Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

MiG-29 “FALCON HUNTER” Exclusive : THE WINNER

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • MiG-29 “FALCON HUNTER” Exclusive : THE WINNER




    This thread was made solely for discussion on future developments of the MiG-29 upgrades that push the Fulcrum way past the limitly capable F-16 and Mirages to be in the league with F-14s, F-15s and the Su-27 as documented here.

    For discussions on MiG-29 Sniper vs. F-16 Viper, please go to link :

    http://www.worldaffairsboard.com/showthread.php?t=4474

    The Falcons seem to have suffered the same fate of the Sabre Jets of the Korean war, having fallen victims to IAF Gnats nicknamed the “Sabre Killers” during the Indo-Pak wars, it was with the same solemnity of the IAF Gnat “Sabre Killers” that the IAF christened their famed Fulcrums the “FALCON HUNTERS” after the Kargil War where a lone MiG-29 poised like a sniper atop the Himalayas held PAF F-16s at gunpoint.




    With its maiden flight in July 1998, Russian plans to have more than 200 MiG-29SMT. Upgrade comprises: increased range and payload, new glass cockpit, digital fly-by-wire control system, new avionics, improved radar, KOLS infrared search and track (IRST) and an in-flight refuelling probe.


    Mig-29M2 : Range on internal fuel is 1,079 nm (2,000km; 1,242 miles), or, with three external tanks 1,726nm (3,200km; 1,988 miles).
    Unrefueled range of the MiG-29SMT is cited as 2,200 kilometers (1,370 miles) without external tanks, almost half again as great as that of 9-12 MiG-29.


    THE SNIPER’S SIGHTS



    The KOLS infrared search and track (IRST), superior to F-16 IRSTs. The KOLS (OLIS) laser range finder / IR search and track system tied with a pilot HMS (helmet mounted sighting) system completes the weapon system.



    MiG-29SMT-in-flight-refuelling, limitless range :




    Re- engined with Klimov RD-43 (or VKS10) engines, Fulcrums now have 22,040lb (98. 1 kN) thrust with afterburner, compared with 18,293lb (81.4kN) of the RD-33 engine.


    MISSILES





    In DACT over the skies of Gwalior, Cope India 2004 reports showed that IAF Sukhoi-30MKs and USAF F-15 pilots were detecting each other at the same time with their radars, but IAF pilots were scoring simulated first shots with their R-27 (AA-10 Alamo) AAMs (Air-to-Air Missiles) every time in BVR engagements.





    With the AA-10 ALAMO (Max. range upto 170 km) and Zhuk series radars working in tandem, no F-15, F-16, F-18 or Mirage has a chance for survival.





    Unlike the limitly capable F-16 the Russians couldn’t even care to look at, the MiG-29 designated 'Ram-L' by the West sent coronary scares throughout US Intel. So good was the MiG that America was quick to buy off 21 nuclear capable Moldovian MiG-29s before they could be auctioned off to Iran or North Korea.

  • #2
    ZHUK RADAR Series :

    Advantage of the Su-30, MiG-29 Zhuk series over F-15, F-16 and F-18 AN/APG series




    The antenna of Zhuk M


    Zhuk-M (N010M)
    Maximum air-to-air range of the N010M(Zhuk M) was boosted to 140 km superceding the American APG-66 (v) 2 -130km and APG-68 (v) -140km.

    Zhuk-ME (N-101M)
    The Phazotron Zhuk-ME capable of tracking ten targets to a maximum range of 245km is currently being developed for Indian Navy MiG-29Ks.

    N-011 “Bars"
    N011M has a 350 km search range and a 200 km tracking range. The radar can track and engage 20 air targets and engage the 8 most threatening targets simultaneously. Currently being developed for Indian Navy MiG-29Ks superceding the F-14A’s AWG-9 radar- 330km.

    Zhuk-PH
    The Zhuk-PH is stated to have a slightly longer range and wider scan angle than the N-011, the capability to track 24 targets at once, and engage eight of them simultaneously.

    MiG-29 NO-19 Slot Back 70-100 km 100-150 km
    Tracks 10 targets, guides against 1.

    BEATS

    F-16 APG-66 ~55 km ~105 km

    F-16 APG-66(v)2/3 70 km 130 km

    F-16 APG-68 80 km 140 km

    Mirage 2000C-S1 to –S3 RDM 85 km 110 km

    ================================================== =======

    MiG-29 NO-10 88 km 186 km

    BEATS

    All of the above and ;

    F-18 APG-65 ~72 km ~ 150 km
    TWS of 10 targets at 74 km. HUD acquistion auto lock at ~9 km.

    ================================================== =======


    MiG-29 SMT-II NO-19ME Topaz 130 km 275 km

    BEATS

    All of the above and ;

    F-15 APG-63/70 110-160 km 240 km

    F-18 APG-73 (APG-65 x 1.2) 85 km ~180 km

    Mirage 2000C-S4/5 RDI 110 km 190 km

    Mirage 2000-5 RDY 130-140 km 275 km

    Rafale RBE vs 130 km 275 km



    Bottom line is, armed with PESA-type BARS radars, much superior to those that made IAF Su-30s score kills on AESA equipped F-15s in DACT, no F-16 or F-15 with AESA radars could escape the first and fatal shot from a MiG-29.

    Comment


    • #3
      Daimler-Benz Aerospace (DASA) developed MiG -29 SNIPER

      Daimler-Benz Aerospace (DASA) developed MiG -29 SNIPER

      Daimler-Benz Aerospace (DASA) modernized Luftwaffe MiG-29 to the best Fulcrum standards. The work for the Luftwaffe led to the establishment of a new unified service organization, the "MiG Aircraft Product Support (MAPS) Group", which is now promoting similar upgrades for MiG-29 operators in Eastern Europe.

      Romania is now modernizing their MiG-29s under the "Sniper" program, being conducted by DASA.





      Daimler-Benz Aerospace (DASA) developed MiG -29 SNIPER


      Conclusion


      Russia manufactures more Flankers and Fulcrums for foreign countries than its own Air Force with current trends being to upgrade versions of the same, like the 12 Yemeni Air Force MiG-29s being upgraded to SMT standards, the first being delivered in October 2004.
      The F-15 WAS considered superior to the earlier versions of MiG-29s, enjoying an advantage in radar detection and range, if at par in maneuverability and radar cross section. The SMT upgrade will close that gap and make the improved Fulcrum the match of the F-15, the Air Force said. The MiG-29 SMT features a more powerful radar and a deepened "spine" to carry more internal fuel. Fire control is also updated, as are the avionics and displays with later MiG-29 SMT/SMT2s slated for Plasma Stealth capability.






      Outnumbered like the Luftwaffe of WW II against Allied Fighters the MiG-29 fought evasively against Allied Fighters in the Gulf and Serbian theatres being credited with kills on USAF F-117 Stealths, with no comfirmed kills on itself thus proving the higher “kill ratios” it has just like the Me-109s of yore.

      Comment


      • #4
        Plasma Stealth

        Would anyone have info on Plasma Stealth technology being developed for MiG-29 SMT?

        Comment


        • #5
          Plasma: What is it?

          Plasma is the most common state of matter in the universe, it can carry electric currents, neutral particles and magnetic fields that exhibit collective effects.
          Various examples of plasma around us are flames, lightning, neon lights, the Aurora Borealis, the corona around the sun, etc.
          Plasma has been described as a being more closely related to fluids by some physicists and related to gases by others. What it actually resembles depends mostly on the density/temperature and energy of the matter.

          Plasma technology has been a part of aerospace research for decades. Ever since it was discovered that there were communications black outs when space capsules were re-entering the atmosphere it has been known that plasma negatively affected RF signals.

          The Basics: Plasma Stealth theory

          There are 3 ways that plasma stealth functions.

          1. Plasma aids in the absorption of the radar signals. This occurs when electromagnetic waves (radar) encounter charged particles causing the wave's energy to be transferred to the charged particles, thus no reflection back to the radar source.

          2. Electromagnetic waves have a tendency to bend around the plasma field thus passing around the aircraft. Most aerospace radar specialists will tell you that this effect is at best minimal in decreasing Radar Cross Section (RCS).

          3. Plasma can disturb electromagnetic waves to the point of transforming them to differing frequencies scattered all across the RF spectrum, rendering the electromagnetic waves that encounter the plasma virtually useless.

          Background: The 1999 ITAR-TASS Claim

          In January of 1999 Nicolai Novichkov of ITAR-TASS conducted an interview with Anatoliy Korteev, the director of the Russian Scientific Academy. In this interview it was revealed that Russian scientists had made significant strides in stealth techniques involving plasma. The Russian scientist outlined his perspective on the differences between the American and Russian approach to stealth. These differences being that American stealth is based on Radar Absorbent Material (RAM) and Radar Absorbent Structure (RAS)... This process as scientist Anatoliy Korteev stated is expensive to develop as well as to deploy and takes away from the overall manueverability of the airframe.

          The article went on to discuss the method in which the plasma would protect the airframe from being observed by radar;
          "If an object is surrounded by a cloud of plasma, several phenomenas are observed when the cloud interacts with electromagnetic waves radiated by enemy radar..."

          For clarification, this article stated that the entire airframe of the plane would have to be engulfed in the plasma cloud in order for this stealth technique to be effective.

          And finally the article states that the technology was already in it's 3rd generation, the device supposedly weighed approximately 100 kilograms, required only a "few tens of kilowatts" of power, and the development of the 3rd generation system had allowed clearance of the 1st and 2nd generation versions for export.
          Article: http://www.air-attack.com/page.php?pid=19

          Russian Plasma Stealth: How would it work?

          Exactly how the Russian plasma stealth generator touted by TASS in 1999 would work is still undisclosed.
          There are a variety of possibilities of how it could have operated, including the following:

          1. An electromagnetic field is generated - the downside however, is that such a field would be detectable by electronic sensors.
          2. A corona source that continuous breaks down or a pulsing tesla coil - again however, this would produce an EM field and thus be detectable.

          3. A plasma laser firing out in front of the aircraft.

          A common problem with each of these possibilities is that they require a lot of space, are heavy and consume a large amount of power.
          Ok, enough of the 1999 claim - Let's move forward to 2003...

          Russian Plasma Stealth: Questions from experts...

          Investigating the subject of Russian plasma stealth as stated in the 1999 TASS article elicited many skeptical responses from the physicists, aerospace engineers and military specialists whom I interviewed.

          As stated in the introduction of this article, it is not out of nationalistic American pride that these experts in the field question the validity of the Russian claim, nor is it closed mindedness of the technology itself (which is very viable)... it's the methodologies by which the Russian researchers claim to accomplish this.

          * One specialist in the area of military arms sales for a US intelligence agency pointed out that it was 5 1/2 years ago in January 1999 that the Tass News Agency's article announced this technology was to be exported and as of yet there is no such product for sale on the world's arms markets.

          * An aerospace engineer for a leading US fighter manufacturer questioned how this ionized gas envelope would interact with the airflow over the control surfaces at flight speed. Also he wondered if sharp, angled manuevering would shear off the ionization thus exposing the aircraft to enemy radar.

          * A physicist from Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory had questions about how the aircraft's onboard systems would interact with a surrounding plasma field. For instance in order for the plasma field to be effective it would have to to be so powerful that the aircraft itself would have to be shielded from it's own stealth system. Would this mean that they would have to employ something similar to a Faraday cage? If so, then how much would this additional weight negatively affect the performance and manueverability of a fighter aircraft?

          * A plasma physicist working on a DoD project pondered how the Russian researchers handled the issue of photon emissions - visual glowing from plasma sources can be tracked using CCD sensors. Additional she stated that an ion field is detectable and it would seem that plasma stealth would likewise be detectable... she was also quick to point out that anything that is detectable can be shot down

          The State of Russian Plasma Stealth today: There is no Russian Plasma Cloud Stealth

          In 2003 the Institute for Theoretical and Applied Electromagnetics (ITAE) at the Russian Academy of Sciences in Moscow flight tested a "plasma-controlled screen" for the Su-35's remarkably large 0.889 meter radar dish... (which shows up like sore thumb on an air defense radar).
          This "plasma screen" is mounted in front of the radar dish and behind the nose-cone of the fighter jet. It is supposedly similar to a plasma TV screen made up of cells or rastars filled with neon, xenon or some other inert gas which is excited by an electrical current, and when there is no current going to the unit it is completely transparent to the Su-35's radar.

          In demonstration videos this Plasma Controlled Screen is seen as a luminous panel in front of the dish. It is said to absorb some of the opponent's radar signal, scattering much of the remainder in all different directions while at the same time transforming the scattered signals to frequencies all over the RF spectrum.

          Word from the ITAE is that they have not developed a system for a whole airframe like the 1999 claim in Tass, which would use plasma-generating antennas to ionize the air flowing over the aircraft � in fact, ITAE researchers expressed the view that application of the 1999 stealth method would be nearly impossible unless applied to a high-altitude, relatively slow aircraft, this is because the airstream would dissipate the plasma faster than it could be generated. (Janes Defense Weekly, 2003 - {Original not available online} -
          For futher reading I suggest Theoretical Principles of Plasma Physics and Atomic Physics

          β(Ew)= Ew2/(Ew2 +Δ{E}p2) ,

          τ(s)= σIon(0) .0∫sds' N(s').β(Ew(s')) .

          I(s)= I0.e-τ(s) ,

          Source: http://www.plasmaphysics.org.uk/

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by Mr_Vaastu
            Daimler-Benz Aerospace (DASA) developed MiG -29 SNIPER

            Daimler-Benz Aerospace (DASA) modernized Luftwaffe MiG-29 to the best Fulcrum standards. The work for the Luftwaffe led to the establishment of a new unified service organization, the "MiG Aircraft Product Support (MAPS) Group", which is now promoting similar upgrades for MiG-29 operators in Eastern Europe.

            Romania is now modernizing their MiG-29s under the "Sniper" program, being conducted by DASA.





            Daimler-Benz Aerospace (DASA) developed MiG -29 SNIPER


            Conclusion


            Russia manufactures more Flankers and Fulcrums for foreign countries than its own Air Force with current trends being to upgrade versions of the same, like the 12 Yemeni Air Force MiG-29s being upgraded to SMT standards, the first being delivered in October 2004.
            The F-15 WAS considered superior to the earlier versions of MiG-29s, enjoying an advantage in radar detection and range, if at par in maneuverability and radar cross section. The SMT upgrade will close that gap and make the improved Fulcrum the match of the F-15, the Air Force said. The MiG-29 SMT features a more powerful radar and a deepened "spine" to carry more internal fuel. Fire control is also updated, as are the avionics and displays with later MiG-29 SMT/SMT2s slated for Plasma Stealth capability.






            Outnumbered like the Luftwaffe of WW II against Allied Fighters the MiG-29 fought evasively against Allied Fighters in the Gulf and Serbian theatres being credited with kills on USAF F-117 Stealths, with no comfirmed kills on itself thus proving the higher “kill ratios” it has just like the Me-109s of yore.
            HaHaHaHaHa!!!!!
            Don't even begin to compare the MiG-29 to an F-15. I don't know what rectal extraction gave you your figures on the APG-63v2 radar either, but you don't know what you're talking about.

            Comment


            • #7
              Well F15 vs mig29 is nowhere a fare comparison
              A good one is F15 vs Su27 and Mig29 vs F16.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by ajaybhutani
                Well F15 vs mig29 is nowhere a fare comparison
                A good one is F15 vs Su27 and Mig29 vs F16.
                I agree 100%

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by ajaybhutani
                  Well F15 vs mig29 is nowhere a fare comparison
                  A good one is F15 vs Su27 and Mig29 vs F16.

                  not entirely, because the MiG 29 wasn't really created to challenge the F-16, it was created to be a smaller version of the F-15 yet having the same capabilites but at a smaller size, while the F-16 was created to do the same role of the F-5, albiet at a larger size, therefore, you can theoretically compare the MiG 29 and the F-15 togther because they were meant to compete against each other

                  Russia hates single-engined platforms, you notice how they turned down the I-2000 and the Yak LFI because, they had single engined versions
                  for MOTHER MOLDOVA

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    may i ask something Vastu and Severnaya, why does everyone treat the MiG 29SMT to being superior to the MiG 29M, i just don't understand

                    Performance data:
                    Crew requirements MiG-29M/MiG-29M2 1/2
                    Takeoff weight MiG-29M/MiG-29M2, kg
                    - normal 17 500/17 800
                    - maximum 22 400/22 700
                    Maximum operational g-load 9
                    Maximum airspeed MiG-29M/MiG-29M2, km/h
                    - at altitude 2 400/2 400
                    - at S/L 1 500/1 400
                    Service ceiling, m 17 500/17 500
                    Operational range MiG-29M/MiG-29M2, km
                    - on internal fuel 2 000/1 800
                    - with three fuel drop tanks 3 200/3 000
                    - with three fuel drop tanks and in-flight refueling 6 000
                    Engine type RD-33 ser.3М
                    Maximum weapon load MiG-29M/MiG-29M2, kg 4 500/4 500



                    Performance data:
                    Takeoff weight, kg
                    - normal 17 000
                    - maximum 22 000
                    Engine type/thrust with A/B ON RD-33 ser.3/2х8300
                    Maximum operational g-load 9
                    Maximum airspeed, km/h
                    - at altitude 2 400
                    - at S/L 1 500
                    Service ceiling, m 17 500
                    Operational range, km
                    - on internal fuel/with 3 fuel drop tanks 2 100/>3 000
                    - with 3 fuel drop tanks and in-flight refueling >6 000
                    Maximum weapon load, kg 4 500

                    there are only a few tiny differences, the MiG 29M weighs 500 kg heavier than the MiG 29SMT, which gives the MiG 29SMT slightly better thrust-to-weight ratio, and thus better maneuverability, plus the increased thrust of the engines, but sadly, on this website(and it is the official wesbite of the MiG coporation, it metions that the MiG 29 SMT still uses the RD-33, but it also mentions series 3, so could that mean the RD-43? the MiG 29M also has a heavier maximum weight, 400 kg's heavier than the MiG 29SMT

                    they both have a g-load of 9 g's

                    they both have a maximum speed of 2,400 km(Mach 2.26) at alltitude, and both of them have a maximum speed of 1,500 km(Mach 1.22) at sea level, and both of them have a service ceiling of 17,500 meters

                    MiG 29SMT has a slightly longer range on internal fuel, only 100 km longer than the MiG 29M, and with three fuel tanks, they both have roughly the same range, with the MiG 29SMT's being over 3,000 km and the MiG 29M being 3,200

                    and finally both of them have a 4,500 kg weapons load

                    so, very minute differences, yet, why does Russia go with the MiG 29SMT upgrade over the SNIPER, or 29M etc.

                    http://www.migavia.ru/eng/production/?tid=1&id=3
                    http://www.migavia.ru/eng/production/?tid=1&id=5

                    look at these links, read them, very interesting and i'd just want to know once and for all why the MiG 29SMT is better than all the other upgrades for the MiG 29 aircraft

                    thanks greatly, really appreciate it

                    yo, Vastu, one more thing, you seem to kow a lot about the MiG 29, are you also knowledgeable in other Russian aircraft? if you are, you mind giving me your email, i wish to talk with you
                    for MOTHER MOLDOVA

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by Dima
                      not entirely, because the MiG 29 wasn't really created to challenge the F-16, it was created to be a smaller version of the F-15 yet having the same capabilites but at a smaller size, while the F-16 was created to do the same role of the F-5, albiet at a larger size, therefore, you can theoretically compare the MiG 29 and the F-15 togther because they were meant to compete against each other

                      Russia hates single-engined platforms, you notice how they turned down the I-2000 and the Yak LFI because, they had single engined versions
                      i
                      i was under an impression that mig29 were made to counter F16 and su27 to counter F15.The similarities need not signify that they were meant to compete with eath other. Russians made su27 to compete with F15.
                      Well we all know that russian engines has very high maintenance costs and break down rate. So obviously a two engine aircraft is safer than one. While the americans engines were more sophisticated and much better in terms of break down and maintenance for americans could and did spend much more money than russians.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        yes, but, the AL-31 that powers the Su-27, is very fuel efficient, the RD-33 isn't that good of an engine, but the AL-31, AL-35, AL-37, and Al-41 are incredible engines with good fuel economy
                        for MOTHER MOLDOVA

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by jgetti
                          HaHaHaHaHa!!!!!
                          Don't even begin to compare the MiG-29 to an F-15. I don't know what rectal extraction gave you your figures on the APG-63v2 radar either, but you don't know what you're talking about.
                          OK. Mr arrogance. Did you made any effort trying to know/understand what your are not believing at?

                          I really doubt that you have much data to claim that.....

                          In general MiG-29 was a good frame.... it just lacked good modernization like F-15 does now.....

                          However MiG-29 SMT is quite a potent version and has nothing to do with MiG-29 in ex-german inventory....

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by Dima
                            not entirely, because the MiG 29 wasn't really created to challenge the F-16, it was created to be a smaller version of the F-15 yet having the same capabilites but at a smaller size, while the F-16 was created to do the same role of the F-5, albiet at a larger size, therefore, you can theoretically compare the MiG 29 and the F-15 togther because they were meant to compete against each other

                            Russia hates single-engined platforms, you notice how they turned down the I-2000 and the Yak LFI because, they had single engined versions
                            Sorry Dima, I still think that MiG-29 was designed as a light and shorter range fighter than F-15C.

                            I remember I was asking a Russian pilot (who engaged F-15C in a training) about this issue. He pointed that the speed + amount of internal fuel does mean a lot in cat & mouse game.... MiG-29 or F-16 can not fly as long as Su-27/F-15C on afterburner at supersonic speed and hence longer range fighters may avoid encountering them...

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by Garry
                              OK. Mr arrogance. Did you made any effort trying to know/understand what your are not believing at?

                              I really doubt that you have much data to claim that.....

                              In general MiG-29 was a good frame.... it just lacked good modernization like F-15 does now.....

                              However MiG-29 SMT is quite a potent version and has nothing to do with MiG-29 in ex-german inventory....
                              I'm not being arrogant,, I've dealt with this shmuck before. Read some of the other articles concerning the F-15/Su27 and it's derivitives that I've posted on, you'll find the evidence there. I'm an engineer on the F-15 program in St. Louis,, I know way more data than I'm allowed to post publicly. It doesn't matter what evidence is brought up against this guy, he's heavily bias in his beliefs, and no amout of proof is going to change his mind. That's why I laugh at his comment.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X