Jump to content

MiG-35's new systems - OLS


Recommended Posts

What's high agility?

You think 60 deg constant AoA, control under zero speed or negative AoA isn't agile? :)

No, we can't agree on that one point, since it's pretty much wrong. :)

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Reminder: SAM = Speed Bump :D

I used to play flight sims like you, but then I took a slammer to the knee - Yoda

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 115
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Here comes the defense with 'they show what their planes can do with aerobatics, but not real world combat maneuvers, like the F-16 and F-15 do'

 

Hint, learn Russian and listen to what the pilots that fly demo routines have to say about their maneuvers, they say such maneuvers are also used in A-A combat, but others, which are probably more impressive are not shown during demonstration flights. So this excuse saying the 'teen' fighters are holding back during airshows while the Russians push their planes to the limit is specatum tauri (bullshit).

 

The F-16, even the mightly B.60 never got operational avionics on par with the F-22 at least (F-35's are more advanced), this is why the Mig-35 is considered to be 'the shit' multirole wise. They should've kept the Mig-29M2 designation though, as it's still the Mig-29, be it with more internal fuel, better engines and modern avionics. Mig-29++ is what the -35 should be called. The ones that sell the -35 call it a '4++ generation plane'; 4th gen airframe, with 5th gen avionics.

Still, the F-35 with HMD and synthetic aided vision (augmented reality was the right term, right?) will be 'the shit' avionics wise though. Its ass will be whooped by a Mig-35 in close combat, but I doubt that's going to matter with all those high of-bore missiles these days. Which brings our discussion back to square one: first look, first shot, first kill. And now datalinking comes into play, AWACS, ground based radars, you name it, will be the decisive factor in such (future) battles.

Now somebody should invent a fighter based datalinking-hacking software. Yes I've been watching Battlestar Galactica too much :P

Creedence Clearwater Revival:worthy:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The newer models (F-22, F-35) are not as agile as the MiG-35. Period.

 

That's funny, considering the F-22 has better instantaneous and sustained turn-rates than ANYTHING out there, especially in the SUPERSONIC and TRANSONIC flight regime where agility actually counts for something. But I guess your PhD in aeronautical engineering makes you some kind of expert able to make "credible" statements like what you said above.

 

And...oh wait, we're comparing the in-service F-22 to not-in-service Russian fighters again aren't we?

 

But I speak only of agility here. So I only have the one point: agility. I think the Russian planes own that category insofar as operational fighter planes is concerned. Surely we can agree on that one point?:smilewink:

Flyby out

 

Outside of attempting to make a self-fulfilling prophecy out of white-paper nonsense, how much do you really know about the F-22 and/or Russian aircraft? What operational Russian fighter would even come close to the transonic/supersonic performance of the F-22?

 

My guess is also that you don’t know anything about the much classified Pirate system!

 

Oh yeah, and *you* would, because you have access to such classified information unlike the rest of us. HAHAHA! :megalol:

 

Stealth system was hacked already in 1998 by Czech Tamara anti-stealth radar.

And again by a British invention:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.../11/nbom11.xml

 

Hmm, stealth can't be "hacked" because it's a physical phenomenon (like electricity, or buoyancy), NOT a computer one. But maybe that's why you keep undermining stealth - because you keep thinking it's some kind of computer program that can be hacked by a 14 year old kid from his basement.

sigzk5.jpg
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Someone trying to tell me that Russian top line fighters aren't as maneuverable as American top line fighters? Well I guess the stunts I see in videos are enhanced somehow.

I guess I failed the old saw: " in God we trust; all others bring data" I got no data. Just excercising my "everyone has one" rights. But I see a lot of that here, so I don't feel so bad.;)

Flyby out

The U.S. Congress is the best governing body that BIG money can buy. :cry:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hmm, stealth can't be "hacked" because it's a physical phenomenon (like electricity, or buoyancy), NOT a computer one. But maybe that's why you keep undermining stealth - because you keep thinking it's some kind of computer program that can be hacked by a 14 year old kid from his basement.

 

That article describes detection.

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]



64th "Scorpions" Aggressor Squadron

Discord: 64th Aggressor Squadron

TS: 195.201.110.22

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That article describes detection.

 

No, I know. I was just responding to his statement that stealth was "hacked."

 

I guess I failed the old saw: " in God we trust; all others bring data" I got no data. Just excercising my "everyone has one" rights. But I see a lot of that here, so I don't feel so bad.;)

Flyby out

 

Everyone has a right to an opinion, not to pass of their own opinion as fact.

sigzk5.jpg
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Frankly, I think we should discuss the interesting new systems the Mig-35 has on board. If we are going to measure anything new on an aircraft by its anti-stealth powers we will end up very disappointed.

 

No, the 787 dreamliner is NOT an anti-stealth plane either. And no, the downward-looking sensor on the Mig-35's belly is NOT meant to see if by any chance an F-22 is sneeking down below. In my view its is a Russian built-in proposal to match operational systems like Sniper-XR or Litening III, which ANY airforce is eager to have nowadays. And this is again NOT because some guy must have spotted an F-22 through a Sniper pod while overflying Edwards AFB ;)

 

The Mig-35 is meant to match the performance of the many MRCA contenders and their systems. I do not even think that supermanoevrability is a requirement. Advanced A2G systems are, most likely.

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Flyby, are you part of the 99th Skywolves? If so, when did they get together? And if so, Force_Feedback sends you a big Hi how's the squad?

 

Stealth systems can be 'hacked' by using radar receivers placed apart from the transmitter, that's how the Ukrainian Kolchuga ESM system works (700km detection range for H=20km targets), it detects all the RF emissions (working electric systems, datalink transmitters, moving parts creating oscillations) from a stealth aircraft, while remaining passive the wole time. This, datalinked to a good SAM system/airborne interceptor makes it possible to detect stealth aircraft at great ranges. Unlike the Chech VERA this system has a maximum detection range of 800km, giving ample time to detect stealth technology based intrudors, be it the F-22 or a hypothetical black program aircraft like the Aurora. I remember the US got seriousely pissed a few years ago when Ukraine tried selling an export version of the system to Iraq. Not that they would have any advantage with it, since most of their SAMs were either inoperational or seriousely outdated. But that international 'incident' was, IMHO, a clear statement that the system indeed works as advertised.

 

Again, the Mig-35 is not meant for battling stealth aircraft, but for your 'day to day' insurgent busting, so it doesn't even need supermaneuvrability or forward looking itelligent EOS (IEOS) systems. Unless you're naive enough to think those missile warning systems are made for A-A missiles :P

Creedence Clearwater Revival:worthy:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Oh yeah, and *you* would, because you have access to such classified information unlike the rest of us. HAHAHA! :megalol:

.

 

Where did I say that I have? ;)

 

Hmm, stealth can't be "hacked" because it's a physical phenomenon (like electricity, or buoyancy), NOT a computer one. But maybe that's why you keep undermining stealth - because you keep thinking it's some kind of computer program that can be hacked by a 14 year old kid from his basement.

 

It is not stealth that is hacked! It is the WWII radar technology that is/was hacked

(btw kind of stealth invented by a Russian scientist)

I mean not “hacked” like a specific computer-hack but “hacked” like an effective counter-measure.

(Sorry again for the poor vocabulary English)

DELL Intel® Core™ i7 Processor 940 2,93 GHz @3 GHz, 8 MB cache | 8.192 MB 1.067 MHz Tri Channel DDR3

| 512 MB ATI® Radeon™ 4850 | 500 GB 7200 rpm Serial ATA | Samsung SM 2693 HM 25.5 " | HOTAS Cougar Thrustmaster |

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry FF, different 99th (Redtails of IL2 actually).

D-Scythe you mean Russian A/C being more agile than US A/C is not fact?! :D Wellllllll...maybe not. I once saw a program where F/A 18s went up against German MiG-29 in mock combat, and the US navy pilots had to give up the props. Maybe I just watch good propaganda shows and see their planes doing stunts ours can't.

But I suppose you may be right. Then again, I wasn't exactly passing an opinion off as fact so much as I was bearing witness to what I see Russian operational a/c do as oppposed to what I see American operational a/c do. These's MK-1s say those Russian a/c are more agile.

Flyby

The U.S. Congress is the best governing body that BIG money can buy. :cry:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just where in the world did you get that number? NATO web site?

 

There were seventeen confirmed mobile units that were destroyed during 72 days of NATO’s use of military over Yugoslavia. All other “kills” was either decoys, or civilian targets.

 

There was an article in Newsweek magazine discussing the number of targets destroyed by NATO with general Clark on front page. That article was amazing stating some things that I can not say here because I would be banned. Basically NATO grossly overstated the number of destroyed mobile targets.

 

Does it matter? (But it was indeed NATO source and I saved everything on my HD)

I do already consider it as a failure anyway.

DELL Intel® Core™ i7 Processor 940 2,93 GHz @3 GHz, 8 MB cache | 8.192 MB 1.067 MHz Tri Channel DDR3

| 512 MB ATI® Radeon™ 4850 | 500 GB 7200 rpm Serial ATA | Samsung SM 2693 HM 25.5 " | HOTAS Cougar Thrustmaster |

Link to comment
Share on other sites

D-Scythe you mean Russian A/C being more agile than US A/C is not fact?! :D Wellllllll...maybe not. I once saw a program where F/A 18s went up against German MiG-29 in mock combat, and the US navy pilots had to give up the props.

 

Great, so you're basing your entire perspective on a Discovery channel program where F/A-18 pilots gave their German counterparts "props" for a good training session. Now there's a solid factual base for an opinion if I ever saw one.

 

These's MK-1s say those Russian a/c are more agile.

 

Yet another victim of the Cobra. The more I think about it, the more I believe that such airshow maneuvers are a weapon for use against the public, rather than having any military significance.

 

Stealth systems can be 'hacked' by using radar receivers placed apart from the transmitter, that's how the Ukrainian Kolchuga ESM system works (700km detection range for H=20km targets), it detects all the RF emissions (working electric systems, datalink transmitters, moving parts creating oscillations) from a stealth aircraft, while remaining passive the wole time. This, datalinked to a good SAM system/airborne interceptor makes it possible to detect stealth aircraft at great ranges. Unlike the Chech VERA this system has a maximum detection range of 800km, giving ample time to detect stealth technology based intrudors, be it the F-22 or a hypothetical black program aircraft like the Aurora. I remember the US got seriousely pissed a few years ago when Ukraine tried selling an export version of the system to Iraq. Not that they would have any advantage with it, since most of their SAMs were either inoperational or seriousely outdated. But that international 'incident' was, IMHO, a clear statement that the system indeed works as advertised.

 

Of course, the F-22 was designed with the very powerful, passive ALR-94 sensor suite of its own, plus its easier for an AESA radar to fool any RWR/ESM receivers than a normal mechanically scanned one. Oh wait, the F-22 has a datalink of its own, so that each fighter can share information with minimal use of radar or any other active sensor. Plus when it is turned on, its AESA sends out pencil beams to track targets, rather than flood entire cubic kilometers of airspace with RF energy like normal radars, so that might also be a teensy weensy problem for passive ESM sensors that are not being tracked by radar.

 

Oh, I can't believe I forgot....did I mention that an F-22 doesn't actually need to turn on the APG-77 to kill things with AMRAAM/SDB? (surprise surprise, Lockheed and the USAF designed the F-22 with emission control in mind)

 

Great, now I'm starting to sound like an advertisement for Lockheed Martin, a boring drone that just repeatedly sprouts out how great the omnipotent Raptor is. And it blows. Can we just cut to the part where the F-22 crowd gets tired of explaining things and the anti-F-22 crowd repeats "every weapon has a weakness" and get on with our lives?

sigzk5.jpg
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The fact that so few tanks were hit in the yugo war was because of weather and difficult terrain. WHere a cloud wouldnt hide them, a mountain would. Theres lot of deep valeys in there, and of course the camouflage.

 

So all the avionics, Data links, FLIRs, IIR seaker heads and shit developed for decades mean nothing in war on a windy, cloudy day somewhere in the mountains...

 

Perhaps those systems were developed in desert plains of Nevada and New Mexico, with targets with overheated engines, puffing orange smoke and waving "Hello, Can U see me" to those Thunderbolt drivers during evaluation trainings.

 

It's a fact that terrain made it's share here, armour in the valleys cooling under tree lines made one pass-haul ass tactic unacceptable and preplanned CAS was also impossible because Serbia had lots of informers near main NATO airbases that informed Yugoslav army of launching aircraft. They had entire hour to redeploy somewhere else.

 

The main reason for such low kill ratio was pretty high ingress alt that NATO pilots used to avoid MANPADS and AAA. Most Serbian SAMs were silent during AF and presented no big deal to NATO aviation. But IR MANPADS are impossible to spot unless you or your wingmen actually see the launch. So Mavs and CBUs that are commonly used for armour destruction are seriousely ineffective when launched from Angels 20.

 

But there's a good point that someone made: F-22 active, MiG-35 maybe...someday in the future. Believe me, serial production is questionable, be it funds or actual need for something like that.

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yet another victim of the Cobra. The more I think about it, the more I believe that such airshow maneuvers are a weapon for use against the public, rather than having any military significance.

 

 

Actualy its a good tactic. Western media is less tolerant to war casualties. With so many people believing russia has an upper hand in the air, they will be screaming their goverments to get out before any aircraft actualy meet in the air. Thats as good as real missile shots.

 

If western politics always makes public annoucements made by NATO officers make them sound like sharlatans, every other side that has ever faced it always play far better in the psicological warfare front. I loved the Iraqui minister of (des)information! :D

[sigpic]http://forums.eagle.ru/signaturepics/sigpic4448_29.gif[/sigpic]

My PC specs below:

Case: Corsair 400C

PSU: SEASONIC SS-760XP2 760W Platinum

CPU: AMD RYZEN 3900X (12C/24T)

RAM: 32 GB 4266Mhz (two 2x8 kits) of trident Z RGB @3600Mhz CL 14 CR=1T

MOBO: ASUS CROSSHAIR HERO VI AM4

GFX: GTX 1080Ti MSI Gaming X

Cooler: NXZT Kraken X62 280mm AIO

Storage: Samsung 960 EVO 1TB M.2+6GB WD 6Gb red

HOTAS: Thrustmaster Warthog + CH pro pedals

Monitor: Gigabyte AORUS AD27QD Freesync HDR400 1440P

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

OK D-S,

What the Navy guy sad was basically that in combat maneuvering, the power of the 29 allowed him to easily climb steeply away from the F/A-18 to where he could not follow. That was the gist of it. And yes, the Cobra is impressive, as is the tailslide. I have not seen American fightrers of the same generation perform either of these. Both the Flanker and the Fulcrum have been performing them for years. I'm a fan of fancy flying. If an aircraft can dazzle me, I like that. If others can compete, well fine. If not well that's fine too. I'm human so I'll choose the dazzler. So sue me for having my partiallities. D'oh! What's that about Lockheed_Martin you say?

OK. I've had enough now.

  • Like 1

The U.S. Congress is the best governing body that BIG money can buy. :cry:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

he guys, I realize we are getting carried away from our main focus: the Mig-35 OLS system. In my view a nice system, but not so innovative since nearly everyone is buying Raphael's LDP pods and the Europeans are integrating similar systems on Rafale and Typhoon, each with its classic bunch of problems related to this technology.

 

I do not even know if integrating them into the airframe is such a good idea, since these things evolve so quickly in regard to resolution. Belgium swapped its lantirn pods for snipers, UK is swapping TIALD for Litening and Sniper (if I only knew the difference), etc.

 

Maybe a simple external pod is all you need, then add to it the ROVER system to downlink the videostream to Ground Troops. Anyway, selling a fighter without such a capability is imho completely impossible today.

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

For the moment I can only see one way to touch the precious F-22: the S-400 :D.

Not even ...

 

Maybe not yet today but soon: further military upgrades/inventions are more and more focused to counter the stealth fighter!

 

Russia to deploy S-400 air defense systems around Moscow Aug. 6:

http://en.rian.ru/russia/20070725/69607443.html

 

 

 

 

 

DELL Intel® Core™ i7 Processor 940 2,93 GHz @3 GHz, 8 MB cache | 8.192 MB 1.067 MHz Tri Channel DDR3

| 512 MB ATI® Radeon™ 4850 | 500 GB 7200 rpm Serial ATA | Samsung SM 2693 HM 25.5 " | HOTAS Cougar Thrustmaster |

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Cobra was possible and was performed by US aircraft back when missiles weren't available yet ... in one form or another. I believe it was John Boyd that used to love it. It wasn't really called the Cobra back then though ;)

 

So ... it's not that the USAF couldn't have specified that its aircraft do this - question is, why didn't they care quite so much for it, and was it a mistake, or no?

 

 

OK D-S,

What the Navy guy sad was basically that in combat maneuvering, the power of the 29 allowed him to easily climb steeply away from the F/A-18 to where he could not follow. That was the gist of it. And yes, the Cobra is impressive, as is the tailslide. I have not seen American fightrers of the same generation perform either of these. Both the Flanker and the Fulcrum have been performing them for years. I'm a fan of fancy flying. If an aircraft can dazzle me, I like that. If others can compete, well fine. If not well that's fine too. I'm human so I'll choose the dazzler. So sue me for having my partiallities. D'oh! What's that about Lockheed_Martin you say?

OK. I've had enough now.

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Reminder: SAM = Speed Bump :D

I used to play flight sims like you, but then I took a slammer to the knee - Yoda

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's right - the MiG-29 is an energy fighter, the F-18 the angles fighter when they meet up. The energy fighter is not the more agile one. ;) In fact, agility is typically associated with turn capability.

 

So, the MiG-29 pilot did the right thing, but did you by any chance notice, in the same program, that in his attempt to loop around the F-18 he breached the hard deck and was considered a maneuver kill?

 

Not that this happens all the time or anything - point is, both aircraft are of the 'single advantage, single disadvantage' type against each other ... so whoever throws the other guy out of his preferred mode of combat will likely win. The 'better pilot' and all that.

 

There's nothing impressive here - it's like the F4 vs. the MiG-21 ... only the roles are reversed, and it's the MiG that's the slog and has to go vertical.

 

OK D-S,

What the Navy guy sad was basically that in combat maneuvering, the power of the 29 allowed him to easily climb steeply away from the F/A-18 to where he could not follow. That was the gist of it.

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Reminder: SAM = Speed Bump :D

I used to play flight sims like you, but then I took a slammer to the knee - Yoda

Link to comment
Share on other sites

OK, OK

 

I yield. ;) I missed the hard deck_kill thing in that episode. Hey can a Hornet really out-turn a MiG-29? Can a Falcon? I wonder if either case has ever been established. Any Lockon veterans here care to report their virtual dogfighting experiences flying the Fulcrum against these NATO fighters? Is it a matter of cornering speeds?.

Flyby out

 

That's right - the MiG-29 is an energy fighter, the F-18 the angles fighter when they meet up. The energy fighter is not the more agile one. ;) In fact, agility is typically associated with turn capability.

 

So, the MiG-29 pilot did the right thing, but did you by any chance notice, in the same program, that in his attempt to loop around the F-18 he breached the hard deck and was considered a maneuver kill?

 

Not that this happens all the time or anything - point is, both aircraft are of the 'single advantage, single disadvantage' type against each other ... so whoever throws the other guy out of his preferred mode of combat will likely win. The 'better pilot' and all that.

 

There's nothing impressive here - it's like the F4 vs. the MiG-21 ... only the roles are reversed, and it's the MiG that's the slog and has to go vertical.

The U.S. Congress is the best governing body that BIG money can buy. :cry:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, it depends, as usual. The F-16 likes to be fast. The MiG has good high AoA control, but the hornet's better. So it's all about bringing the other guy into a situation that's advantageous to yourself - ie. an F-18 wants to make the MiG slow ... an F-16 wants to stay at corner and keep the fight fast (though dogfights typically devolved into low and slow affairs if not finished quickly)

 

There's nothing miraculous about Russian planes, not USAF planes in terms of airframes. Really - they're just designed with different philosophies and that's all there is to that.

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Reminder: SAM = Speed Bump :D

I used to play flight sims like you, but then I took a slammer to the knee - Yoda

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have to ask my brother about this, hes in Australia right now, and for the next 2 weeks. But he already told me that the F-16 is vertical manuever happy, and thats a block 15, a block 50 has 2 extra tonnes of thrust. The corner speed he says is overrated because theres a miriad of situations where the F-16 can axcell other than flat turns. I read that westenr pilots have had difficulties doing vertical manuevers like this in the mig-29, because it require much manual imput to compensate or else it will diverge from the intended trajectory.

 

His stories are amazing, you wouldnt believe how many things I have found about his records that matches what we've been doing with gunzo online (sadly I cant tell them all).

 

He has aplied a manuever I described him once: merge with a lower altitude than the bandit, pull a nearly vertical high yo-yo (bad description but I cant do better) and then sling behind his instructor unseen with the sun behind him. That made me raise me eyebrows. I do the exact same thing. Except he started going up no faster than 350 miles/h in order spare some G stress early in the fight. I usualy do this no slower than 800km/h in the flanker, any slower it will struggle at the top.

[sigpic]http://forums.eagle.ru/signaturepics/sigpic4448_29.gif[/sigpic]

My PC specs below:

Case: Corsair 400C

PSU: SEASONIC SS-760XP2 760W Platinum

CPU: AMD RYZEN 3900X (12C/24T)

RAM: 32 GB 4266Mhz (two 2x8 kits) of trident Z RGB @3600Mhz CL 14 CR=1T

MOBO: ASUS CROSSHAIR HERO VI AM4

GFX: GTX 1080Ti MSI Gaming X

Cooler: NXZT Kraken X62 280mm AIO

Storage: Samsung 960 EVO 1TB M.2+6GB WD 6Gb red

HOTAS: Thrustmaster Warthog + CH pro pedals

Monitor: Gigabyte AORUS AD27QD Freesync HDR400 1440P

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have to ask my brother about this, hes in Australia right now, and for the next 2 weeks. But he already told me that the F-16 is vertical manuever happy, and thats a block 15, a block 50 has 2 extra tonnes of thrust. The corner speed he says is overrated because theres a miriad of situations where the F-16 can axcell other than flat turns. I read that westenr pilots have had difficulties doing vertical manuevers like this in the mig-29, because it require much manual imput to compensate or else it will diverge from the intended trajectory.

 

His stories are amazing, you wouldnt believe how many things I have found about his records that matches what we've been doing with gunzo online (sadly I cant tell them all).

 

He has aplied a manuever I described him once: merge with a lower altitude than the bandit, pull a nearly vertical high yo-yo (bad description but I cant do better) and then sling behind his instructor unseen with the sun behind him. That made me raise me eyebrows. I do the exact same thing. Except he started going up no faster than 350 miles/h in order spare some G stress early in the fight. I usualy do this no slower than 800km/h in the flanker, any slower it will struggle at the top.

 

 

But the lighter F-16A block 15 compensates this because it has a lighter frame (in case of the F100 upgrade: Performance of the F100 (used in the Belgium F-16A/B MLU) is today comparable with the F110-132 engine being developed by General Electric, which produces 145kN of thrust or 32000 pounds of thrust).

 

I do recall that the maneuver (you describe) was used against rookies by instructors (I can’t remember which documentary it was) Hey, maybe your bro was also tricked by his instructor and tells it now different to impress his (little) (anyway younger?) brother. :D

DELL Intel® Core™ i7 Processor 940 2,93 GHz @3 GHz, 8 MB cache | 8.192 MB 1.067 MHz Tri Channel DDR3

| 512 MB ATI® Radeon™ 4850 | 500 GB 7200 rpm Serial ATA | Samsung SM 2693 HM 25.5 " | HOTAS Cougar Thrustmaster |

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...