Red Coalition Planes...

[nighthawk2174]

Something else is with this is just the fact that the radars on the soviet aircraft of the period were just downright inferior to their western counterparts.  And the R27/R24 being SARH missiles this is a  big weak point in the system; the host radar.  I got walked through a bit of information a friend had, at this point it was about 3-4 years ago.  He got access to some in depth documentation on the slotback 1 in particular and the slotback 2 to a lesser extent and they both had major issues.  One downside that I recall is that for the slotback 1 it was very finicky in getting a solid STT lock it could take up to 30sec or more to establish a solid lock.  I know there was much more but I've forgotten most of it.  All I remember for certain was that he was shocked by how bad they actually were and was able to talk for quite some time about this.  The way i've viewed and now employ soviet aircraft in my liberation campaigns is as a piece of the Airdefense network.  Helping keep strikers off of sam's never going 1 on 1 with western aircraft.  Which seems to be just how they were designed not as a standalone system but as part of a network.  Alone they suffer quite badly. 

 

Additionally there is the RMD1 and RMD 2 archer correct?  When did each variant enter service in usable numbers?

Edited April 8, 2021 by nighthawk2174

[Skysurfer]

Also found this interesting reference (video in link) from last year about the refublished R-27's - so it does seem like Russia is indeed modernizing already existing R-27's from it's stock and like in this case selling them to their partners.

 

https://www.tvr.by/eng/news/obshchestvo/30_upravlyaemykh_raket_r_27_klassa_vozdukh_vozdukh_postupili_na_vooruzhenie_belorusskoy_armii/

 

12 minutes ago, nighthawk2174 said:

 

Additionally there is the RMD1 and RMD 2 archer correct?  When did each variant enter service in usable numbers?

 

 

Don't know the specific IOC's for both out of the top of my head but correct, there is an RMD1 and RMD2, the 2 having better offbore lockon capability. There days there's the R-74M, which has a longer burn time and improved off bore capability and seeker - however, it's still a traditional cooled IR seeker and not an FPA seeker, which is believed to be projected for the further development or straight up replacement of the Archer. 

Edited April 8, 2021 by Skysurfer

[TaxDollarsAtWork]

5 hours ago, nighthawk2174 said:

Something else is with this is just the fact that the radars on the soviet aircraft of the period were just downright inferior to their western counterparts.  And the R27/R24 being SARH missiles this is a  big weak point in the system; the host radar.  I got walked through a bit of information a friend had, at this point it was about 3-4 years ago.  He got access to some in depth documentation on the slotback 1 in particular and the slotback 2 to a lesser extent and they both had major issues.  One downside that I recall is that for the slotback 1 it was very finicky in getting a solid STT lock it could take up to 30sec or more to establish a solid lock.  I know there was much more but I've forgotten most of it.  All I remember for certain was that he was shocked by how bad they actually were and was able to talk for quite some time about this.  The way i've viewed and now employ soviet aircraft in my liberation campaigns is as a piece of the Airdefense network.  Helping keep strikers off of sam's never going 1 on 1 with western aircraft.  Which seems to be just how they were designed not as a standalone system but as part of a network.  Alone they suffer quite badly. 

 

Additionally there is the RMD1 and RMD 2 archer correct?  When did each variant enter service in usable numbers?

 

About 1984 on the -1

A RuAF guy said the -2 was available in 1995 in Russian service and 1997 for export

the R-74M came around 2015

The 74 and -2 should have the same off bore look angles

R-74M uses a MK-2200 instead of MK-80 seeker might pull more G not sure on that

Edited April 9, 2021 by TaxDollarsAtWork

[TaxDollarsAtWork]

On 3/29/2021 at 5:18 PM, GGTharos said:

 

The USN fighters did, and they were just as 'sophisticated' and as easy to jam.   A squadron of F-15's (the Elmendorf birds) and F-14Ds got Link-16 well before anyone else did (up to then the USN was using Link-4 IIRC)

 

 

Link-16 is fed by everything and everyone who has access to the appropriate gateways (if they're using something different from Link-16) including ground forces, and I don't mean SAMs.

 

 

The measure of the system at that time was estimated at an exchange ratio of 4-6 flankers per eagle shot down, so I wouldn't call it 'more or less even'.

 

I was under the impression that squadron in the 90s had JTIDS not Link 16

[nighthawk2174]

1 minute ago, TaxDollarsAtWork said:

I was under the impression that squadron in the 90s had JTIDS not Link 16

There was one squadron that got it but it was abandoned as they waited for a datalink system that could also be incorporated into the viper as the JTIDS was too large or in some way incompatible with the electronics bay in the viper.  As such only one squadron got it until in the late 90's (99?) or early 2000's.  Going off of memory here but ^ is what I remember could be wrong so don't quote me.

[TaxDollarsAtWork]

1 minute ago, nighthawk2174 said:

There was one squadron that got it but it was abandoned as they waited for a datalink system that could also be incorporated into the viper as the JTIDS was too large or in some way incompatible with the electronics bay in the viper.  As such only one squadron got it until in the late 90's (99?) or early 2000's.  Going off of memory here but ^ is what I remember could be wrong so don't quote me.

An Eagle Squadron correct?

Im also hazy on the details

[nighthawk2174]

Just now, TaxDollarsAtWork said:

An Eagle Squadron correct?

Im also hazy on the details

Yeah it was an eagle squadron.  No clue where they were but there was one.

[GGTharos]

46 minutes ago, TaxDollarsAtWork said:

An Eagle Squadron correct?

Im also hazy on the details

 

Link-16 is basically the data format and rules, JTIDS is the physical radio system implementing Link-16.   So yes, those F-15s based out of Elmendorf had a JTIDS terminal which operated their Link-16 ... link.

The reason that only those aircraft got it is because it was very ambitious and expensive at that point.  Miniaturization allowed a lot of capability to be put into something lighter and far more reliable, which is why the various tiers of JTIDS (MIDS, or LVT) were put into fighters later rather than sooner.

Edited April 9, 2021 by GGTharos

[TotenDead]

9 часов назад, Skysurfer сказал:

 

All valid points. There was a 2-3 year transitional period around 90-91. However, the R-27ER entered full service and mass scale production only around 87-88. It did not just come "a little later" - it's a known fact and confirmed by both historians and former crews and engineers. The 77 (RVV-AE) never entered service with the RuAF, only the 77-1 did in 2012-14 (RVV-SD for export). The Mig-31/Zaslon and AA-9 Amos combination was indeed an area where there was some sort of parity, if mostly intended to hit large bombers and AWACS, despite initial issues with its radar and datalink it was the first true PESA radar on a fighter/interceptor.

 

And AIM-120 quantities were high right from 1991. That's why US navy relied mainly on Aim-7 up until mid 2000s

 

9 часов назад, Skysurfer сказал:

 

Why don't you reference real world documents such as weapon employment manuals and talk to people who actually flew these aircraft?

You were referenced to real documents, but you failed to understand that. 75km detection range against 3m2 target isn't my imaginary number.

9 часов назад, Skysurfer сказал:

There are more than enough reports and combat evaluations out there. Especially once the Germans got their hands on the 29A (9.12).

Which reported that early 1980s planes were inferiour to early to mid 90s with 90s weapons. Wow, what a surprise.

9 часов назад, Skysurfer сказал:

Point is, the Mig-29 radar is inferior to any western BVR platform (apart from the 16A with the APG-66).

More like to any F-16A up to block 15 included. And you might be shocked, but.... MiG-29 is a light fighter, tf are you comparing it to heavy dogs? Was F-16A better that anything 4th gen USSR had? No, it wasnt. So oof, americans had the worst 4th gen plane in those days, what a pity.

9 часов назад, Skysurfer сказал:

 Я бы вам очень посоветовал выучить историю и поговорить с персоналом и лётчиками, которых у нас на форуме есть достаточно.

Я бы вам очень посоветовал послушать интервью немецкого летчика Хирла о том на сколько МиГ-29 был "плох" (нет). И научиться не скакать с темы на тему пытаясь оправдать свою безосновательную нелюбовь к МиГ-29. Ты сказал, что 29 не мог в дальний воздушный бой - тебя мокнули лицом в ошибку, так ты сразу попытался облить самолет грязью с другой стороны. Зачем, почему, к чему, для чего, на кой?

[draconus]

12 hours ago, Skysurfer said:

Ok, then you also know that your RWR shuts off whenever you have a STT lock?

You mean the Mig-29 9.12? And that is your answer to the reduced FC3 radars detection/lock ranges?

[nighthawk2174]

2 hours ago, TotenDead said:

 

And AIM-120 quantities were high right from 1991. That's why US navy relied mainly on Aim-7 up until mid 2000s

Yeah maybe not enough to equip every unit but they were being flown on F15 squadrons in 91.  So while you'd probably have a mix of 7's and 120's there was probably enough of them by the early 90's (92-94) to be something you had to deeply worry about.  And same would be for the ER.  

Quote

You were referenced to real documents, but you failed to understand that. 75km detection range against 3m2 target isn't my imaginary number.

This is for the 29S plus this is in (HPRF?) look up in look down that range is significantly less without jamming.

Quote

Which reported that early 1980s planes were inferiour to early to mid 90s with 90s weapons. Wow, what a surprise.

Both were 1980's designs the AMRAAM started development in the early 80's but delays saw it get delayed from its original goal of mid 80's launch to the early 90's.  And both the 29 and 27 were developed in the 80s and launched that same decade. Ontop of that it had to be made smaller than was originally wanted so it could fit on the F16 (iirc it was supposed to be sparrow sized at first but this had to be dropped so imagine an SD10 but in 85 if this requirement had not existed)

Quote

More like to any F-16A up to block 15 included. And you might be shocked, but.... MiG-29 is a light fighter, tf are you comparing it to heavy dogs?

It would have to fight them, the F15/F14, as these would be the primary A/A fighters that that the Soviets would run into.  Sure the F16 would probably fill in gaps in a fighter role but they would almost certainly be primarily strikers.

Quote

Was F-16A better that anything 4th gen USSR had? No, it wasnt. So oof, americans had the worst 4th gen plane in those days, what a pity.

I'd argue it was at a minimum at parity with the mig29A.  It had better range, a wider array of weapons, and great performance.  And imo the 29A is absolutely inferior to the 16C blk30 (especially amraam equipped ones).  Again for the same reasons plus now better sensors and man-machine interface in the F16C.

Quote

I would strongly advise you to listen to an interview with German pilot Hirl about how bad the MiG-29 was (no). And learn not to jump from topic to topic trying to justify your baseless dislike for the MiG-29. You said that 29 could not have been in a long-range air battle - they got your face wet in a mistake, so you immediately tried to throw mud on the plane from the other side. Why, why, why, why, why?

I don't think it would have performed well at all, its sensors were quite poor, it has exceptionally poor range, and the performance of the F15/F14 is quite exceptional.  Against the F16 sure the K/L rates would probably be much better.  But the archer isn't an end all be all missile and the 9M isn't a bad missile either.

Edited April 9, 2021 by nighthawk2174

[TotenDead]

1 час назад, nighthawk2174 сказал:

Yeah maybe not enough to equip every unit but they were being flown on F15 squadrons in 91.  So while you'd probably have a mix of 7's and 120's there was probably enough of them by the early 90's (92-94) to be something you had to deeply worry about.  And same would be for the ER.  

Maybe yes, maybe no, and so on. By that time USSR collapsed, Russia and USA became "friends" so there was thought to be nothing to worry about, and both MiG-29 modernisations and R-77 became history.

1 час назад, nighthawk2174 сказал:

This is for the 29S plus this is in (HPRF?) look up in look down that range is significantly less without jamming.

Nope, for a non-warsaw pact export MiG-29B coalt/look up, high. What difference does it make? Any radar performs worse low and against the ground

1 час назад, nighthawk2174 сказал:

Both were 1980's designs the AMRAAM started development in the early 80's but delays saw it get delayed from its original goal of mid 80's launch to the early 90's. 

Well, Aim-9 is 50s design, does that make AIM-9X a 50s missile?

1 час назад, nighthawk2174 сказал:

It would have to fight them, the F15/F14, as these would be the primary A/A fighters that that the Soviets would run into.  Sure the F16 would probably fill in gaps in a fighter role but they would almost certainly be primarily strikers.

F-16 was a primary aircraft as well, and hell, i wouldn't like to be an F-16 80s pilot. A plane for kamikadze. Mig was way more capable fighting eagles and tomcats than F-16 fighting Su-27s and MiG-31s

1 час назад, nighthawk2174 сказал:

I'd argue it was at a minimum at parity with the mig29A.  It had better range, a wider array of weapons, and great performance.

Really? It had... Aim-9s versus HOBS R-73 and R-27s. Performance? Yeah, similar. But it still had Worse radar and worse a2a capabilities. Extremely poor 80s fighter, worse than 3rd gen ones

1 час назад, nighthawk2174 сказал:

  And imo the 29A is absolutely inferior to the 16C blk30 (especially amraam equipped ones).

What a surprise, and F-16A block 1 is inferiour to MiG-29M2, hopefully you get the analogy.

1 час назад, nighthawk2174 сказал:

I don't think it would have performed well at all, its sensors were quite poor, it has exceptionally poor range, and the performance of the F15/F14 is quite exceptional.  Against the F16 sure the K/L rates would probably be much better.  But the archer isn't an end all be all missile and the 9M isn't a bad missile either.

 

We already found that its radar was better compared to F-16A (and, probably, F-18A), had a range comparable with F-16A and wasn't intended to fight heavy fighters in the first place, however it still had better missiles that F-15 and good enough radar to detect it before f-15 could launch its sparrows

[BlackPixxel]

3 hours ago, nighthawk2174 said:

This is for the 29S plus this is in (HPRF?) look up in look down that range is significantly less without jamming.

 

Not significantly less, the difference is actually not that much for high altitudes, as stated in the manuals.

And in front aspect, the spectral components of the ground clutter do not overlap with the spectral components of the target, which is why there is not a big difference in lookdown when fighter and target are not flying very close to the ground.

 

9.13S model has additional 15 % detection range on top of the values of A/B variants. It has an improved N019M with a better processor.

[Seaeagle]

17 hours ago, Skysurfer said:

All valid points. There was a 2-3 year transitional period around 90-91.

Not sure what you are refering to here, but if its the AMRAAM, then it was first inducted with the F-16 and F-15, while it was posponed for the F/A-18C until the AN/APG-73 was ready(introduced with Lot 16).

Quote

However, the R-27ER entered full service and mass scale production only around 87-88. It did not just come "a little later" - it's a known fact and confirmed by both historians and former crews and engineers.

The R-27 was from the start developed as a modular complex with the shortburn versions for the MiG-29 and the longburn ones for the Su-27. Availability aside, it is also "a known fact" that official "in service" status is something of an administrative peculiarity in the Soviet/Russian military - there are countless examples of something that has been used operationally for years before it gets the official stamp. 

 

Quote

The 77 (RVV-AE) never entered service with the RuAF...

Actually it did. It was officially adpopted by the MoD in 1994 - they just didn't acquire any. I guess in part because there weren't any money for it at the time and in part because they didn't have any aircraft compatible with it. It could also be that it was given official Russian IOC status in order to support export orders for the RVV-AE(e.g. in connection with the Su-30MKI for India).

 

At any rate, this is just another indication of what I said above about the relevance of the official "in service" status.....some things were used operationally without it, while other weren't available despite having it. 

 

 

 

Edited April 9, 2021 by Seaeagle

[Seaeagle]

17 hours ago, Skysurfer said:

Why don't you reference real world documents such as weapon employment manuals and talk to people who actually flew these aircraft? There are more than enough reports and combat evaluations out there. Especially once the Germans got their hands on the 29A (9.12). Point is, the Mig-29 radar is inferior to any western BVR platform (apart from the 16A with the APG-66).

Well I read the accounts by Luftwaffe at lengths - including comparisons between the N019 to the APG-65(employed by their F4s). I distinctly remember reading that the N019 didn't have a range disadvantage compared to the APG-65 - if anything it might actually have a slight advantage in terms of pure power/range. The problem with the N019 was that it was awekward to use - involving a lot of manual settings/mode switching in ordder to locate the targets in the first place. Another complaint with the MiG-29's BVR capability, was that the range of the R-27R missile left something to be desired. 

17 hours ago, Skysurfer said:

 

No one is discounting the 29 by any means in the WVR regime, especially when coupled with the Archer - to which the west only had an answer in the early 2000's technologically. Give credit where credit is due but don't just blindly trust or believe all the claims people make just because they want their favorite national plane to be the best thing in existence.

That goes both ways though :)

 

[Skysurfer]

1 hour ago, Seaeagle said:

Actually it did. It was officially adpopted by the MoD in 1994 - they just didn't acquire any. I guess in part because there weren't any money for it at the time and in part because they didn't have any aircraft compatible with it. It could also be that it was given official Russian IOC status in order to support export orders for the RVV-AE(e.g. in connection with the Su-30MKI for India).

 

At any rate, this is just another indication of what I said above about the relevance of the official "in service" status.....some things were used operationally without it, while other weren't available despite having it. 

 

 

 

 

 

Again, there is no proof of that and former personel will not be able to confirm that. I'm not talking about administrative "adoptation" of a weapon but actual IOC (i.e. seen on patrol aircraft, intel gatherings etc.)

 

1 hour ago, Seaeagle said:

Well I read the accounts by Luftwaffe at lengths - including comparisons between the N019 to the APG-65(employed by their F4s). I distinctly remember reading that the N019 didn't have a range disadvantage compared to the APG-65 - if anything it might actually have a slight advantage in terms of pure power/range. The problem with the N019 was that it was awekward to use - involving a lot of manual settings/mode switching in ordder to locate the targets in the first place. Another complaint with the MiG-29's BVR capability, was that the range of the R-27R missile left something to be desired. 

That goes both ways though

 

 

Sure, against an F-4 I can see the comparison but an APG-65 on an F-4 will differ from one that is on a F/A-18A etc. A Mig-29A even with the 27R would probably eat any Phantom alive in most areas. If probably not by much it will differ in processing, modes and output power to some extent. The poor man-machine interface and work required to get a lock and maintain it was something I was mentioning from the start when people brought up a full fidelity Flanker or Fulcrum - it would not be as carefree as FC3 no matter how much you'd try to bind to your HOTAS.  Also, if you don't mind, do you have a link to said report? I'd love to read it myself. 

[Skysurfer]

9 hours ago, TotenDead said:

Я бы вам очень посоветовал послушать интервю немецкого летчика Хирла о том на сколько МиГ-29 был "плох" (нет). И научиться не скакать с темы на тему пытаясь оправдать свою безосновательную нелюбовь к МиГ-29. Ты сказал, что 29 не мог в дальний воздушный бой - тебя мокнули лицом в ошибку, так ты сразу попытался облить самолет грязью с другой стороны. Зачем, почему, к чему, для чего, на кой?

 

А где я высловел свою нелюбов к 29-ке? Я думаю што это прекрасный самолёт с очень хорошыми качествами в БВБ - и с этим никто не поспорит. Он один из моих любимых модулей в ДКС. Я то сам из Германии и знаком с бывшим лётчиком немецких ВВС которий летал на 29-ке. Мы довольно долго и детально общались на ту саму тему, откуда я и имею свою информацию и знаю про его недостатки (по сравнению). Вы то на нём летали? Вы сам лётчик или имеете авиацыонное образование штоби делать такие выводи?  По етому я бы вас попросил поделитьса вашым интервью с Хирле и где он сделал эти выводы.

[TotenDead]

10 минут назад, Skysurfer сказал:

 

А где я высловел свою нелюбов к 29-ке? Я думаю што это прекрасный самолёт с очень хорошыми качествами в БВБ - и с этим никто не поспорит. Он один из моих любимых модулей в ДКС. Я то сам из Германии и знаком с бывшим лётчиком немецких ВВС которий летал на 29-ке. Мы довольно долго и детально общались на ту саму тему, откуда я и имею свою информацию и знаю про его недостатки (по сравнению). Вы то на нём летали? Вы сам лётчик или имеете авиацыонное образование штоби делать такие выводи?  По етому я бы вас попросил поделитьса вашым интервью с Хирле и где он сделал эти выводы.

 

 

Спор то начался с обсуждения возможностей МиГ-29 в дальнем воздушном бою, которые в общем-то были более чем достаточными на момент появления этого самолёта и попадания его в ВВС. Естественно, что к середине 90-х он был уже слаб в сравнении с тем, что несло амраамы. Только тут нужно помнить, что 9.12/13 должен был быть заменён на МиГ-29С, который мог нести Р-77, и МиГ-29М (первый полет - 1986 год (!)) , на котором было куда более мощное и совершенное оборудование. МиГ-29 был вполне хорошим истребителем дальнего воздушного боя вплоть до развала СССР, после чего его модернизация прекратилась на полтора десятка лет. 

 

Коли уж был вопрос про образование, то да, у меня окончен университет по специальности "проектирование самолётов" 

 

Касательно интервью - вот. Кроме того, все вопросы можно задать на этом форуме лётчику миг - 29 напрямую

 

 

[Skysurfer]

1 hour ago, TotenDead said:

 

 

 

Ok but where does he mention it was on par at BVR with that era western jets? I watched this interview in the past and had the impression that he gave basically a fair rundown of the capabilities. Nothing any former GAF guy who flew the 29 won't tell you.