My F-16 and MiG 35 sorties at Yelahanka

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 23385
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Postby Austin » 26 Feb 2007 20:59

I agree with what shankar has to say , The WVR engagement will be one of the most important component of Air Battles in this part of the world , Inspite of the availability of KS-172 , R-77 , Mica , Astra , AWACS in the near future in numbers

On the R-33 , Recently about 2 weeks back ex IAF chief Krishnaswamy had written a very critical article on IE about it , He mentioned the fact that RD-33 was a very smoky engine and hence the visual presence of Mig-29 could be detected from miles and even the later variant like the Series 3 couldnt solve that to satisfaction.

He was also critical on we going for a TOT/Local Manuf of the RD-33 in India when that engine was at the end of its life and had nothing much to offer in terms of technology.

Surya
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5034
Joined: 05 Mar 2001 12:31

Postby Surya » 26 Feb 2007 21:23

Maybe Ved can answer this

How bad is the fallout of smoky engines?

Considering the dust and haze over Indian cities does that smoke really matter.

TSJones
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3022
Joined: 14 Oct 1999 11:31

Postby TSJones » 27 Feb 2007 00:44

MuMoha wrote:Surya,

I agree. I think they are very proud of their equipment and machinery. I take the point.

But honestly, do you think we should take the F-16 or the F-18? Whatever version. I am not convinced. But I know what such replies lead to.

There is another funny thing this girl told me. She said F-4's were sent into enemy territory not the F-16's. Even in the Lebanon war, for air superiority. These are supposed to be designate Air Attack Aircrafts

I found that incredible. Why would a country with F/16 and F/15's do that?

Didn't get that.

Any ideas??


Well, the F-4 was the only A/C available to paint "WILD WEASEL - PLEASE SHOOT AT ME" on.

But actually, if you want to know the truth, if you can handle it, is that the US AirForce wild weasel squadrons were fom the its air national guard units which were stocked with, you guessed it, F-4s. Nowadays, they are F-16s and the Navy uses F-18s in conjunction with A-6s from their carriers.

Actually, the F-4s were stealthy. When they shut the engines off in mid flight the F-4 had a glide path very similar to a concrete block. Fooled 'em every time.

SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 36393
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Postby SaiK » 27 Feb 2007 01:42

ex IAF chief Krishnaswamy had written a very critical article on IE about it , He mentioned the fact that RD-33 was a very smoky engine and hence the visual presence


q. how much more "visual" the smoke adds in addition to mig-29 as is.

q. did he mean IR?

Sumair
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 72
Joined: 02 Jun 2001 11:31

Postby Sumair » 27 Feb 2007 01:58

Philip wrote: "titbit"


O how I love those "titbits"...... :twisted:
Sorry Phillip could'nt resist

Naidu
BRFite
Posts: 136
Joined: 24 Aug 2001 11:31
Location: New Joisey, USA

Postby Naidu » 27 Feb 2007 03:52

MuMoha wrote:There is another funny thing this girl told me. She said F-4's were sent into enemy territory not the F-16's. Even in the Lebanon war, for air superiority. These are supposed to be designate Air Attack Aircrafts

I found that incredible. Why would a country with F/16 and F/15's do that?

Didn't get that.

Any ideas??


One possible explanation is that the F4s were used in Electronic Warfare/Suppression of Enemy Air Defences (EW/SEAD) roles to take out radars/SAMs, etc. Till recently the USN (or was it the USAF?) was using F4 "Wild Weasels" in this role. F4s go in with the initial package (along with their air-to-air escorts) to clean up hostile radar and SAM installations. Once they've been sanitized, it is an easier environment for the air-to-ground and air-to-air sorties to follow.

Other than that, I really don't know why F4s would be preferred exclusively over F16s and F15s.

Added later: I see that TSJ has beat me to it.

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 23385
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Postby Austin » 27 Feb 2007 04:23

SaiK wrote:
ex IAF chief Krishnaswamy had written a very critical article on IE about it , He mentioned the fact that RD-33 was a very smoky engine and hence the visual presence


q. how much more "visual" the smoke adds in addition to mig-29 as is.

q. did he mean IR?


SaiK , after having a personal look at Mig-29MMRCA at AI05 , And the smoke is a realy menace , You can see the Mig-29 from miles away because of the thick black smoke so distinct visible , A real bonus for the ack ack folks and even in WVR engagement.

SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 36393
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Postby SaiK » 27 Feb 2007 04:33

perhaps let me ask this in a more non-stealthy way. how much of smoke trail is used to track the mig-29 kind of a/cs by any known seekers., otherwise, are there any seekers that uses smoke trails (algo?) to detect the speed and position of the target a/c?

what is the negative with smoke on the WVR engagement? as is the a/c IS visible!

Sumeet
BRFite
Posts: 1463
Joined: 22 May 2002 11:31

Postby Sumeet » 27 Feb 2007 05:01

SaiK it helps target to be noticed from a distance before entering WVR. This way the enemy fighter is better positioned to take/plan a counter attack on the plane. Visual identification is key in WVR. With smoke trail you can realize the location of aircraft before even you can see it clearly.

SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 36393
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Postby SaiK » 27 Feb 2007 05:16

thanks.. that means the same is true for those a/cs giving out "white smokes" as well? correct?

JaiS
Forum Moderator
Posts: 2190
Joined: 01 Mar 2003 12:31
Location: JPEG-jingostan
Contact:

Postby JaiS » 27 Feb 2007 05:31

SaiK, I guess it depends on what your altitude is and what the general atmospheric conditions, like clouds etc are at the time of observation. Clouds may help in masking white smoke. IMHO, black smoke will clearly stand out vis-a-vis white smoke.

Interesting article this :

Russians unveil MiG-35
http://www.hindu.com/2007/02/08/stories ... 350400.htm


Sighted easily

On the RD 33 engine (that powers the MiG-29) and its telltale black smoke, which, according to some IAF pilots, allows the aircraft to be sighted even without radar, Alexander Novikor, director-general of Chernyshev JSC, designers of the engine, said that the new variant (RD 33 MK) had a new combustion chamber. "We have changed the cooling system and the mode of consumption of fuel in the first turbine, so there is less smoke," he said. The Russian are promising an extended service life for MiG-35 and at lower maintenance cost.



So even though the Russians may have done a good job at smoke reduction, first person accounts from folks ( Austin ) at AI-07 indicates that the reduction may not be enough.
Last edited by JaiS on 27 Feb 2007 06:00, edited 1 time in total.

SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 36393
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Postby SaiK » 27 Feb 2007 05:39

ok. thanks. sounds like another weakest point for the migs.

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 23385
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Postby Austin » 27 Feb 2007 06:24

So even though the Russians may have done a good job at smoke reduction, first person accounts from folks ( Austin ) at AI-07 indicates that the reduction may not be enough.


JaiS I am talking about AI05 when the Mig-29MMRCA was smoking , I dont know what kind of improvements they have made now , and if they have completely eliminated the smoke .

But look at it this way , if an ex Air Chief has to comment on Miig-29 smoke problem then it is a serious issue .

JaiS
Forum Moderator
Posts: 2190
Joined: 01 Mar 2003 12:31
Location: JPEG-jingostan
Contact:

Postby JaiS » 27 Feb 2007 07:03

Austin sorry, my bad ! :-?

Kartik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4612
Joined: 04 Feb 2004 12:31

Postby Kartik » 27 Feb 2007 07:58

SaiK wrote:perhaps let me ask this in a more non-stealthy way. how much of smoke trail is used to track the mig-29 kind of a/cs by any known seekers., otherwise, are there any seekers that uses smoke trails (algo?) to detect the speed and position of the target a/c?

what is the negative with smoke on the WVR engagement? as is the a/c IS visible!


you're clearly underestimating the importance of a small visual signature..refer to Harry's article on the SHar on AIG..they could sneak up on Fulcrums without them even knowing of their presence..the same could not be said however of the smokey Fulcrums, which could be detected visually miles away.

rakall
BRFite
Posts: 797
Joined: 10 May 2005 10:26

Postby rakall » 27 Feb 2007 10:15

Austin wrote:
So even though the Russians may have done a good job at smoke reduction, first person accounts from folks ( Austin ) at AI-07 indicates that the reduction may not be enough.


JaiS I am talking about AI05 when the Mig-29MMRCA was smoking , I dont know what kind of improvements they have made now , and if they have completely eliminated the smoke .

But look at it this way , if an ex Air Chief has to comment on Miig-29 smoke problem then it is a serious issue .


As Austin clarified he was talking about the AI05... As much as we respect our AirChief's, we also have to have an unbiased view.. Yes - Mig29 engines used to smoke a lot.. do they now?

If you have seen the clips of first flight of Mig29K -- you could see the difference.. the chase Mig29 was smoking a lot, but the Mig29K prototype was not..

The new RD33Mk engine is far far less smokier than the old engines.. At AI07 it dint not smoke more than F18 or Tejas... thats what i thougt from what i saw.

Vishnu
BRFite
Posts: 272
Joined: 06 Nov 2002 12:31
Location: New Delhi

Postby Vishnu » 27 Feb 2007 15:50

Guys ... I think we need to put this issue to rest ... The new gen RD 33s on the K and the MiG-35 are virtually smokeless. We can keep debating what "virtually" means ... but in brief ... they have got the issue sorted out and I can also confirm to you ... that the Navy isn't accepting any smoky jets. Period.

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 23385
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Postby Austin » 27 Feb 2007 17:54

Vishnu wrote:Guys ... I think we need to put this issue to rest ... The new gen RD 33s on the K and the MiG-35 are virtually smokeless. We can keep debating what "virtually" means ... but in brief ... they have got the issue sorted out and I can also confirm to you ... that the Navy isn't accepting any smoky jets. Period.


Thanks for the update Vishnu :)

SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 36393
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Postby SaiK » 27 Feb 2007 18:33

thanks Vishnu, any photos of Mig 35 closeups on the cockpits taken?

Marcos
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 55
Joined: 29 Jan 2003 12:31

Postby Marcos » 05 Mar 2007 21:33

Vishnu,

Congrats for ur flights, and that too first non-Russian on MiG-35......and a reall good damn wiriting. Hats off to U. :D

But i want to know more abt the F-18E/F funda.....like the positive & negative points that u might have come across (in ur personal view) on the MiG-29s & F-18s....

Also, don't u have any rear cockpit pics of MiG-29KUB???.....or did i miss the pics on BR??


I'd like to quote some of ur findings....


Also, remember, the side-stick is pressure sensitive ... and doesnt move more than an inch or so in all directions. As always, I needed to know some basic operations for the flight: emergency O2 supply, intercom operations and arming the ejection seat.

i think, i heard u somewhere saying that F-16s is more sensitive than the MiG-29s and I guess its more to do with the pressure sensitive stick than the actual stuff. In the MiG-29s, its not pressure sensitive and the reason y u feel the "lag" and the reason y the feeling of not being as much responsive as the F-16s......well thats my view.

Since we are on in this vein ... let me tell you ... the biggest danger of flying in a twin seater jet is that your family jewels are in serious danger of being disturbed when the pilot suddenly yanks on the stick !! And because you are stuck in your seat with a 5 point harness ... you can do nothing but watch in horror as you get whacked !! Give me a side stick anyday !!

probably, u shud try it out in Su-35 when it debut at MAKS-2007, it has got a low travel stick so hopefully jewels won't feel the pressure :wink:

side stick also got a small disadvantage that, u can only fly/adjust the a/c with only ur right arm....

I had had the opportunity to meet Pavel in Moscow as well, also at a lunch shortly after he flew the MiG-29KUB at its media debut (incidentally, the actual first flight of the KUB of which I have footage) took place two days prior to the media debut ... so the Russians, no fools, knew the thing flew before they brought in the international media.

well, c'mon Vishnu......u shud be knowing that its almost a 'common' practice all around the world w.r.t to the first flight. I wudn't say its definitive, but this does happen. And hopefully for someone like RAC-MiG, the least of their worries wud be if the a/c will really fly.

And Happy riding in the future as well.....

BTW, any chance of u getting into IMDS, MAKS etc etc??

if going for IMDS at St.Petersberg (hope u can convince ur producers), take a ride in the small and cute amphibian Be-103..... :D

Marcos
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 55
Joined: 29 Jan 2003 12:31

Postby Marcos » 05 Mar 2007 21:37

rakall wrote:The new RD33Mk engine is far far less smokier than the old engines.. At AI07 it dint not smoke more than F18 or Tejas... thats what i thougt from what i saw.

Very True...!!

hope the guys over here forgot to look at the butt of F-18 when Ratan Tata was flying...??

Marcos
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 55
Joined: 29 Jan 2003 12:31

Postby Marcos » 05 Mar 2007 21:45

bala wrote:The Madam from Boeing has a misplaced sense of duty for her company. What is the big deal about someone wearing a suit and flying in the competition's craft. Boeing has one of the largest design centers in Moscow, Sergei Karolev heading the group, designing all kinds of sections for the next generation Boeing 7x7. There is the other famous Russian immigrant Igorr Sikorsky, designer of the Huey helos for the US Army/Airforce. Gosh, Blah, the marketing/sales type are the worst penis envy folks on earth.

yo.....and many stuff still remain in the Russian language unknown to the outside world.

In adition to what u said, Airbus Industries signed cooperation with Russian aviation industries as part of Russia-Europe strategic co-operation at MAKS1997. And in 1997 as part of it was discussion/consultaion regarding the A-XXX, whose feasibility study was stsrted. This A-XXX is what we later come to know as A-380 superjumbo. As per the initial plan the a/c was to be put into commercial production in 2003 wit an investment of $9billion. The Russian participants for scientific works, production etc etc were - Tupolev design bureau, Aviastar aircraft-production complex, Agregat, Gidromash, VIAM, MAI, NIAT and TsAGI...etc.

Also, the first of the modern a/c from Boeing stable - yo, the B777 was also had its developmental origins in Russia with the major participants among others being Ilyushin....


.

rakall
BRFite
Posts: 797
Joined: 10 May 2005 10:26

Postby rakall » 08 Mar 2007 16:35

VISHNU

is there any chance there will be a more comprehensive coverage of presidential review on NDTV? there were just 30-40secs worth of clips yesterday !!!

Shankar
BRFite
Posts: 1905
Joined: 28 Aug 2002 11:31
Location: wai -maharastra

Postby Shankar » 09 Mar 2007 11:16

My observations on mig 35 AI 07

The smoke trail of Mig 35 was less than f-18 and f-16 during take off
during cruise f-18 was less f-16 more or less same but mig 35 had a dark tinge
During vertical climb f-18 was more whitish
during tail slide mig 35 was bit more but then no other aircraft could do it so no comparison

Now comming to the comments of air chief ( I know this is risky business)

Even in WVR combat a more visible smoke trail is a disadvantage only when your close enough to engage with guns . But then it is a highly unlikely situation with r-73 being the standard weapon in such a situation. The additional visibility for the smoke at 20 plus kms is not so critical

The R-73 seeks the temperature difference between air and exhast not the co lour difference like our eyes. For the heat seeking missile is colour blind .The same is true for the sensitive infra red tracking system of the sukhois and migs

The archer will seek out a target much better than a pilot visually ever can even in a WVR envelope.

No sane pilot will risk a gun engagement in today high speed air combat scenario unless he has run out of missile and even then it will be a far better option to bugger out that try engaging a amraam equipped falcon with gasha301

Seeing a smoke trail does not simply mean better chance of hitting it with a missile BVR/WVR.

By the way tracking a fulcrum b ack ack gunner on the smoke trail is absurd . Only possible in a movie.It is simply too fast and agile . The angle change for the gun when the fulcrum is flying low and fast or turning and comparatively slow is plain impossible.

Gun hits in iraq on tornados and jags were mainly because they came in over the runways low directly in path fo the shilkas . Any other situation the ressult would have been much less encouraging .

By the way Radars locking on to the aircrafts whether for missiles of guns is also colour blind and so smoke or no smoke hardly make a difference.

Whole business of smokey engine of fulcrums is a western media generated hype apparently just like the patriots anti missile capability or the infalliability of apg 79

Drevin
BRFite
Posts: 408
Joined: 21 Sep 2006 12:27

Postby Drevin » 09 Mar 2007 11:22

I agree with Shankar on the APG79 part ..... The APG 79 has some well documented problems that reduce its effectiveness. Its just that no one knows about this. And we shouldn't be in a situation where we find out the APG79 is not all that great after we purchase it.

Sukumar
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 93
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Smoking is bad for health

Postby Sukumar » 09 Mar 2007 23:59

Smoking is bad for health - whether it is people or fighters. During the Vietnam war, one of the two significant weaknesses of the F-4 Phantom included smoky engines. While a magnificent aircraft, one of its many nicknames was "Old Smoky" and the smoke from the J-79 engines could be seen for miles. During the Vietnam war, AAA gunners used the smoky engines of the Phantom to easily identify its presence. Same with the MiGs.

Smoky engines mean that in an optical environment the other guy sees you first and has a chance to get the first shot off. This includes not only hostile aircraft but a SAM battery or AAA. Not everybody is out there blasting their radars (and revealing their presence). So smoky means bad, period - no western or eastern hype. It doesnt have anything to do with radars and IR missiles - just who sees who first.

The IAF should make the best choice including a smoke free aircraft for the long term health of its pilots ;)

Shankar
BRFite
Posts: 1905
Joined: 28 Aug 2002 11:31
Location: wai -maharastra

Postby Shankar » 10 Mar 2007 00:33

There is no clear proof that smoking engine was ever a problem in air combar.While not justifying the obvious design flaw in a smoky engine ,in vietnam F-105 did not smoke but still faired very badly against migs and had to be relocated to safer skies over south Vietnam form north vietnam.F-4 series though with a smoky engine went on to the become one of the most successful combat aircraft ever being used by usaf/usn/marines and a host of allies in short it rules the western skies for a decade.

The phantom main problem in Vietnam was lack of guns since most engagements quickly became subsonic and short range when even the sidewinders could not be fire .The problem was addressed by inclusion of external gun pods with vulcun cannon some times two such pods were fitted and later on internal gun was incorporated in F4E s

Same with Mig29s ,even with so called smokey engines was the biggest threat in air combat to usaf and other nato allies -check contemporary authors like maxwells air power .

Agreed you can detect a smoky aircraft visually from a greater distance and help identify it but that s it. No modern gun or missile system uses optical trackers for anti aircraft use

Manohar
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 12
Joined: 01 Jul 1999 11:31
Location: Iowa City, IA, USA

Postby Manohar » 10 Mar 2007 00:41

Shankar wrote:There is no clear proof that smoking engine was ever a problem in air combar.While not justifying the obvious design flaw in a smoky engine ,in vietnam F-105 did not smoke but still faired very badly against migs and had to be relocated to safer skies over south Vietnam form north vietnam.F-4 series though with a smoky engine went on to the become one of the most successful combat aircraft ever being used by usaf/usn/marines and a host of allies in short it rules the western skies for a decade.

The phantom main problem in Vietnam was lack of guns since most engagements quickly became subsonic and short range when even the sidewinders could not be fire .The problem was addressed by inclusion of external gun pods with vulcun cannon some times two such pods were fitted and later on internal gun was incorporated in F4E s

Same with Mig29s ,even with so called smokey engines was the biggest threat in air combat to usaf and other nato allies -check contemporary authors like maxwells air power .

Agreed you can detect a smoky aircraft visually from a greater distance and help identify it but that s it. No modern gun or missile system uses optical trackers for anti aircraft use

------------

Seems like you have made two arguments here:

1) Smoky engines don't matter using F-4 in Vietnam case...I suggest that the F-4's advantage in radar and in the support of AWACS negated this disadvantage

2) Mig-29 may have been the biggest WVR threat, but this is minus the support structure that US and NATO possesses...

So, when you have BVR detection advantage on your side, it doesn't matter whether your engines are smoky or not. And if you don't have AWACS support, it still doesn't matter :wink:

-Manohar

Kartik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4612
Joined: 04 Feb 2004 12:31

Postby Kartik » 10 Mar 2007 01:15

In the subcontinental scenario, an aircraft's visual signature would be probably less of a factor than in some other places- to quote the former IAF Chief Tipnis, from his article "an ode to the MiG-21".

"Fighter pilots give a sigh of relief when the weather-man declares visibility in excess of 4 kms, for it allows unrestricted fighter flying. Four-km visibility and sighs of relief, if not cries of joy! Ha! I have flown in several countries and one can see as far as the eye would allow, sometimes one felt you could see tomorrow! It’s not that this does not occur at home, but the phenomenon is so rare (unless one flies over Ladakh) that nearly every such occasion can be recalled vividly. "

but in a different view, when visibility is such an issue, an aircraft that does hide its presence visually well, probably would have an advantage in positioning during close combat. Fighter tactics are generally such that the pilot predicts the position of the opponent in close combat and decides what to do in relation to that..if you cant see the opponent, you lose that advantage..pilots who would fly against the Fulcrum would get a good advantage in such a scenario when its smoky engines would betray its position far better than other fighters.

nevertheless, its good to know that the current RD-33 MK does'nt smoke as badly.

Shankar
BRFite
Posts: 1905
Joined: 28 Aug 2002 11:31
Location: wai -maharastra

Postby Shankar » 10 Mar 2007 11:21

Most air intercepts will take place in bad visibility that is dawn or evening or at night .It would be a foolish pilot to come teraing in at broad day light knowing the air space is guarded by mig 29s with super agility and highest slow speed turn rate and r-77/r-27 /r-73 on the pylons

Add to it the overcast skies of north east -so hardly 20% of sorties will be likely to be in a situation where optical tracking by hostile pilot is a factor

Pilots used to position themselves for attack on their own in second waorl war and korean days and as manohar said the awacs and ground intercept controlers took over that responsibility in vietnam .

Even if a falcon pilot willhave to get in close WVR range before the smoke advantage can play out to his advantage . Now once again a very mad pilot will like to entangle with a fulcrum in less than 5 km seperation horizantaly and 2 km vertically .There are better ways of commiting suicide

Mig 29s can achieve this extraordinary low speed agility because of its rd33 smoky engines and shape without thrust vectoring . With thrust vectoring and less smoky engine of mig 35 - even su-30 mkis will be in deep trouble in a one to one combat in WVR envelope

I guess some ruskie big shot did say something to this effect -dont remember who

JCage
BRFite
Posts: 1562
Joined: 09 Oct 2000 11:31

Postby JCage » 10 Mar 2007 21:03

Shankar wrote:Most air intercepts will take place in bad visibility that is dawn or evening or at night .It would be a foolish pilot to come teraing in at broad day light knowing the air space is guarded by mig 29s with super agility and highest slow speed turn rate and r-77/r-27 /r-73 on the pylons


Why foolish? Need! If the situation demands, it could be so! Secondly, a PAF F-16 Pilot with Aim-9/Amraam and JHMCS might well fancy his chances against a MiG-29 with R-73E/R-77.

Add to it the overcast skies of north east -so hardly 20% of sorties will be likely to be in a situation where optical tracking by hostile pilot is a factor


You are setting the situation to match your requirements. The visual signature of smoky engines is a valid issue, my friend.

..etc.

Shankar
BRFite
Posts: 1905
Joined: 28 Aug 2002 11:31
Location: wai -maharastra

Postby Shankar » 10 Mar 2007 21:28

JC
You mean a falcon loaded up with extra fuel/1000kg bombs and other ground to air shall come in in a clear day light with 5 km plus visibility hoping to penetrate air space guarded by smoky mig 29s equipped with r-77/73 and still leave to tale the tale .

That is why called such a pilot foolish

But then why would a falcon pilot loaded up with aim 9l/amraam come up again mig 29s over a high value target - to establish air dominace by first shooting amraam and then going in for a second shot with sidewinder by locating the fulcrum from its smoke trail

A falcon simply does not have such capability or rather relative capability particularly with a fulcrum even the a version with 35 type woh boy it is worse than a bad dream

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 23385
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Postby Austin » 10 Mar 2007 21:35

Shankar we know that you have a great liking for Mig-35 but then in your post you set your own conditions and scenerio and then declare Mig as the winner.

The smoke issue is a serious concern, Rtd ACM Krishna Sawmi had raised this question in the article written for IE where he did mentioned that the smoke is a cause for concern besides raising questions on the TOT issue associated with RD-33 since per him technologically the RD-33 dosent have much to offer and its at the end of its life , He did had words of praise for the AL-31FP

But since they say that RD-33MK is *virtually* smokeless , then it just negates a disadvantage that the Mig-29 variant had.

The Mig-35 does stand a good chance of winning MMRCA , But then so does Rafale , EF or F-18 or any other out in the race . You dont decide the winner by Airshow display or Brochoure data.

Its a broad set of matrix where they would choose which would turn out to be a good deal . Hope the best deal for India & IAF wins the day.

For me the key thing is they dont delay the decision beyond this year.

JCage
BRFite
Posts: 1562
Joined: 09 Oct 2000 11:31

Postby JCage » 10 Mar 2007 21:49

Shankar wrote:JC
You mean a falcon loaded up with extra fuel/1000kg bombs and other ground to air shall come in in a clear day light with 5 km plus visibility hoping to penetrate air space guarded by smoky mig 29s equipped with r-77/73 and still leave to tale the tale .


You think he will come unescorted?

That is why called such a pilot foolish


If you think the PAF will play according to whatever scenario we set up for them, I beg to differ.

But then why would a falcon pilot loaded up with aim 9l/amraam come up again mig 29s over a high value target - to establish air dominace by first shooting amraam and then going in for a second shot with sidewinder by locating the fulcrum from its smoke trail


The smoke trail matters acc. to every report out there, so why set up only scenarios that eliminate it?

A falcon simply does not have such capability or rather relative capability particularly with a fulcrum even the a version with 35 type woh boy it is worse than a bad dream


Sure, but real life is often about surprises. And the MiG-35 is a paper product for now, and is not even in IAF colors.

Shankar
BRFite
Posts: 1905
Joined: 28 Aug 2002 11:31
Location: wai -maharastra

Postby Shankar » 22 Mar 2007 14:01

what others think of fulcrum breed

he Mig-29 residence a hunter of extremely effective air superiority, comparable with F-16 and the F/A-18 and even superior in certain fields, in particular that of pure hunter. The MiG-29 is favoured by its reduced size and its signature relatively weak radar frontal, and by its two engines which confer to him assets of safety and survival. MiG29 has thanks to them a very high thrust/weight ratio, which a high-lift wing of weak trail comes to supplement. All these characteristics make Mig-29 apparatus with the extraordinary performances as regards turns.

the carrying fuselage, the high-lift wings, the apexes and the double drift of Mig-29 permeltent to him unequalled performances with great incidence and low speed. The rustic design of the air intake makes it possible the resistant engines of Mig-29 to continue to function even with extreme incidences and in spite of important disturbances of the flow in the air intake. The apparatus can thus carry out operations such as the repercussion on the tail and the cobra.
the new cell of Mig-29M also included/understood a dorsal edge of fuselage altered with volume interns increased. This space made it possible to place a part of the new tanks, but also contained the new active jammer sophisticated Gardeniya, and the chaff launchers (electromagnetic and infra-red). The latter transported 120 obvs, the double of the number carried by the Mig-29 basic one in its chaff launchers located at the base of the drifts. While the structural changes brought to Mig-29M did not involve increase in the tare weight, the increase in the fuel capacity involved an increase in the maximum weight on the takeoff, which was further increased by the addition of pylons of under-surface reinforced in order to allow the carrying of heavier loads. In order to exploit this potential, the MiG-29 was equipped with a reinforced landing gear, while its engines were replaced by more powerful turbopropellers RD-33K. They comprised a blower altered to increase to it flow-mass, as well as a metallurgical configuration improved (with in particular the technology of single crystal blades) to tolerate higher temperatures. They comprised digital units of control to full authority, giving an increase in thrust of approximately 5 kN per engine. The lifespan of the engine was also increased. The new RD-33K is interchangeable with the basic RD-33, and can be used to already improve the performances of Mig-29 in service.



aks
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 2
Joined: 20 Mar 2007 15:33

fulcrum

Postby aks » 22 Mar 2007 17:43

the fulcrum can't compare to other US craft in the BVR range but if the AMRAAM misses then the 2 aircraft are within 6-10 miles the fulcrum moves better..now how to miss the amraam

Also this m35 is it ready?? i've not got an answer to this Q

Shankar
BRFite
Posts: 1905
Joined: 28 Aug 2002 11:31
Location: wai -maharastra

Postby Shankar » 22 Mar 2007 18:29

he fulcrum can't compare to other US craft in the BVR range but if the AMRAAM misses then the 2 aircraft are within 6-10 miles the fulcrum moves better..now how to miss the amraam


- on what ground do you claim a fulcrum cannot match western aircrafts in BVR .The R-77 AND r-27ER principal BVR weapons on 29/35 has longer ballistic range than even AMRAAM .The present generation radar is as good and have more range for detection as well as tracking multiple targets

Maybe we are forgetting the famous cobra and tail slide and vertical scissors that a fulcrum does effectively .All these are not for air shows only(it surely creates a good impression)They are meant for evading BVR missile fired from long off and at the terminal phase of their powered flight so that these viloent evasive moves which only a fulcrum can do at rightangles to the interception track confuses the incomming missiles processor and by the time it recovers it has already run out of energy making an intercept impossible

Drevin
BRFite
Posts: 408
Joined: 21 Sep 2006 12:27

Postby Drevin » 22 Mar 2007 18:31

If the pre-req for the MRCA plane is an AESA Rafale and Typhoon get booted isn't it? Rafale F3 is going to fly only early next year and F3 doesn't have the AESA. Its only in 2011 that F4 with AESA will enter production ....

Shankar
BRFite
Posts: 1905
Joined: 28 Aug 2002 11:31
Location: wai -maharastra

Postby Shankar » 22 Mar 2007 18:32

Range
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vympel_R-77

The R-77's main advantage over the AIM-120 AMRAAM, is in range. The longer range is because the R-77 is a larger 200 mm vs 178 mm (8 vs 7 in), heavier 175 vs 150 kg (386 vs 335 lb) missile than the AMRAAM and contains more propellant. Like most AAM weapons, the claimed range is for a non-maneuvering target, at a high altitude, and probably on a head on aspect with a respectable closing rate. Lower altitudes, rear aspect, or maneuvering targets will all reduce this range, but the same applies to the AMRAAM.

The planned upgrade of the AIM-120, the AIM-120D, is to have a much greater (+50%) range and thus no-escape zone which will exceed that of the standard R-77 by a large margin. It is unknown how the AIM-120D will compare to the R-77M design in terms of range.

General characteristics
Engine Solid fuel rocket motor (R-77), air-breathing ramjet (R-77M1)
Launch mass 175 kg (R-77), 226 kg (R-77M1)
Length 3.6 m (R-77)
Diameter 200 mm
Wingspan 350 mm
Speed over Mach 4 (R-77)
Range 90 km (R-77), 175 km (R-77M1)
Flying altitude 5m-25 km (16.5-82,000 ft)
Warhead 30 kg HE, fragmenting
Guidance Inertial with mid-course update and terminal active radar homing
Fuzes laser proximity fuze
Launch platform Mikoyan MiG-29, Mikoyan MiG-31, Mikoyan MiG-35, Sukhoi Su-27SM, Sukhoi Su-30, Sukhoi Su-34, Sukhoi Su-35, Sukhoi Su-37, Sukhoi Su-47, Yakovlev Yak-141
Future Platforms:
HAL Tejas, Sukhoi PAK F

Shankar
BRFite
Posts: 1905
Joined: 28 Aug 2002 11:31
Location: wai -maharastra

Postby Shankar » 22 Mar 2007 18:41

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AIM-120_AMRAAM

General characteristics
Engine High-performance directed rocket motor
Launch mass 335 lb (152 kg)
Length 12 ft (3.66 m)
Diameter 7 in (178 mm)
Wingspan 20.7 in (526 mm) (AIM-120A/B)
Speed Mach 4
Range AIM-120A/B: 75 km (45 mi)

AIM-120C-5: 105 km (65 mi)
AIM-120D: >180km (112 mi)
Warhead High explosive blast-fragmentation

AIM-120A/B: 50 pounds (23 kg) WDU-33/B blast-fragmentation
AIM-120C-5: 40 pounds (18 kg) WDU-41/B blast-fragmentation
Guidance INS, active radar
Launch platform Aircraft:

* AV-8B+ Harrier II
* BAE Sea Harrier
* Eurofighter Typhoon
* F-4 Phantom II
* F-15 Eagle
* F-15E Strike Eagle
* F-16
* F/A-18 Hornet
* F/A-18E/F Super Hornet
* F-22 Raptor
* F-5S/T
* Panavia Tornado
* Saab Gripen
* Saab Viggen
Surface launched:
* NASAMS


Return to “Military Issues Archive”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests