to 24 air targets at a range of about 300 km and simultaneously attacking up to eight of them. According to certain sources, the MiG-31BM will be capable of intercepting targets, flying at a speed of up to Mach 6.
star49there is another comparision also. PAF and IAF has lost more F-16s/M2Ks than IAF lost MIG-29s during the 20 year period. while the quantity of MIG-29 is alteast 1.5 times to quantity of F-16/M2K of each. not a bad record consider the poor quality of MIG-29 of that era.
star49If you look at a single intercept, they were often 4v2 or something like that, not 800v1.
no one is assuming that Country A is sending it entire airforce on one mission.
If Country C’s products were as superior as some people want to illogically believe, then being on the wrong side of a 4v2 engagement should have still resulted in some good showings and some combat losses.
Actually it does not even matter if engagement is 4 to 1 or 1 to 1. whats important is what happened before. IF Country A knows that Country B does not have any offensive capability to mount. It can chose to send its fighters on its own terms to the battle if they feel engagement is not going to succeed they can simply disengage and send another mission another time. or send another group at same time.Simply Country B fighters have neither the range nor the weopons to catch Country A fighters.
The fact that Country B proved to be an abject failure at mounting aerial operations proves that Country B was either completely incompetent, or that Country C’s products were not to the standards of Country A’s.
when Country B does not have the initial capability to begin with so competence and quality standards question does not arise.
u can see the same capability beign developed by PLAAF vs ROC. where Flankers with IL-78 will mount attacks from all 4 directions on taiwan. and can refuse to engage F-16/M2K at will. as F-16/M2K without tanker support cannot chase Flanker to there inland bases where another group of Flankers will most likely waiting for them in its own terms. even if thats not enough u can flatten the bases with stand off weopons/crusie missiles/billistice missiles.
Now u can see that ROC one of the best armed forces from First world country will have such difficulty against probably second line equipment from Country C as it is exported to Country B where the ratio of modern weopons is hardly 2 to 1.
star49Now what does that tell you? You can draw one of two logical conclusions. Either the products from Country C that Country A has faced in combat are pretty much ineffective when compared to what Country A brings to the fight, or the export users of Country C’s hardware are incompetent when compared to Country A. One of them has to be correct. And if you believe the latter, then by default you must therefore acknowledge the logic behind school of thought one.
so only two logical conclusions. there is nothing else besides this that matters on out come. it does tell some thing.
star49Only to the same degree that it is ur assumption that level of integration is fully developed.
so it will be some where in the middle. definitely not low that he first assumed.
star49The MiG-29 OVT made a display at an air show. The level of TVC-integration is unknown and most likely low. Using TVC is not just simple plug & play. you need to redefine the whole flight control system, which necessitates excessive testing. The display was flown by an experienced test pilot. For any other usage the TVC has to be integrated.
it is just ur assumption that level of integration is low.
AESA is also a paper-thing. Like with the Rafale. I doubt the French will do it, so I doubt MAPO will do it even more. Both Dassault and MAPO are looking for a strong customer justifying the big investment and hence opening new export markets. MAPO cannot afford to improve the MiG-29 on own expenses and it doesn’t get a deal in the next years, they can scrap the MiG and apply at Suchoi.
russian aesa is independent of MIG. they are going to develop it any way. next year there flight tests are starting.
So, comparing any existing design with MiG-35 is complete non-sense but actually fits to the supporters of the MiG, who always mix between
– in-sevice aircraft
– pre-service aircraft in military evaluation
– test aircraft on company level
– prototypes
– projects under work
– proposed projects (pre-design phase)Just take the MiG-29 (A-version or 9.12) as example and give me a date for each stage. I’ll make a quick try, feel free to correct me
end 1960s, beginning 1970: proposed projects (pre-design phase)
1972 to 1977: projects under work
1977: prototypes
1977 to 1980: test aircraft on company level
1979 to 1983: pre-service aircraft in evaluation
from 1983: in-sevice aircraftAnd please note: that was cold-war times with excessive budgets. It looks similar for Eurofighter or F-22, so don’t assume any bashing. Just get straight on different design stages.
do u think that actual MIG-29K with 24.5 tons MTOW existed when IN ordered it?
India carrier buy ups the ante in Asia/Pac
by Reuben F. Johnson
As important as these new technologies are, the other significant advance with the new MiG-29K has been in the extensive use of advanced materials. As with the earlier MiG-29K model, the center wingbox section has the louvred, blown-in doors removed, but the material used is now a more advanced aluminum alloy that is more resistant to corrosion. The internal volume freed up by this change can then be used for fuel.
“Which means we end up with an aeroplane that holds more fuel than even the MiG-29SMT-9.17 version of the aircraft, has a stronger and more robust structure, but still weighs less,” said a senior designer.
Sign In
