F-35 vs. Mig-29

Unread postPosted: 03 Apr 2014, 23:43
by mixelflick
I know it's "no contest", but given the prolific #'s of Mig-29's deployed...

Don't you think the F-35 will most likely face the Fulcrum, when it's time? Surely, given our enemies fleets and their age - it's the most statistically realistic possibility.

Re: F-35 vs. Mig-29

Unread postPosted: 04 Apr 2014, 00:38
by popcorn
Who's the likeliest foe and how many MiG-29s do they have?

Re: F-35 vs. Mig-29

Unread postPosted: 04 Apr 2014, 00:51
by spazsinbad
How many 'functional' MiGs? :devil:

Re: F-35 vs. Mig-29

Unread postPosted: 05 Apr 2014, 11:59
by mixelflick
popcorn wrote:Who's the likeliest foe and how many MiG-29s do they have?


Russia?

Call Russia's a couple hundred...

Re: F-35 vs. Mig-29

Unread postPosted: 05 Apr 2014, 13:55
by popcorn
How many US legacy jets have been lost to MiGs of all flavors over the years? AFAIK, only the Foxbat has bagged a Hornet hile Fulcrum is empty-handed. IMO the MiG-29 by sheer numbers offers the best opportunity for a JSF pilot to make Ace. :D

Re: F-35 vs. Mig-29

Unread postPosted: 06 Apr 2014, 06:41
by lookieloo
mixelflick wrote:I know it's "no contest", but given the prolific #'s of Mig-29's deployed...
Eh... it actually looks like the F-35 will be quite a bit more "prolific" than the Fulcrum.

Re: F-35 vs. Mig-29

Unread postPosted: 06 Apr 2014, 07:15
by gtx
lookieloo wrote:
mixelflick wrote:I know it's "no contest", but given the prolific #'s of Mig-29's deployed...
Eh... it actually looks like the F-35 will be quite a bit more "prolific" than the Fulcrum.


That's what I thought. There have only been something like 1500 MiG-29s produced and not all are in operational service.

Re: F-35 vs. Mig-29

Unread postPosted: 06 Apr 2014, 22:32
by neurotech
spazsinbad wrote:How many 'functional' MiGs? :devil:

For what its worth, well maintained MiG-29s are not as unreliable on the flightline as most people think. I was corrected a while ago by a MiG-29 exchange pilot who said something like he ground aborted once in 500 missions.

The need to overhaul older RD33 engines every 300-400 hours would limit functional capability if the operator was under UN embargo or in active combat.

Re: F-35 vs. Mig-29

Unread postPosted: 05 Jul 2015, 02:06
by spazsinbad
Russia's MiG-29 Fighter Jets Grounded After Yet Another Crash
03 Jul 2015 The Moscow Times

"Russia grounded its fleet of more than 200 MiG-29 fighter jets on Friday after one crashed during a routine training exercise in the southern Krasnodar region, news agency Interfax reported.

The incident marks the fourth crash of a Russian military plane over the past month and the fourth loss of a MiG-29 in the past year.

“Flights of the MiG-29 are suspended until the reasons for the crash are identified,” Russian air force chief Colonel General Viktor Bondarev was quoted by Interfax as saying Friday. It is common practice to ground all airplanes of a given model after a crash to ensure other planes of the same design are safe to fly.

The MiG-29 is a Soviet-designed air superiority fighter comparable to U.S. fighter jets such as the F-15 and F-16. It is still widely used by the Russian air force, with around 200 in active service, and has been exported to almost 30 militaries worldwide.

Interfax earlier on Friday quoted an unidentified source in the Defense Ministry as saying the MiG-29 was not carrying ammunition and crashed in an uninhabited area. The pilot ejected and his life is not in danger, the source added...."

Source: http://www.themoscowtimes.com/business/ ... 24992.html

Re: F-35 vs. Mig-29

Unread postPosted: 27 Jul 2016, 04:10
by spazsinbad
Mig-29 deal involved avoidable expenditure of around Rs 10 crore: CAG
26 Jul 2016 IANS

"...The report called the aircraft as being "riddled with problems" and it was accepted despite having technical discrepancies.

"The MiG-29K/KUB which is a carrier borne multi role aircraft and the mainstay of integral fleet air defence, is riddled with problems relating to airframe, RD MK-33 engine and fly-by-wire 4 system. Aircraft were being technically accepted despite having discrepancies/anomalies," the report said.

It also said that the serviceability of MiG-29K was low, ranging from 15.93 per cent to 37.63 per cent and that of MiG-29KUB ranging from 21.30 per cent to 47.14 per cent.

"The augmentation of infrastructure at Visakhapatnam is still at the Detailed Project Report stage even six years after approval (December 2009). The Full Mission Simulator was assessed to be unsuitable for Carrier Qualification (CQ) simulator training for pilots, as the visuals did not support the profile. The service life of the aircraft is 6,000 hours or 25 years (whichever is earlier) and with issues facing the MiG-29K/KUB, the operational life of the aircraft already delivered would be reduced," it said...."

Source: http://www.business-standard.com/articl ... 667_1.html

Re: F-35 vs. Mig-29

Unread postPosted: 27 Jul 2016, 12:07
by weasel1962
According to the CAG report,
- The Indian navy Mig-29Ks are supposedly an improved version to the air force version.
- 62% engine defect rate. 1 in 4 engines fail in flight
- 4% to 8% FBW serviceability.

That's before the issue of having to get parts from Ukraine to be installed dock-side.

Re: F-35 vs. Mig-29

Unread postPosted: 27 Jul 2016, 19:06
by XanderCrews
Yikes

Re: F-35 vs. Mig-29

Unread postPosted: 27 Jul 2016, 19:25
by shrimpman
Maybe it's bad climate combined with bad maintenance? Polish MiG-29 squadrons have no issues with the plane despite some of them being quite old.

Re: F-35 vs. Mig-29

Unread postPosted: 27 Jul 2016, 20:16
by XanderCrews
shrimpman wrote:Maybe it's bad climate combined with bad maintenance? Polish MiG-29 squadrons have no issues with the plane despite some of them being quite old.


This version is more new. new problems arise

Re: F-35 vs. Mig-29

Unread postPosted: 27 Jul 2016, 21:40
by spazsinbad
:shock: :mrgreen: :doh: Yep Indians Polish their MiGs with cow dung - sacred ya know.... :devil: :roll:

Re: F-35 vs. Mig-29

Unread postPosted: 29 Jul 2016, 01:40
by southernphantom
shrimpman wrote:Maybe it's bad climate combined with bad maintenance? Polish MiG-29 squadrons have no issues with the plane despite some of them being quite old.


I don't think it's a stretch to assume that Polish maintainers are generally more competent than their Indian counterparts.

Re: F-35 vs. Mig-29

Unread postPosted: 10 Aug 2016, 16:18
by spazsinbad
The Ruskies might get around to fixing the defects because they plan to use the MiG-29K on their singleton carrier also....
Report: India's Russian-made MiG-29K Fighters Face Problems
10 Aug 2016 Vivek Raghuvanshi

"NEW DELHI — The Indian Navy's primary fighter operating from the aircraft carrier INS Vikramaditya faces operational deficiencies due to defects in engines, airframes and fly-by-wire systems, according to a report by India's autonomous auditor, the Comptroller and Auditor General (CAG). However, Indian Navy officials say the Russian-made MiG-29K remains the best choice available.

The report said the "aircraft MiG-29K is being technically accepted despite having discrepancies and anomalies."

India ordered 45 MiG-29K aircraft and equipment worth $2.2 billion in two separate orders — in 2004 and 2010 — from Russia. It is the primary combat platform on Vikramaditya, which was acquired from Russia when it was known as the Admiral Gorshkov....

...On problems with the engine, the CAG report said: "Since induction in February 2010, 40 engines (62 percent) of twin-engined MiG-29K have been withdrawn from service/rejected due to design-related defects."

Additionally, the serviceability of the warplanes was low, ranging from 21.30 percent to 47.14 percent, according to the report.

"The roots of these problems (serviceability and defects) lie in the extremely poor quality control in the Russian military-industrial complex and dismal product support being rendered by the Russian industry to the Indian Navy for the past 25 years," Prakash said. "This is in spite of the fact that the development of the MiG-29K has been totally funded by the Indian Navy."...

...Detailing the defects of the engine on MiG-29K, the report noted that "even as the RD-33 MK engine (mounted on MiG-29K) was considered an advancement over the engine of the MiG-29K, its reliability remains questionable."

"The engine-design defects should be rectified with the utmost urgency at the Russians' cost," Prakash said. "Any respectable company, conscious of its reputation, would attend to this. But the oligarchs who control the Russian military-industrial complex are too brazen, for two reasons: (a) they know that India has not choice and (b) they are confident that Indian politicians will never turn the screw on them."... [MORE AT JUMP]

Source: http://www.defensenews.com/story/defens ... /88510782/

Re: F-35 vs. Mig-29

Unread postPosted: 10 Aug 2016, 16:28
by spazsinbad
Russian Carrier Awaits MiG-29s for Syrian Airstrikes
09 Aug 2016 Vladimir Karnozov

"The Russian navy’s only carrier, the 59,000-metric ton Admiral Kuznetsov, is being modified to enable operations of MiG-29K/KUB strike fighters against targets in Syria. The work is due to be completed within the next few months. During its first combat deployment, the carrier is likely to carry 15 fighters and a dozen Kamov helicopters. The latter may include a few Ka-52K Katran attack prototypes as well as Ka-31 airborne early warning & control rotorcraft. The deployment will last for up to three months, after which the ship will return to Russia for a major overhaul....

...Unlike the Su-33 and Su-25UTG, the MiG-29K/KUB is a truly multirole aircraft able to carry out accurate strikes using both unguided bombs and rockets, and smart munitions. It can carry laser and TV-guided Kh-29 missiles; Kh-31A and Kh-35 antiship missiles; and Kh-31P anti-radiation weapons. In addition, the MiG can carry KAB-500 series guided bombs. The VKS grouping at Khmeimim frequently uses the Kh-29 and KAB-500 weapons.

The work being carried out on the carrier is mostly to accommodate weapons and onboard systems that feed precision navigation and weapons release information to the MiG-29K/KUBs. Similar work was previously done on the INS Vikramaditya carrier (ex-Russian navy Admiral Gorshkov) which underwent refit and modernization in Russia before being handed over to the Indian navy in November 2013.

RAC MiG has already fulfilled the Russian order for 24 MiG-29K/KUBs, placed in 2012. The type is service with the naval air regiment No. 100 at Saki and Yeisk aerodromes on the Russian Black Sea coast. Russian naval pilots are yet to master carrier operations with these MiGs. However, test pilots made several flights from the ship as part of the INS Vikramaditya project....

Source: http://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news/ ... airstrikes

Re: F-35 vs. Mig-29

Unread postPosted: 16 Jul 2017, 08:03
by spazsinbad
Jeepers - let us hope we never see an F-35 do this:

Belarus MiG-29 burst into flames during take-off 16 Jul 2017
"A Belarus MiG-29 was lost when its take-off ended in failure on Feb. 23. A footage of the incident was uploaded online recently." https://www.rt.com/viral/396434-mig29-j ... ion-video/


Re: F-35 vs. Mig-29

Unread postPosted: 16 Jul 2017, 15:07
by ricnunes
F-35 vs Mig-29:

1- The F-35 detects the Mig-29 first with whatever means it possess
2- The F-35 shoots an AMRAAM
3- BOOOMMMMM, the Mig-29 explodes in a Fireball (I can almost hear the "great balls of fire" song from Jerry Lee Lewis in the background)
4- If the Mig-29 pilot survives he/she will say to him(her)self: WTF!!!


About numbers, things also don't look good for the Mig-29 either since there will be far more F-35s than Mig-29s, specially and like others have said, considering operational aircraft.

Re: F-35 vs. Mig-29

Unread postPosted: 16 Jul 2017, 16:19
by lbk000
spazsinbad wrote:Jeepers - let us hope we never see an F-35 do this:

Belarus MiG-29 burst into flames during take-off 16 Jul 2017
"A Belarus MiG-29 was lost when its take-off ended in failure on Feb. 23. A footage of the incident was uploaded online recently." https://www.rt.com/viral/396434-mig29-j ... ion-video/

snip

Gear collapse? What a load of crap. Pilot straight blundered retracting the gear without positive climbrate.
This is 100% pilot error.

Re: F-35 vs. Mig-29

Unread postPosted: 16 Jul 2017, 16:33
by Dragon029
Someone on Reddit mentioned that the MiG-29 has a safety feature to not allow retraction until a certain airspeed / pitot pressure is met - due to the fairly random timing (the pilot would have to be an idiot or intoxicated to think he had a safe, positive climb rate when it starts to retract), that redditor suggested that the landing gear handle may have been placed in the up position earlier and he'd just failed to notice.

Or maybe he had some kind of hydraulic failure and the MiG-29 has no mechanical locks on the gears?

Re: F-35 vs. Mig-29

Unread postPosted: 16 Jul 2017, 17:05
by spazsinbad
Like any aircraft accident I would suggest waiting until more information/detail is known - things can be complicated.

Re: F-35 vs. Mig-29

Unread postPosted: 17 Jul 2017, 14:53
by mixelflick
"The roots of these problems (serviceability and defects) lie in the extremely poor quality control in the Russian military-industrial complex and dismal product support being rendered by the Russian industry to the Indian Navy for the past 25 years," Prakash said. "This is in spite of the fact that the development of the MiG-29K has been totally funded by the Indian Navy."...

Ouch. Between their SU-30MKI's, the Sukhoi T-50 and now the Mig-29K, don't you think the Indians see a pattern here? For the love of God, take some of our Navy's Super Hornets and call it a day. Then you'll have a nice "strike fighter" that won't spend most of her time in the hangar, plus you'll get it out my sight that much faster, LOL.

The engine issues have been there since day 1, so why do the Indians keep going back to Russia for the majority of their combat aircraft? Doesn't make any sense to me. Even a token order of F-16's, 18's or whatever should show them the difference in quality..

Re: F-35 vs. Mig-29

Unread postPosted: 17 Jul 2017, 15:45
by spazsinbad

Re: F-35 vs. Mig-29

Unread postPosted: 18 Jul 2017, 00:22
by nutshell
mixelflick wrote:"The roots of these problems (serviceability and defects) lie in the extremely poor quality control in the Russian military-industrial complex and dismal product support being rendered by the Russian industry to the Indian Navy for the past 25 years," Prakash said. "This is in spite of the fact that the development of the MiG-29K has been totally funded by the Indian Navy."...

Ouch. Between their SU-30MKI's, the Sukhoi T-50 and now the Mig-29K, don't you think the Indians see a pattern here? For the love of God, take some of our Navy's Super Hornets and call it a day. Then you'll have a nice "strike fighter" that won't spend most of her time in the hangar, plus you'll get it out my sight that much faster, LOL.

The engine issues have been there since day 1, so why do the Indians keep going back to Russia for the majority of their combat aircraft? Doesn't make any sense to me. Even a token order of F-16's, 18's or whatever should show them the difference in quality..



Because let's admit it, SUs and MiG are charmingly cheap with amazing capabilities for the price.
Then you find out that they're cheap for a reason and plasma stealth isn't real.

Re: F-35 vs. Mig-29

Unread postPosted: 18 Jul 2017, 03:02
by kimjongnumbaun
Title of the thread could be alternatively called, "Semi-truck vs. puppy".

Re: F-35 vs. Mig-29

Unread postPosted: 18 Jul 2017, 23:53
by arian
nutshell wrote:Because let's admit it, SUs and MiG are charmingly cheap with amazing capabilities for the price.
Then you find out that they're cheap for a reason and plasma stealth isn't real.


That's it. In a nutshell.

spazsinbad wrote:


What country is that? Looks like old pre-2006 Serbian insignia. When did this happen?

Re: F-35 vs. Mig-29

Unread postPosted: 19 Jul 2017, 01:10
by spazsinbad
Click on video to start here then click on the Ubend Icon to go there - I don't speak whatever but 2007?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MGtU_HWPIcc

Re: F-35 vs. Mig-29

Unread postPosted: 19 Jul 2017, 05:24
by spazsinbad
Here is the problem for the WEST: Beat that LM/BOING! http://aviationweek.com/defense/mig-35- ... es-1660371
"...there is something mythical, and almost magical, about Russian aerospace...." AvWEAK 18 Jul 2017 James Drew

Re: F-35 vs. Mig-29

Unread postPosted: 19 Jul 2017, 12:54
by sferrin
spazsinbad wrote:Here is the problem for the WEST: Beat that LM/BOING! http://aviationweek.com/defense/mig-35- ... es-1660371
"...there is something mythical, and almost magical, about Russian aerospace...." AvWEAK 18 Jul 2017 James Drew


Ye Gods, that's the kind of writing one would expect out of io9 or Foxtrotalpha.
throwing-up.gif

Re: F-35 vs. Mig-29

Unread postPosted: 19 Jul 2017, 13:33
by hythelday
According to UAC website, among other gems, is this:

Оптико-локационная станция с инфракрасной, телевизионной и лазерной прицельной аппаратурой создана с использованием космических технологий, ранее не применявшихся в авиации.


Translation:

(forward looking) Optical system with IR, heat seeking (what's the difference BTW?) and laser sighting devices was created utilizing space technologies, never before used in aviation


At least they didn't use "quantum" instead of laser, as is the custom. This wonder plane is supposed to rival "any existing and perspective" fighters, probably because it has, wait for it... FADEC-enabled engine! Apparently a big improvement over previous world-beating Fulcrums.

Re: F-35 vs. Mig-29

Unread postPosted: 19 Jul 2017, 14:39
by hornetfinn
hythelday wrote:Translation:

(forward looking) Optical system with IR, heat seeking (what's the difference BTW?) and laser sighting devices was created utilizing space technologies, never before used in aviation



Optical system with IR could be using short wave infrared (SWR) which is basically reflected light but at longer wavelength than what humans can see. Heat seeking is using either medium or long wave infrared as they rely mostly on heat generated by the object. Similar to latest targeting pods and what Advanced EOTS is going to use.

I really wonder what those special "space technologies" are... :?

Re: F-35 vs. Mig-29

Unread postPosted: 19 Jul 2017, 15:58
by vilters
Ach, Mig 29 tactics are very much like F-4 tactics.

Just follow the smoke and you"ll find it.

Re: F-35 vs. Mig-29

Unread postPosted: 19 Jul 2017, 17:44
by dr.weird
vilters wrote:Ach, Mig 29 tactics are very much like F-4 tactics.

Just follow the smoke and you"ll find it.


:notworthy:

is that a diesel?

Re: F-35 vs. Mig-29

Unread postPosted: 04 Aug 2017, 20:50
by spazsinbad
Indian Navy/Air Force Aircraft procurement is 'magical' as explained recently by AvWeak for Russian Aircraft in general.
Indian Navy wants Russian MiG-29K jets to be ‘ruggedized’
04 Aug 2017 Vivek Raghuvanshi

"NEW DELHI — The Indian Navy is facing acute maintenance problems with the 45 Russian-made MiG-29K aircraft, which are the sole fighters on the aircraft carrier INS Vikramaditya, according a senior Indian Navy official.

“We (Indian Navy) want the MiG-29K aircraft to be ruggedized to carry out operations because landing on the deck of the aircraft carrier is almost like a hard landing and the fighter aircraft needs frequent maintenance,” the Navy official said. “There are frequent structural defects due to deck landing,” the official added....

...Arun Prakash, a retired Indian Navy admiral and former service chief, was more critical of the situation: “The truth is that the Indian Navy has virtually funded the development of this aircraft (which the Russian Navy is now adopting), and if the Russians had any ethics they would ensure that every shortcoming is fixed free of cost.”... [I look forward to 'pigs flying']

...HAL is currently seeking funds from the Navy for the maintenance and overhaul of 113 engines including spares.

According to the MoD official, the government would prefer an agreement involving the Navy, Russia and HAL to undertake structural improvements for the MiG-29K fighters.

The call for improved ruggedness originates from an issue after deck landings. The MiG-29K fighter’s settings reportedly require a reset after landing on the deck of the carrier. “After every carrier landing (which is virtually like a crash), components of the aircraft crack, break or stop functioning. The aircraft, then goes to the workshop for repair/ replacement of the part, which often has to come from Russia,” Prakash said.

A report last year by India’s autonomous auditing agency, the Comptroller and Auditor General of India, said the MiG-29K was to be technically accepted despite discrepancies and anomalies. “Since induction in February 2010, 40 engines (62 percent) of twin-engine MiG-29K fighters have been withdrawn from service due to design-related defects,” according to the report...." [makes the F-35C great again but hey ruskie aircraft are 'magical']

Source: http://www.defensenews.com/land/2017/08 ... uggedized/

Re: F-35 vs. Mig-29

Unread postPosted: 04 Aug 2017, 23:33
by nutshell
spazsinbad wrote:Here is the problem for the WEST: Beat that LM/BOING! http://aviationweek.com/defense/mig-35- ... es-1660371
"...there is something mythical, and almost magical, about Russian aerospace...." AvWEAK 18 Jul 2017 James Drew


Plasma Stealth was the weapon of choice of Gandalf in the Lord of the Ring.

Re: F-35 vs. Mig-29

Unread postPosted: 05 Aug 2017, 16:29
by mixelflick
Lemme see if I understand this correctly...

The Russians delivered the Mig-29K to the Indian Navy for use on AIRCRAFT CARRIERS, and they failed to "ruggedize" them? Cracking and breaking after every landing, then needing new parts (from Russia!) does not an efficient air arm make. What on earth were they doing with their Mig-29's flying from Kustenov recently?

The same thing?? Cracking and breaking them??

Re: F-35 vs. Mig-29

Unread postPosted: 05 Aug 2017, 22:38
by f-16adf
Bad news for the Indian Navy.

Re: F-35 vs. Mig-29

Unread postPosted: 06 Aug 2017, 17:33
by geforcerfx
mixelflick wrote:Lemme see if I understand this correctly...

The Russians delivered the Mig-29K to the Indian Navy for use on AIRCRAFT CARRIERS, and they failed to "ruggedize" them? Cracking and breaking after every landing, then needing new parts (from Russia!) does not an efficient air arm make. What on earth were they doing with their Mig-29's flying from Kustenov recently?

The same thing?? Cracking and breaking them??


They were put ashore once they reached the Med, I wonder if the Mig-29's even did 100 traps while at see, not to mention the sh*t show on the deck which resulted in the loss of a Su-33 and a Mig-29k.

Re: F-35 vs. Mig-29

Unread postPosted: 06 Aug 2017, 19:11
by mixelflick
Yeah, what exactly happened there with the SU-33?

I recall hearing the Mig-29K ran out of fuel while waiting for clearance to land aboard the ship?

Re: F-35 vs. Mig-29

Unread postPosted: 07 Aug 2017, 23:15
by spazsinbad
:devil: Perhaps the PAK-FA will come to the rescue if INDIA buys the Navalised Version (but will it be RUGGEDISED?!) :doh:
Russia Shows Concept For New Helicopter Carrier
02 Aug 2017 Vladimir Karnazov

"...Since the PAKFA has been selected as the base to develop exportable Fifth Generation Fighter Aircraft (FGFA) jointly with India, Moscow wants New Delhi to consider a navalized version of this jet for future carriers of the Indian navy. The latter operates the ex-Russian carrier INS Vikramaditya, and expects its indigenous aircraft carrier INS Vikrant to enter service next year. India’s third carrier is viewed as a much larger ship armed with either the Dassault Rafale-M or the Boeing F/A-18E/F Super Hornet, but this might change if Moscow offers something better."

Source: http://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news/ ... er-carrier

Re: F-35 vs. Mig-29

Unread postPosted: 08 Aug 2017, 01:02
by popcorn
Slamming the jet onto a carrier deck really does wonders in exposing hidden flaws. :devil:

Re: F-35 vs. Mig-29

Unread postPosted: 08 Aug 2017, 01:55
by popcorn
spazsinbad wrote::devil: Perhaps the PAK-FA will come to the rescue if INDIA buys the Navalised Version (but will it be RUGGEDISED?!) :doh:
Russia Shows Concept For New Helicopter Carrier
02 Aug 2017 Vladimir Karnazov

"...Since the PAKFA has been selected as the base to develop exportable Fifth Generation Fighter Aircraft (FGFA) jointly with India, Moscow wants New Delhi to consider a navalized version of this jet for future carriers of the Indian navy. The latter operates the ex-Russian carrier INS Vikramaditya, and expects its indigenous aircraft carrier INS Vikrant to enter service next year. India’s third carrier is viewed as a much larger ship armed with either the Dassault Rafale-M or the Boeing F/A-18E/F Super Hornet, but this might change if Moscow offers something better."

Source: http://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news/ ... er-carrier

Well, if the Indians buy this latest Russian snake oil it must be due to their snake-handling tradition and high tolerance to gettng bitten. :doh:

Re: F-35 vs. Mig-29

Unread postPosted: 09 Aug 2017, 10:17
by klearhos
F-35 vs MiG-29

1) The F-35 detects the MiG-29
2) The F-35 pilot selects -120s, but the MiG is down to the weeds doing figure 8s at 320 knots, so the F-35 is way out of range.
3) The F-35 makes an approach on the MiG
4) BOOOOOOM, the F-35 explodes in a fireball. The F-35 pilot goes WTF?

The F-35 pilot ejects and parachutes down right next to the TOR M2 battery.

Re: F-35 vs. Mig-29

Unread postPosted: 09 Aug 2017, 10:34
by hythelday
klearhos wrote:F-35 vs MiG-29

1) The F-35 detects the MiG-29
2) The F-35 pilot selects -120s, but the MiG is down to the weeds doing figure 8s at 320 knots, so the F-35 is way out of range.
3) The F-35 makes an approach on the MiG
4) BOOOOOOM, the F-35 explodes in a fireball. The F-35 pilot goes WTF?

The F-35 pilot ejects and parachutes down right next to the TOR M2 battery.


True, those ROFAR 3D radars are no joke!!!1!1

Re: F-35 vs. Mig-29

Unread postPosted: 09 Aug 2017, 10:45
by klearhos
hythelday wrote: True, those ROFAR 3D radars are no joke!!!1!1


Don't even know what that is.

Re: F-35 vs. Mig-29

Unread postPosted: 09 Aug 2017, 11:04
by garrya
klearhos wrote:F-35 vs MiG-29

1) The F-35 detects the MiG-29
2) The F-35 pilot selects -120s, but the MiG is down to the weeds doing figure 8s at 320 knots, so the F-35 is way out of range.
3) The F-35 makes an approach on the MiG
4) BOOOOOOM, the F-35 explodes in a fireball. The F-35 pilot goes WTF?

The F-35 pilot ejects and parachutes down right next to the TOR M2 battery.

F-35 should be able to detect Tor M2 battery on RWR or radar screen through SAR, if not, DAS will detect missile launch trails before it too late


klearhos wrote:Don't even know what that is.

Read this thread, focus on wewuzkangz post
viewtopic.php?f=38&t=52962&start=15

Re: F-35 vs. Mig-29

Unread postPosted: 09 Aug 2017, 11:14
by juretrn
klearhos wrote:
Don't even know what that is.

TL;DR version: Russian snake oil (+/-)

Re: F-35 vs. Mig-29

Unread postPosted: 09 Aug 2017, 11:14
by lbk000
klearhos wrote:F-35 vs MiG-29

1) The F-35 detects the MiG-29
2) The F-35 pilot selects -120s, but the MiG is down to the weeds doing figure 8s at 320 knots, so the F-35 is way out of range.
3) The F-35 makes an approach on the MiG
4) BOOOOOOM, the F-35 explodes in a fireball. The F-35 pilot goes WTF?

The F-35 pilot ejects and parachutes down right next to the TOR M2 battery.

f-35 ignores mig-29 and knocks out tor because that is the actual mission task.
meanwhile mig-29 keeps doing figure 8s on the deck because he doesn't know where the f-35 is.

everyone moves on.

Re: F-35 vs. Mig-29

Unread postPosted: 09 Aug 2017, 11:24
by klearhos
Like Sean Connery said in the "hunt of red october" this is tactics sunshines. Tactics that brought down the F117 in Serbia, updated to account for the new threat.

SAMs will wait 4 u to fly past, so you won't pick them up on your (forward looking) radar.

There is gonna be no RWR warning. Same with the F-16 that was shot down in Bosnia.

What the DAS will see through the clouds or while being blinded by the lasers that are co-axial to the tracking sensors of 4 TELARs remains to be seen in actual practice. And in any case the pilot doesn't need DAS to spot a missile launch at night. Problem is how he divides his attention.

Re: F-35 vs. Mig-29

Unread postPosted: 09 Aug 2017, 11:27
by hythelday
lbk000 wrote:
klearhos wrote:F-35 vs MiG-29

1) The F-35 detects the MiG-29
2) The F-35 pilot selects -120s, but the MiG is down to the weeds doing figure 8s at 320 knots, so the F-35 is way out of range.
3) The F-35 makes an approach on the MiG
4) BOOOOOOM, the F-35 explodes in a fireball. The F-35 pilot goes WTF?

The F-35 pilot ejects and parachutes down right next to the TOR M2 battery.

f-35 ignores mig-29 and knocks out tor because that is the actual mission task.
meanwhile mig-29 keeps doing figure 8s on the deck because he doesn't know where the f-35 is.

everyone moves on.


More importantly: since when does doing "figure 8" on the deck reduces range of AAM? Always though shooting down was easier than shooting up? Why is MiG-29 doing figure 8 in the first place, does it know it is bait? Obviously stealth is kapitalist trick that doesn't work on bestest Russian radars, and SAR can be easily tricked by maskirovka, but why doesn't F-35's EW systems don't pick up Gauntlent' emissions? Why is F-35 in range at all?

Re: F-35 vs. Mig-29

Unread postPosted: 09 Aug 2017, 11:43
by juretrn
klearhos wrote:Like Sean Connery said in the "hunt of red october" this is tactics sunshines. Tactics that brought down the F117 in Serbia, updated to account for the new threat.

SAMs will wait 4 u to fly past, so you won't pick them up on your (forward looking) radar.

There is gonna be no RWR warning. Same with the F-16 that was shot down in Bosnia.

What the DAS will see while being blinded by the lasers that are co-axial to the tracking sensors of 4 TELARs remains to be seen in actual practice.


And F-35s are flown by apes that haven't even heard the word "tactics" before.
Are those SAMs also going to wait when they detect something that looks like an F-16 on their scopes (but may or may not be a MALD)?
Are they going to wait shooting at the inevitable cruise missiles just to get a chance at downing F-35s (assuming they can ever see them)?
Those laser "jammers" are also going to give away the position of the launcher; do you really want to do that?

Re: F-35 vs. Mig-29

Unread postPosted: 09 Aug 2017, 11:54
by garrya
klearhos wrote:SAMs will wait 4 u to fly past, so you won't pick them up on your (forward looking) radar.

SAM cannot wait for aircraft to fly past. They can hope that they don't get picked up on SAR but whether they are active or not doesn't really affect the performance of forward looking radar on aircraft

klearhos wrote: There is gonna be no RWR warning. Same with the F-16 that was shot down in Bosnia.What the DAS will see through the clouds or

If the area are full of clouds then SAM will have to rely on radar to get a radar lock, in that case there will be RWR warnings

klearhos wrote: while being blinded by the lasers that are co-axial to the tracking sensors of 4 TELARs remains to be seen in actual practice.

There are several DAS sensors and also EOTS, the chance that all of them are blinded simultaneously by laser are near impossible and require very high tracking accuracy (likely at 1-2 km only)
Image

Laser are visible to SWIR sensor also
Image

Re: F-35 vs. Mig-29

Unread postPosted: 09 Aug 2017, 12:16
by lbk000
hythelday wrote:More importantly: since when does doing "figure 8" on the deck reduces range of AAM? Always though shooting down was easier than shooting up?

Not quite, most of the air in the atmosphere is down at the bottom and shooting the deck tends to be a bit like shooting bullets into the water. Not nearly as dramatic of course but it nevertheless degrades range. Secondly your target doesn't really ever fly towards you, that itself will degrade your paper range.

He's not entirely wrong, but the scenario and assumptions are pretty dumb. Nobody with a brain is going to see a target loitering around and not know it's bait.

Re: F-35 vs. Mig-29

Unread postPosted: 09 Aug 2017, 12:22
by hythelday
lbk000 wrote:
hythelday wrote:More importantly: since when does doing "figure 8" on the deck reduces range of AAM? Always though shooting down was easier than shooting up?

Not quite, most of the air in the atmosphere is down at the bottom and shooting the deck tends to be a bit like shooting bullets into the water. Not nearly as dramatic of course but it nevertheless degrades range. Secondly your target doesn't really ever fly towards you, that itself will degrade your paper range.



Hmm, makes sense because of denser atmosphere. Not sure enough to turn AIM-120 into WVR missle though.

Re: F-35 vs. Mig-29

Unread postPosted: 09 Aug 2017, 12:26
by botsing
klearhos wrote:Tactics that brought down the F117 in Serbia, updated to account for the new threat.

Sample size of n=1, so useless. Better base your tactics on the many, many more occasions where the stealth aircraft was not shot down and where it completed it's mission.

You also know that this single F-117 was shot down due to several factors, where the tactic used was only possible due to a predictable flight path.

Re: F-35 vs. Mig-29

Unread postPosted: 09 Aug 2017, 12:34
by lbk000
hythelday wrote:Hmm, makes sense because of denser atmosphere. Not sure enough to turn AIM-120 into WVR missle though.

Certainly not, although I'm not sure where you produced that conclusion from, but his assumption is that it'll make the F-35 "unwittingly" approach closer -- over the Tor that the F-35s would have been tasked to look for. If some nerd is doing donuts behind his SAM, why the blazes would you not take your sweet time and hunt the SAM instead? He has no idea where you are so he's just burning up avgas "baiting" you. His loss.

I like how the F-35 demonstrating A2A-worthy maneuverability at PAS suddenly made people forget it's foremost an A2G platform designed from the get-go to hunt SAM units.

The real joke here is the notion that the Mig-29 even has the gas to loiter.

Re: F-35 vs. Mig-29

Unread postPosted: 09 Aug 2017, 13:06
by botsing
klearhos wrote:F-35 vs MiG-29

1) The F-35 detects the MiG-29
2) The F-35 pilot selects -120s, but the MiG is down to the weeds doing figure 8s at 320 knots, so the F-35 is way out of range.
3) The F-35 makes an approach on the MiG
4) BOOOOOOM, the F-35 explodes in a fireball. The F-35 pilot goes WTF?

The F-35 pilot ejects and parachutes down right next to the TOR M2 battery.

You got this totally wrong, let me show you a better version:

1) A (not the) F-35 detects the MiG-29, the MiG-29 does not know where the F-35's exactly are or how many there are.
2) Another F-35 selects AIM-120 and releases it towards the MiG-29.
3) The AIM-120 is guided passively by yet another F-35 towards the MiG-29.
4) Several seconds before the AIM-120 reaches the MiG-29, it goes active, this is the MiG-29's first warning it's targeted.
5) In the mere seconds left now, the MiG-29 tries to escape and is almost able to make a 90 degree turn before it explodes.
6) The TOR M2 in the meantime was discovered and targeted by yet another F-35 that was not seen and explodes in sympathy with the MiG-29.

Re: F-35 vs. Mig-29

Unread postPosted: 09 Aug 2017, 13:12
by madrat
And why on earth would either the F-35 or MiG-29 be flying alone? Once you get into multiples the entire logical argument negates the tactic. Even the best IFF cannot target intermixed targets with 100% certainty. MiG-29 would certainly become dead meat from both Tor and F-35 alike. Not the most talented use of limited assets.

Re: F-35 vs. Mig-29

Unread postPosted: 09 Aug 2017, 13:16
by botsing
madrat wrote:And why on earth would either the F-35 or MiG-29 be flying alone? Once you get into multiples the entire logical argument negates the tactic. Even the best IFF cannot target intermixed targets with 100% certainty. MiG-29 would certainly become dead meat from both Tor and F-35 alike. Not the most talented use of limited assets.

Exactly my point.

I just wanted to edit this into my previous post when you made your post:

7) In the post mission debriefing all agree that it was rather odd of the MiG-29 to be there on it's own. ;)

Re: F-35 vs. Mig-29

Unread postPosted: 09 Aug 2017, 13:57
by basher54321
In his defense the MiG-29 pilot was quoted as saying:

"Our tactics manuals were written by Australian expert Dr Copp and gave us the idea that all combat was 1 v 1 and that is what we trained to, I think the F-35 guys really cheated by using more than one aircraft you know" :D

Re: F-35 vs. Mig-29

Unread postPosted: 09 Aug 2017, 14:21
by mk82
lbk000 wrote:
klearhos wrote:F-35 vs MiG-29

1) The F-35 detects the MiG-29
2) The F-35 pilot selects -120s, but the MiG is down to the weeds doing figure 8s at 320 knots, so the F-35 is way out of range.
3) The F-35 makes an approach on the MiG
4) BOOOOOOM, the F-35 explodes in a fireball. The F-35 pilot goes WTF?

The F-35 pilot ejects and parachutes down right next to the TOR M2 battery.

f-35 ignores mig-29 and knocks out tor because that is the actual mission task.
meanwhile mig-29 keeps doing figure 8s on the deck because he doesn't know where the f-35 is.

everyone moves on.


Spot on!!!!

Re: F-35 vs. Mig-29

Unread postPosted: 09 Aug 2017, 14:26
by mk82
botsing wrote:
klearhos wrote:F-35 vs MiG-29

1) The F-35 detects the MiG-29
2) The F-35 pilot selects -120s, but the MiG is down to the weeds doing figure 8s at 320 knots, so the F-35 is way out of range.
3) The F-35 makes an approach on the MiG
4) BOOOOOOM, the F-35 explodes in a fireball. The F-35 pilot goes WTF?

The F-35 pilot ejects and parachutes down right next to the TOR M2 battery.

You got this totally wrong, let me show you a better version:

1) A (not the) F-35 detects the MiG-29, the MiG-29 does not know where the F-35's exactly are or how many there are.
2) Another F-35 selects AIM-120 and releases it towards the MiG-29.
3) The AIM-120 is guided passively by yet another F-35 towards the MiG-29.
4) Several seconds before the AIM-120 reaches the MiG-29, it goes active, this is the MiG-29's first warning it's targeted.
5) In the mere seconds left now, the MiG-29 tries to escape and is almost able to make a 90 degree turn before it explodes.
6) The TOR M2 in the meantime was discovered and targeted by yet another F-35 that was not seen and explodes in sympathy with the MiG-29.


Boom!!!! That MiG-29 and TOR M2 is done and dusted.

A lot of people don't realize that the F35 can be a very devious platform due to its strengths (VLO, networked senor fusion, outstanding sensors etc etc).

Re: F-35 vs. Mig-29

Unread postPosted: 09 Aug 2017, 14:27
by mk82
basher54321 wrote:In his defense the MiG-29 pilot was quoted as saying:

"Our tactics manuals were written by Australian expert Dr Copp and gave us the idea that all combat was 1 v 1 and that is what we trained to, I think the F-35 guys really cheated by using more than one aircraft you know" :D


MiG-29 pilot: Damn you Carlo!!!!!! :mrgreen:

Re: F-35 vs. Mig-29

Unread postPosted: 09 Aug 2017, 14:32
by XanderCrews
basher54321 wrote:In his defense the MiG-29 pilot was quoted as saying:

"Our tactics manuals were written by Australian expert Dr Copp and gave us the idea that all combat was 1 v 1 and that is what we trained to, I think the F-35 guys really cheated by using more than one aircraft you know" :D



Lol :mrgreen:

Re: F-35 vs. Mig-29

Unread postPosted: 09 Aug 2017, 14:37
by jwc1723
Well if you think LPI radars are only available to US forces you are dumb. The first radar with LPI characteristics was a french fire control radar built in the 70's which the french have sold here there and everywhere.

If you think the F-35 is invisible to radar at all ranges and angles you are monkeys.

And if you have still not figured out how missile range varies with height and target aspect you have no business commenting here.

Re: F-35 vs. Mig-29

Unread postPosted: 09 Aug 2017, 14:48
by white_lightning35
I can't seem to find the post where someone said the f-35 was invisible to radar at all angles, and that only the US has LPI radars. Can you point them out to me?

Re: F-35 vs. Mig-29

Unread postPosted: 09 Aug 2017, 15:03
by mk82
jwc1723 wrote:Well if you think LPI radars are only available to US forces you are dumb. The first radar with LPI characteristics was a french fire control radar built in the 70's which the french have sold here there and everywhere.

If you think the F-35 is invisible to radar at all ranges and angles you are monkeys.

And if you have still not figured out how missile range varies with height and target aspect you have no business commenting here.


How is that 1970s French LPI fire control radar doing now?........ crickets crickets crickets.....oh dear

One thing is for certain, the Mig 29 is visible to radar at all ranges and angles.....ouch....that's a big difference :mrgreen:

Re: F-35 vs. Mig-29

Unread postPosted: 09 Aug 2017, 15:05
by botsing
jwc1723 wrote:Well if you think LPI radars are only available to US forces you are dumb. The first radar with LPI characteristics was a french fire control radar built in the 70's which the french have sold here there and everywhere.

If you think the F-35 is invisible to radar at all ranges and angles you are monkeys.

And if you have still not figured out how missile range varies with height and target aspect you have no business commenting here.

Let me translate what you posted into a non-Youtubian language:

"I am butthurt and I think that if I shout loud enough without backing up my claims that they sure must belief me"

Creating a new account to make that comment, ridiculous... Go away troll.

Re: F-35 vs. Mig-29

Unread postPosted: 09 Aug 2017, 15:14
by jwc1723
MiG-29 VS F-35

1) A quartet of dutch F-35s are approaching Voronez
2) The F-35s have intermittent contact with two MiG-29s doing figure 8s at 5000'' and 300 knots and are picking up intermittent radar emissions from them.
3) The F-35s carry AMRAAMs with a 50 mile range, but, the pilots, looking at their high tech displays, only have a 3-12 nm DLZ on these bogeys, but they nevertheless close in for the kill, using basher's tactics. A pair move in towards the nothern MiG and the second pair towards the southern mig, which orbits 15nm from his leader.
4) The MiGs pick up the F-35s on their IRST, they are cross locked and make normal approaches to their respective targets.
5) The F-35s fire their AMRAAMs when in range (guess what the range is), the AMRAAMs go active, the Migs release their expendable jammers, the AMRAAMs use their HOJ capability and kill all the jammers.
6) A close fight ensues and all F-35s are gunned down in seconds.
7) The F-35 pilots eject and are arrested by OMON. Turned out they were all transgender persons, so were immediately released.

Re: F-35 vs. Mig-29

Unread postPosted: 09 Aug 2017, 15:16
by XanderCrews
jwc1723 wrote:If you think the F-35 is invisible to radar at all ranges and angles you are monkeys.

And if you have still not figured out how missile range varies with height and target aspect you have no business commenting here.


interesting that you are the only one who suggested such a thing, my simian friend.

Re: F-35 vs. Mig-29

Unread postPosted: 09 Aug 2017, 15:22
by juretrn
jwc1723 wrote:MiG-29 VS F-35

1) A quartet of dutch F-35s are approaching Voronez
2) The F-35s have intermittent contact with two MiG-29s doing figure 8s at 5000'' and 300 knots and are picking up intermittent radar emissions from them.
3) The F-35s carry AMRAAMs with a 50 mile range, but, the pilots, looking at their high tech displays, only have a 3-12 nm DLZ on these bogeys, but they nevertheless close in for the kill, using basher's tactics. A pair move in towards the nothern MiG and the second pair towards the southern mig, which orbits 15nm from his leader.
4) The MiGs pick up the F-35s on their IRST, they are cross locked and make normal approaches to their respective targets.
5) The F-35s fire their AMRAAMs when in range (guess what the range is), the AMRAAMs go active, the Migs release their expendable jammers, the AMRAAMs use their HOJ capability and kill all the jammers.
6) A close fight ensues and all F-35s are gunned down in seconds.
7) The F-35 pilots eject and are arrested by OMON. Turned out they were all transgender persons, so were immediately released.

Might as well quote Putin himself when it comes to such wishful thinking.
>3-12 nm AMRAAM kill zone. Just LOL.
>15 mile IR detection radius by MiG-29. but even Su-35s super duper system can only pick up a "Su-30 sized" target from 30 km head on. Wishful thinking much?
>AMRAAMs go for jammers because reasons
>Assuming F-35 is easy pickings close-in. If the F-35 can tangle with F-16s then they can sure as hell tangle with MiGs.
also:
Image

Re: F-35 vs. Mig-29

Unread postPosted: 09 Aug 2017, 15:31
by white_lightning35
jwc1723 wrote:MiG-29 VS F-35

1) A quartet of dutch F-35s are approaching Voronez
2) The F-35s have intermittent contact with two MiG-29s doing figure 8s at 5000'' and 300 knots and are picking up intermittent radar emissions from them.
3) The F-35s carry AMRAAMs with a 50 mile range, but, the pilots, looking at their high tech displays, only have a 3-12 nm DLZ on these bogeys, but they nevertheless close in for the kill, using basher's tactics. A pair move in towards the nothern MiG and the second pair towards the southern mig, which orbits 15nm from his leader.
4) The MiGs pick up the F-35s on their IRST, they are cross locked and make normal approaches to their respective targets.
5) The F-35s fire their AMRAAMs when in range (guess what the range is), the AMRAAMs go active, the Migs release their expendable jammers, the AMRAAMs use their HOJ capability and kill all the jammers.
6) A close fight ensues and all F-35s are gunned down in seconds.
7) The F-35 pilots eject and are arrested by OMON. Turned out they were all transgender persons, so were immediately released.


I lost the few brain cells I had left reading that.

Re: F-35 vs. Mig-29

Unread postPosted: 09 Aug 2017, 15:33
by XanderCrews
jwc1723 wrote:MiG-29 VS F-35

1) A quartet of dutch F-35s are approaching Voronez
2) The F-35s have intermittent contact with two MiG-29s doing figure 8s at 5000'' and 300 knots and are picking up intermittent radar emissions from them.
3) The F-35s carry AMRAAMs with a 50 mile range, but, the pilots, looking at their high tech displays, only have a 3-12 nm DLZ on these bogeys, but they nevertheless close in for the kill, using basher's tactics. A pair move in towards the nothern MiG and the second pair towards the southern mig, which orbits 15nm from his leader.
4) The MiGs pick up the F-35s on their IRST, they are cross locked and make normal approaches to their respective targets.
5) The F-35s fire their AMRAAMs when in range (guess what the range is), the AMRAAMs go active, the Migs release their expendable jammers, the AMRAAMs use their HOJ capability and kill all the jammers.
6) A close fight ensues and all F-35s are gunned down in seconds.
7) The F-35 pilots eject and are arrested by OMON. Turned out they were all transgender persons, so were immediately released.


Can't tell if this is satire...?

I might be a little bit more impressed with MiG-29s if they ever beat F-16s or F-15s. But not that even that has ever happened. So now the F-35s which are superior to the F-16 would lose 4 vs 2 because Mig-29s have IRSTs?


A close fight ensues? Every Mig-29 faced was killed before the merge. The one that made it, flew itself into the ground 2 vs 1 against some F-15s in 1991.

The Mig-29 has an abysmal combat record and its ability to survive Aim-120s, is apparently something they are saving for "later" :devil:

Re: F-35 vs. Mig-29

Unread postPosted: 09 Aug 2017, 15:35
by XanderCrews
jwc1723 wrote:
XanderCrews wrote:>3-12 nm AMRAAM kill zone. Just LOL.


You better stick to your playstation. This is for grown ups.



I didn't say that... Can't master an internet forum. Talks about playstation... claims to be knowledgeable.


Also, Reported :wink:

Re: F-35 vs. Mig-29

Unread postPosted: 09 Aug 2017, 15:37
by juretrn
jwc1723 wrote:
You better stick to your playstation. This is for grown ups.

You better have a very good justification for calling me names because you're giving AMRAMM a NEZ (?) to the ranges where IR missiles become relevant.

Re: F-35 vs. Mig-29

Unread postPosted: 09 Aug 2017, 15:39
by SpudmanWP
klearhos wrote:Tactics that brought down the F117 in Serbia, updated to account for the new threat.

That and a lack of Situational Awareness for the F-117 (no RWR), poor mission planning (flying the same route repeatedly), and bad luck (flew within 10 miles of the missile site).

Re: F-35 vs. Mig-29

Unread postPosted: 09 Aug 2017, 15:39
by garrya
jwc1723 wrote:Well if you think LPI radars are only available to US forces you are dumb. The first radar with LPI characteristics was a french fire control radar built in the 70's which the french have sold here there and everywhere.

That is indeed correct, but not all LPI are created equal.
Some use more complex PRF jittering and pulse compression than the others. The majority of F-35 will be silent with only a few transmit though

jwc1723 wrote: If you think the F-35 is invisible to radar at all ranges and angles you are monkeys.

F-35 is not stealth from all aspect, but it will be stealthy from important aspect such as the frontal arcs, there are some high RCS spikes on the side but unless Mig-29 can get inside and maintain their possition inside the cone, it won't matter much

jwc1723 wrote:And if you have still not figured out how missile range varies with height and target aspect

That is true but if Mig-29 doing the 8 circles at low altitude, F-35 will have the advantage in height and speed to give their missiles more range.

Re: F-35 vs. Mig-29

Unread postPosted: 09 Aug 2017, 16:09
by mk82
MiG-29 VS F-35

1) A quartet of awesome Dutch F-35s are approaching Voronez
2) The F-35s are constantly tracking the two MiG-29s doing puzzling figure 8s at 5000'' and 300 knots from a long way out and are picking up intermittent radar emissions from them.
3) The F-35s carry AMRAAMs with a 50 nautical mile range, but, the pilots, looking at their high tech displays, noted a >12nm DLZ on these bogeys, and flanked the Mig 29s for the kill, using common sense tactics. A pair move in towards the nothern MiG and the second pair towards the southern mig, which orbits a suicidal 15nm from his leader.
4) The MiGs pick up the F-35s on their IRST and eat AMRAAMs face first before the Mig 29 pilots could decide on breakfast, tactics or what colored underwear they want to wear today. Mig 29 pilots forgot that gravity is a wonderful thing for projectiles. Also the Mig 29s could not release their non existent expendable jammers
5) If a close fight manage to ensue -> all Mig 29s are gunned down in seconds or are flown into the ground as per Mig 29 SOP. The Mig 29 pilots realized they really underestimated the F35's close in fighting ability like fools. Also where did that Aim 9X come from.....
7) The Mig 29 pilots eject and were sent to the Gulags for executing such stupid tactics taught to them by an id*ot on the interwebz

Corrected!! So much better isn't it :mrgreen:

Re: F-35 vs. Mig-29

Unread postPosted: 09 Aug 2017, 16:18
by eloise
jwc1723 wrote:1) A quartet of dutch F-35s are approaching Voronez
2) The F-35s have intermittent contact with two MiG-29s doing figure 8s at 5000'' and 300 knots and are picking up intermittent radar emissions from them.
3) The F-35s carry AMRAAMs with a 50 mile range, but, the pilots, looking at their high tech displays, only have a 3-12 nm DLZ on these bogeys, but they nevertheless close in for the kill, using basher's tactics.

Or once F-35 detect Mig-29 from 200-300 km aways, they started accelerating and climbing while closing in. Giving their AAM 40-60% more range.
Or F-35 carry Meteor with 3 times the NEZ.
Image

Mig-29 at disadvantage in altitude, speed, situation awareness and countermeasures has no choice but to flee or face certain destruction


jwc1723 wrote: The MiGs pick up the F-35s on their IRST.

Or may be they won't without cueing from a third party. Third party in this case are jammed by MALD-J or APG-81 or ASQ-239

jwc1723 wrote:The F-35s fire their AMRAAMs when in range (guess what the range is), the AMRAAMs go active, the Migs release their expendable jammers, the AMRAAMs use their HOJ capability and kill all the jammers.

Or F-35 command their missiles by datalink until last seconds using information gathered by APG-81, EOTS, DAS.



jwc1723 wrote:A close fight ensues and all F-35s are gunned down in seconds.

or the reverse happens, some lucky leftover Mig-29 can't deal with F-35 subsonic acceleration, post stall and DIRCM :mrgreen:

Re: F-35 vs. Mig-29

Unread postPosted: 09 Aug 2017, 16:27
by SpudmanWP
eloise wrote:Or F-35 carry Meteor with 3 times the NEZ.


The 3x NEZ quote is an old quote from the beginning of the Meteor program and is based on the AIM-120B or "maybe" the C3, certainly not the current AIM-120D.

Re: F-35 vs. Mig-29

Unread postPosted: 09 Aug 2017, 16:35
by eloise
SpudmanWP wrote:
The 3x NEZ quote is an old quote from the beginning of the Meteor program and is based on the AIM-120B or "maybe" the C3, certainly not the current AIM-120D.

Still very long range.

Re: F-35 vs. Mig-29

Unread postPosted: 09 Aug 2017, 16:43
by nutshell
jwc1723 wrote:MiG-29 VS F-35

1) A quartet of dutch F-35s are approaching Voronez
2) The F-35s have intermittent contact with two MiG-29s doing figure 8s at 5000'' and 300 knots and are picking up intermittent radar emissions from them.
3) The F-35s carry AMRAAMs with a 50 mile range, but, the pilots, looking at their high tech displays, only have a 3-12 nm DLZ on these bogeys, but they nevertheless close in for the kill, using basher's tactics. A pair move in towards the nothern MiG and the second pair towards the southern mig, which orbits 15nm from his leader.
4) The MiGs pick up the F-35s on their IRST, they are cross locked and make normal approaches to their respective targets.
5) The F-35s fire their AMRAAMs when in range (guess what the range is), the AMRAAMs go active, the Migs release their expendable jammers, the AMRAAMs use their HOJ capability and kill all the jammers.
6) A close fight ensues and all F-35s are gunned down in seconds.
7) The F-35 pilots eject and are arrested by OMON. Turned out they were all transgender persons, so were immediately released.



Nice bait.

Re: F-35 vs. Mig-29

Unread postPosted: 09 Aug 2017, 16:59
by f-16adf
3.5 The Mig's IRST doesn't work, they hit Bingo fuel and go home. :D

Re: F-35 vs. Mig-29

Unread postPosted: 09 Aug 2017, 17:30
by viper4ever
jwc1723 wrote:MiG-29 VS F-35

1) A quartet of dutch F-35s are approaching Voronez
2) The F-35s have intermittent contact with two MiG-29s doing figure 8s at 5000'' and 300 knots and are picking up intermittent radar emissions from them.
3) The F-35s carry AMRAAMs with a 50 mile range, but, the pilots, looking at their high tech displays, only have a 3-12 nm DLZ on these bogeys, but they nevertheless close in for the kill, using basher's tactics. A pair move in towards the nothern MiG and the second pair towards the southern mig, which orbits 15nm from his leader.
4) The MiGs pick up the F-35s on their IRST, they are cross locked and make normal approaches to their respective targets.
5) The F-35s fire their AMRAAMs when in range (guess what the range is), the AMRAAMs go active, the Migs release their expendable jammers, the AMRAAMs use their HOJ capability and kill all the jammers.
6) A close fight ensues and all F-35s are gunned down in seconds.
7) The F-35 pilots eject and are arrested by OMON. Turned out they were all transgender persons, so were immediately released.




1) Approaching Voronez? Not in a billion years my friend. The yanks lost a thousand a/c in Vietnam. Now they are picky with their enemies. That's how they get their MiG kills. They did oppose Saddam's annexation of Q8, did they oppose Russia's annexation of Crimea? Neither them nor their NATO chickens.

2) 50 miles range? You are having a laugh. They are lucky if they can shoot at 30.

3)"Figure 8s at 300 knots low" kind of reminds me sth. But you can relax this assumption. Suppose the MiG is flying at med alt subsonic minding its business. And the F-35 picks him up at 200nm and closes in for a head on shot at 30. Now the F-35 cannot crank, it's gonna be a straight run approach. That brings him to under 10 nm. Need I say more?

4) You forgot the AIM-9X. But then it was proved on the battlefield, where the US fought an adversary who's stuck in the '80s, that the -9X can be conned by the stupid Russian flares. And yes indeed the AMRAAM can be conned as well, not only by expendable jammers, but by the onboard jammer of a near peer adversary (that would require flying the chicken though).

5) Now in your description the MiGs do not fire missiles, they go straight for guns. You probably ignore the fact that the F-35 is a deadly dogfighter. :D

And for the love of God do not forget:

"Those who know do not talk"

So forgive the poor sod. He doesn't know wtf he' s talking about :mrgreen:

Re: F-35 vs. Mig-29

Unread postPosted: 09 Aug 2017, 17:33
by botsing
So, is there some troll forum where they coordinate this silly disinformation campaign?

Or is this some loner that loves to make multiple accounts to troll a forum?

Either way, it al sounds like a teenage fanboy that now really knows how to smoke weed after two tries. :roll:

Re: F-35 vs. Mig-29

Unread postPosted: 09 Aug 2017, 17:48
by eloise
viper4ever wrote:1) did they oppose Russia's annexation of Crimea? Neither them nor their NATO chickens

Didn't Turkey shot down a Russian aircraft flying into their air space?

viper4ever wrote:2) 50 miles range? You are having a laugh. They are lucky if they can shoot at 30.

All depends on altitude, launch velocity and target velocity, even AIM-7 can reach 100 km if launch from high altitude. This is the chart for equal altitude launch.
Image
Missiles like Meteor will more than triple this range


viper4ever wrote:. Now the F-35 cannot crank, it's gonna be a straight run approach. That brings him to under 10 nm. Need I say more?

F-35 can indeed flank, much easier than non stealth aircraft

viper4ever wrote: You forgot the AIM-9X. But then it was proved on the battlefield, where the US fought an adversary who's stuck in the '80s, that the -9X can be conned by the stupid Russian flares.

Big assumptions here, for all we know that missile could be malfunction.

viper4ever wrote: And yes indeed the AMRAAM can be conned as well, not only by expendable jammers, but by the onboard jammer of a near peer adversary (that would require flying the chicken though).

The jammer could also be rendering near useless if F-35 guide their missiles with datalink. Japan are integrating AESA seeker with Meteor, so jamming missiles seeker becoming harder and harder.

Re: F-35 vs. Mig-29

Unread postPosted: 09 Aug 2017, 18:01
by eloise
SpudmanWP wrote:
The 3x NEZ quote is an old quote from the beginning of the Meteor program and is based on the AIM-120B or "maybe" the C3, certainly not the current AIM-120D.

I got the Soviet estimate chart for AIM-120B
Image
At altitude of 5km, head on range for co altitude launch is 30-40 km => Meteor can reach range of 120 km
tail on range for co altitude launch is 10km => Meteor can reach range of 30 km for tail chase, not take into account high speed launch.

Re: F-35 vs. Mig-29

Unread postPosted: 09 Aug 2017, 18:21
by garrya
To be fair, Mig-29 radar will be of little use against F-35, thus as long as F-35 can attack from further than 15 km, it will have considerable advantage
Image

Re: F-35 vs. Mig-29

Unread postPosted: 09 Aug 2017, 18:52
by viper4ever
@ quarya

Well, those russian buggers go really fast. The OLS-35 claims a front hemisphere range of 50 km. "But, is that fitted to Russian MiGs?"

I don't know. Do you?

eloise wrote:Didn't Turkey shot down a Russian aircraft flying into their air space?


Thank you for reminding me my country's greatness, but, it does appear that the shooting was more like an accident or misunderstanding rather than a tactical battle we can learn from. The F-16 pilot is in custody for reasons that include his role in the shooting.

@ quarya

See page 12

http://www.knaapo.ru/media/eng/about/pr ... et_eng.pdf

35km is for head on, 50km if front quarter. Even if 35km was the right number, it is like 20nm, a tactically significant number :wink:

Re: F-35 vs. Mig-29

Unread postPosted: 09 Aug 2017, 18:58
by garrya
viper4ever wrote:@ quarya

Well, those russian buggers go really fast. The OLS-35 claims a front hemisphere range of 50 km.

OLS-35 claims a head on range of 35 km against Su-30 size target. LRF still less than 20 km
Image


viper4ever wrote:"But, is that fitted to Russian MiGs?"
I don't know. Do you?

OLS-35 is fitted to Su-35, Mig uses different OLS-UE, quite a bit smaller in volume.

Re: F-35 vs. Mig-29

Unread postPosted: 09 Aug 2017, 19:07
by viper4ever
@ qarrya

35 km is head on, 50 km is front quarter.

They can fit the OLS-35 in whichever a/c they want. And they won't tell you.

http://www.knaapo.ru/media/eng/about/pr ... et_eng.pdf

page 12

Re: F-35 vs. Mig-29

Unread postPosted: 09 Aug 2017, 19:18
by garrya
:? Did viper deleted his comment?

Re: F-35 vs. Mig-29

Unread postPosted: 09 Aug 2017, 23:01
by XanderCrews
eloise wrote:Mig-29 at disadvantage in altitude, speed, situation awareness and countermeasures has no choice but to flee or face certain destruction


much like 1991, and 1999. :devil:

I hate to say it but there is nothing Mig-29s have done in combat that should be feared. They get killed. This is before we get into the fact that the West has Flown and operated mig-29s for decades. We have a Fulcrum exchange pilot on this very forum.

Why would the MiG-29s suddenly be loaded with features they.ve never possessed that would make an F-16 worry, before we even get into the F-35?

Its not some unknown boogie man. Save that for all the Flankers (which we have flown and practiced against too) and the SU-57 Faggot.

Re: F-35 vs. Mig-29

Unread postPosted: 09 Aug 2017, 23:23
by sprstdlyscottsmn
XanderCrews wrote:the SU-57 Faggot.

Sorry, that is taken by the MiG-15 with one g (Fagot)

Re: F-35 vs. Mig-29

Unread postPosted: 10 Aug 2017, 15:25
by mk82
jwc1723 wrote:
XanderCrews wrote:
jwc1723 wrote:If you think the F-35 is invisible to radar at all ranges and angles you are monkeys.

And if you have still not figured out how missile range varies with height and target aspect you have no business commenting here.


interesting that you are the only one who suggested such a thing, my simian friend.


Looks like even the monkeys realise the F-35 is not invisible.

However, unlike the F-117, it can...defend itself!

It is after all, a deadly dogfight turtle (the air to air equivalent of the deadly nitza turtle)!


S.O.


A turtle that still sh*ts on the Mig 29

Re: F-35 vs. Mig-29

Unread postPosted: 10 Aug 2017, 15:27
by mk82
klearhos wrote:The F-35 is a proof to the fact that the White House is controlled by Russian hackers, to such an extend that they can force the yanks to eat their own excrements :mrgreen:


Stay classy...... :roll:

Re: F-35 vs. Mig-29

Unread postPosted: 10 Aug 2017, 15:29
by garrya
jwc1723 wrote:Looks like even the monkeys realise the F-35 is not invisible

No aircraft is completely invisible to radar, the main point of stealth is to reduce detection range enough so that you can attack enemies before they can do the same to you. In case of F-35 vs Mig-29, due to low RCS, F-35 has a decisive undeniable advantage that Mig-29 doesn't have a way of attacking F-35 from further than 15 km while F-35 can attack Mig-29 from 4-6 times that distance

Re: F-35 vs. Mig-29

Unread postPosted: 10 Aug 2017, 15:39
by mk82
Just a side note:

Viper4ever:

"Thank you for reminding me my country's greatness, but, it does appear that the shooting was more like an accident or misunderstanding rather than a tactical battle we can learn from. The F-16 pilot is in custody for reasons that include his role in the shooting."

That shoot down of the Russian SU 24 was no accident or misunderstanding. And Erdogan 110% backed the pilot's actions (till the said pilot turned on Erdogan). Erdogan and his administration wanted to teach the Russians a lesson for repeatedly infringing Turkish airspace and guess what...they did (Erdogan had real balls). The Russians never infringed on Turkish airspace again after the shoot down.

Re: F-35 vs. Mig-29

Unread postPosted: 10 Aug 2017, 16:06
by ricnunes
Here, fixed it for you:
viper4ever wrote:35km is for head on, 50km if front quarter. Even if 35km was the right number, it is like 18nm, a tactically insignificant number :wink:


The AIM-120D maximum range is said to be more than 97 nautical miles or around 180km so even if the AIM-120D has a NEZ range of around 30 nautical miles that's still more than 55 kilometers which quite higher than that maximum theoretical range of 35km and thus such range (35km/18nm) is tactically insignificant or even irrelevant against a F-35 (armed with AIM-120Ds).

Re: F-35 vs. Mig-29

Unread postPosted: 10 Aug 2017, 16:37
by ricnunes
jwc1723 wrote:3) The F-35s carry AMRAAMs with a 50 mile range, but, the pilots, looking at their high tech displays, only have a 3-12 nm DLZ on these bogeys, but they nevertheless close in for the kill, using basher's tactics. A pair move in towards the nothern MiG and the second pair towards the southern mig, which orbits 15nm from his leader.


Ever heard of "Beaming" or "Beam maneuver"?? :roll:

Here, let me draw you a picture:

Image

Oh, and the maneuver/tactic above is using the APG-81 radar only! The F-35 has a set of sensors such as ESM or DAS which together with sensor fusion certainly allows the F-35 to guide AMRAAM missiles at any relative direction (technically 360º).


Do you (and others) really but really want to know what will happen in a F-35 vs Mig-29 scenario??
It's very simple:
- Imagine that the F-35 is Germany.
- Then imagine that the Mig-29 is Brazil.
And here you are:


Re: F-35 vs. Mig-29

Unread postPosted: 10 Aug 2017, 16:38
by garrya
viper4ever wrote:@ quarya

See page 12

http://www.knaapo.ru/media/eng/about/pr ... et_eng.pdf

35km is for head on, 50km if front quarter. Even if 35km was the right number, it is like 20nm, a tactically significant number :wink:

Front quarter and head on have the same meaning, and thanks you, but i would rather stick with a brochure where all detail specifications of the system are on it rather than a generic one where not even the exact name of the IRST is mentioned. As a side note OLS systems were designed by NIIPP rather than Sukhoi.

Nevertheless, both source gave LFR distance for air target of OLS-35 to be 20 km so even if 50 km detection range (for Su30 size target) was the correct number, Su-35 still can't launch missiles at F-35 from distance longer than 20 km. That a decisive disadvantage.

viper4ever wrote:They can fit the OLS-35 in whichever a/c they want. And they won't tell you.

That is simply wishful thinking, almost a child dream and far from reality. To begin with, OLS-UE occupied much smaller volume compared to OLS-35 so what will you take out to get the extra space? . Furthermore, there is no reason for them to put OLS-35 on Mig-29 then don't advertise it.

Re: F-35 vs. Mig-29

Unread postPosted: 10 Aug 2017, 16:50
by SpudmanWP
Also keep in mind that "detection" range <> "ID" range, let alone "tracking" range.

Re: F-35 vs. Mig-29

Unread postPosted: 10 Aug 2017, 17:22
by eloise
viper4ever wrote:Thank you for reminding me my country's greatness, but, it does appear that the shooting was more like an accident or misunderstanding

There were no mistake or misunderstanding in that shot down, Erdogan made a decision and he stand his ground

Re: F-35 vs. Mig-29

Unread postPosted: 10 Aug 2017, 17:27
by eloise
garrya wrote:Nevertheless, both source gave LFR distance for air target of OLS-35 to be 20 km

Because of that short LRF range Su-35 pilot will not know how deep inside AIM-120 NEZ he is

Re: F-35 vs. Mig-29

Unread postPosted: 10 Aug 2017, 17:45
by XanderCrews
klearhos wrote:The F-35 is a proof to the fact that the White House is controlled by Russian hackers, to such an extend that they can force the yanks to eat their own excrements :mrgreen:



What an interesting metaphor for someone who swallows propoganda whole

Re: F-35 vs. Mig-29

Unread postPosted: 10 Aug 2017, 17:49
by XanderCrews
So when did the Russians create these mig-29s that dodge missiles and win with guns? Was that not a feature until recently? because before they just died without getting off a shot.

Crazy that all those soon-dead mig-29 pilots didn't use these capabilities. Maybe they were saving them for the next gen aircraft?

http://www.f-16.net/g3/var/resizes/f-16 ... 1371895988

Mig-29 Missile dodger, (2nd place) award shown on F-16

Image

Honorable mention for this Mig-29 That almost got into a dogfight (dogfight not found, gun use not found)

Re: F-35 vs. Mig-29

Unread postPosted: 10 Aug 2017, 19:13
by lbk000
ricnunes wrote:The F-35 has a set of sensors such as ESM or DAS which together with sensor fusion certainly allows the F-35 to guide AMRAAM missiles at any relative direction (technically 360º).

wtf um I don't think that's how it works.

Do want to point out AMRAAMs start using their own terminal seekers at ~10nm so in this proposed scenario they wouldn't need any sort of assistance from the launch platform as they'd basically be going pitbull off the rail.

Re: F-35 vs. Mig-29

Unread postPosted: 10 Aug 2017, 19:32
by SpudmanWP
Any sensor that can track a target contributes it's data to the overall "sensor fusion" picture of the battlefield. That sensor can be on the launching F-35 or not. The F-35 will then send updates to the AMRAAM about the target while it's in flight. That data will be from the "sensor fusion" picture rather than going directly to a sensor for the data. The F-35 that sends the update does not have to be the launching F-35 (or other asset like AEGIS) or even the source of the sensor data.

The key takeaway is that radar is not required to detect, track, or update an AMRAAM in flight.

Even after the AMRAAM goes active, updates from the rest of the network are still useful as it will help the AMRAAM with any jamming, decoys, etc.

Re: F-35 vs. Mig-29

Unread postPosted: 10 Aug 2017, 20:07
by lbk000
SpudmanWP wrote:The key takeaway is that radar is not required to detect, track, or update an AMRAAM in flight.

Has there been any substantiation of this capability (geolocation from DAS against airborne target) as actually working on the F-35? Genuinely curious.

Re: F-35 vs. Mig-29

Unread postPosted: 10 Aug 2017, 20:25
by SpudmanWP
It's how it works.

This has been explained in numerous docs and presentations over the years.

Here are some examples showing the ability of EOTS and EODAS to track airborne threats.

Image

Image

Here is a good vid where the presenter at the simulator talks about how the F-35 gathers data & the differences between tracking ability.


Re: F-35 vs. Mig-29

Unread postPosted: 10 Aug 2017, 21:13
by wrightwing
lbk000 wrote:
ricnunes wrote:The F-35 has a set of sensors such as ESM or DAS which together with sensor fusion certainly allows the F-35 to guide AMRAAM missiles at any relative direction (technically 360º).

wtf um I don't think that's how it works.

Do want to point out AMRAAMs start using their own terminal seekers at ~10nm so in this proposed scenario they wouldn't need any sort of assistance from the launch platform as they'd basically be going pitbull off the rail.

That's exactly how it works, for AIM-120D or AIM-9X. The F-35 can provide LOAL guidance to either missile, within a 360deg sphere around the aircraft.

Re: F-35 vs. Mig-29

Unread postPosted: 10 Aug 2017, 21:49
by ricnunes
lbk000 wrote:wtf um I don't think that's how it works.

Do want to point out AMRAAMs start using their own terminal seekers at ~10nm so in this proposed scenario they wouldn't need any sort of assistance from the launch platform as they'd basically be going pitbull off the rail.


Well, like SpudmanWP and wrightwing explained (and likely better than I would), that's exactly "how it works".

But to complement what SpudmanWP and wrightwing have said, the AMRAAM when flying "mid-course" (which is most of its flight) basically receives a waypoint (which will be updated from time to time if the launching platform manages to keep tracking the target), waypoint of which will eventually put the AMRAAM missile close to the target so it can turn on its onboard radar and autonomously follow the target.
Basically any sensor that can generate a waypoint (i.e. can pinpoint the target location with a good precision) can be used to "guide" an AMRAAM (with "guide" I mean generate a waypoint which the AMRAAM can use to fly towards).

Finally and also like SpudmanWP have said, the F-35 generates waypoints using Sensor Fusion (which several sensors such as Radar, EOTS/IRST, DAS, ESM or other platforms can contribute to) so it's not an each sensor generates its own waypoint like happens with the 4/4.5th gen fighter aircraft.

Re: F-35 vs. Mig-29

Unread postPosted: 11 Aug 2017, 06:39
by eloise
viper4ever wrote:Even if 35km was the right number, it is like 20nm, a tactically significant number :wink:

F-35 can detect Su-35 from 200-300 km, the pilot has plenty of time to climb and accelerate, he can then launch AIM-120D, Meteor from 70-100 km away.
Su-35 can detect F-35 from 35 km in good weather.If not busy evade AIM-120D, Meteor, he can close in and launch his own missiles from 20 km.

Mig-29/Mig-35 will have it worse, can't detect or attack F-35 from distance beyond 15 km

Re: F-35 vs. Mig-29

Unread postPosted: 11 Aug 2017, 17:25
by XanderCrews
eloise wrote:
viper4ever wrote:Even if 35km was the right number, it is like 20nm, a tactically significant number :wink:

F-35 can detect Su-35 from 200-300 km,


I would say that is "tactically significant" lol

I always love the double standard of a Flanker detecting an F-35 at dozen miles being horrific for the F-35, yet an F-35 detecting a Flanker at hundreds of miles is no big deal

Lol

Re: F-35 vs. Mig-29

Unread postPosted: 11 Aug 2017, 18:39
by playloud
eloise wrote:
viper4ever wrote:Even if 35km was the right number, it is like 20nm, a tactically significant number :wink:

F-35 can detect Su-35 from 200-300 km, the pilot has plenty of time to climb and accelerate, he can then launch AIM-120D, Meteor from 70-100 km away.
Su-35 can detect F-35 from 35 km in good weather.If not busy evade AIM-120D, Meteor, he can close in and launch his own missiles from 20 km.

Mig-29/Mig-35 will have it worse, can't detect or attack F-35 from distance beyond 15 km

IIRC, the F-35 will not get the AIM-120D until a later block. At the moment, it can only use the AIM-120C (C7?)

Re: F-35 vs. Mig-29

Unread postPosted: 11 Aug 2017, 18:59
by SpudmanWP
Correct, the current Block plan calls for AIM-120D in Block 4 (not sure which sub-block).

Re: F-35 vs. Mig-29

Unread postPosted: 11 Aug 2017, 19:50
by ricnunes
playloud wrote:
eloise wrote:
viper4ever wrote:Even if 35km was the right number, it is like 20nm, a tactically significant number :wink:

F-35 can detect Su-35 from 200-300 km, the pilot has plenty of time to climb and accelerate, he can then launch AIM-120D, Meteor from 70-100 km away.
Su-35 can detect F-35 from 35 km in good weather.If not busy evade AIM-120D, Meteor, he can close in and launch his own missiles from 20 km.

Mig-29/Mig-35 will have it worse, can't detect or attack F-35 from distance beyond 15 km

IIRC, the F-35 will not get the AIM-120D until a later block. At the moment, it can only use the AIM-120C (C7?)


And guess what? At the moment the Mig-29 doesn't carry the OLS-UE (which the "Mig-29 proponents" claims to be a "game changer") as well.
So if someone wants to devise a Mig-29 vs F-35 scenario where the Mig-29 can use the OLS-UE than "sure as hell" that we can use the AIM-120D in the F-35 for that same scenario since both equipment (OLS-UE and AIM-120D) will be fitted in their respective aircraft somewhere in the future :wink:

Besides, if we put AIM-120C-7s in the F-35 (which the F-35 currently carries) there wouldn't be absolutely any significant change in the outcome of that same Mig-29 vs F-35 scenario.

Correct me if I'm wrong but the difference in range between the AIM-120C-7s and the AIM-120D is "relatively marginal", isn't it?

Re: F-35 vs. Mig-29

Unread postPosted: 11 Aug 2017, 23:13
by popcorn
The GPS-enhamced INS on the D model enables a lofted profile to enable target engagement at much longer distances.

Re: F-35 vs. Mig-29

Unread postPosted: 11 Aug 2017, 23:37
by ricnunes
popcorn wrote:The GPS-enhamced INS on the D model enables a lofted profile to enable target engagement at much longer distances.


But again, this compared to the AIM-120C-7?
I'm aware that this is a hard question to answer but what is the gain in range from the AIM-120C-7 to the AIM-120D?

Also, doesn't the AIM-120C (don't know from which variant) also has the ability to fly in lofted profiles?

Re: F-35 vs. Mig-29

Unread postPosted: 12 Aug 2017, 00:25
by popcorn
Google C7 and D ranges. Granted these are not official.

Re: F-35 vs. Mig-29

Unread postPosted: 12 Aug 2017, 01:20
by ricnunes
popcorn wrote:Google C7 and D ranges. Granted these are not official.


That's exactly what I did before posting my previous post. All I could find about the subject was a reference in Wikipedia mentioning that the range of more than 105 Km for the AIM-120C-5 (which has less range than the C-7) and a range of more than 160km for the AIM-120D (which has more range than the C-7).

Re: F-35 vs. Mig-29

Unread postPosted: 12 Aug 2017, 01:51
by popcorn
viewtopic.php?f=38&t=27998&p=308990
A lot of stuff discussed here.

Re: F-35 vs. Mig-29

Unread postPosted: 13 Aug 2017, 19:33
by ricnunes
popcorn wrote:http://www.f-16.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=38&t=27998&p=308990
A lot of stuff discussed here.


Thanks for the heads up.
By reading some of the posts in the thread that you shared, it confirms something that I was already aware about: The motor of the AIM-120C-7 is the same as the one in the AIM-120D hence my statement that the AIM-120C-7 range/gain over the C-7 shouldn't be "that big".
Don't get me wrong, there are certainly range improvement on the -D over the C-7 (due to dual-link and GPS) but I don't think that we're talking about something as close as a 50% improvement in range but I could be wrong thou... :wink:

Re: F-35 vs. Mig-29

Unread postPosted: 14 Aug 2017, 01:26
by talkitron
ricnunes wrote: Don't get me wrong, there are certainly range improvement on the -D over the C-7 (due to dual-link and GPS) but I don't think that we're talking about something as close as a 50% improvement in range but I could be wrong thou... :wink:


If Meteor was really better I think someone in the USN or USAF would talk to the media about the US acquiring a similar capability. The lack of public interest by anyone in the USN or USAF in acquiring the Meteor must provide some evidence that the missile is not seen as a big improvement over AMRAAM. This could be for any number of reasons in addition to AMRAAM having a competitive range; one example is electronic warfare issues with Meteor.

Re: F-35 vs. Mig-29

Unread postPosted: 14 Aug 2017, 02:02
by popcorn
ricnunes wrote:
popcorn wrote:http://www.f-16.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=38&t=27998&p=308990
A lot of stuff discussed here.


Thanks for the heads up.
By reading some of the posts in the thread that you shared, it confirms something that I was already aware about: The motor of the AIM-120C-7 is the same as the one in the AIM-120D hence my statement that the AIM-120C-7 range/gain over the C-7 shouldn't be "that big".
Don't get me wrong, there are certainly range improvement on the -D over the C-7 (due to dual-link and GPS) but I don't think that we're talking about something as close as a 50% improvement in range but I could be wrong thou... :wink:


Consider doing a simple experiment. Throw a baseball on a flat trajectory and measure how far it goes before hitting the ground. Next, throw the same baseball at a 45-deg angle and measure the impact distance. Compare. :devil:

Re: F-35 vs. Mig-29

Unread postPosted: 14 Aug 2017, 02:26
by lbk000
But lofting isn't something new, it's been a standard feature on AMRAAMS since the A, iirc.

Re: F-35 vs. Mig-29

Unread postPosted: 14 Aug 2017, 02:51
by popcorn
lbk000 wrote:But lofting isn't something new, it's been a standard feature on AMRAAMS since the A, iirc.

Were the lofting algorithms available in earlier models? Would appreciate some confirmation. AFAIK some AMRAAM users even opted not to acquire the in-flight update capability via 1-way data link.
In any case, I postulate that the incorporation of a 2-way data link and a more precise GPS-assisted INS maximize the kinetic capability of the motor that directly enable much longer range intercepts.

Re: F-35 vs. Mig-29

Unread postPosted: 14 Aug 2017, 02:58
by lbk000
Lack of midcourse guidance (silly Brits) didn't mean the removal of the capability, just meant the missile was flying dumb. Not much different than if you were forced to drop support of the missile before pitbull. Lofted profile seems to have become somewhat standard solution for long ranged US missiles, AIM-54 is well known for it and even the RIM-66 has been described as having a lofted trajectory and both predated the AIM-120 by a fair bit.

Yes for the 120D I think more likely it's just more refined guidance algorithms at work.

Re: F-35 vs. Mig-29

Unread postPosted: 14 Aug 2017, 03:58
by SpudmanWP
The -120D can do a lofting profile more efficiently than the C7 due to the GPS component of the -D. It allows the -D to know EXACTLY where the target is and where it is so it can calculate an intercept more accurately.

Re: F-35 vs. Mig-29

Unread postPosted: 14 Aug 2017, 04:22
by talkitron
SpudmanWP wrote:The -120D can do a lofting profile more efficiently than the C7 due to the GPS component of the -D. It allows the -D to know EXACTLY where the target is and where it is so it can calculate an intercept more accurately.


So this capability will not work if China or Russia disables the ability to use GPS?

Re: F-35 vs. Mig-29

Unread postPosted: 14 Aug 2017, 04:52
by SpudmanWP
lol.. not going to happen. The normal INS is also present so there is a backup.

Re: F-35 vs. Mig-29

Unread postPosted: 14 Aug 2017, 06:03
by talkitron
SpudmanWP wrote:lol.. not going to happen. The normal INS is also present so there is a backup.


Wouldn't it be easy to shoot down a GPS satellite? As the backup lowers the range, it does provide a selling point for Meteor.

Re: F-35 vs. Mig-29

Unread postPosted: 14 Aug 2017, 06:48
by blindpilot
talkitron wrote:
SpudmanWP wrote:lol.. not going to happen. The normal INS is also present so there is a backup.


Wouldn't it be easy to shoot down a GPS satellite? As the backup lowers the range, it does provide a selling point for Meteor.


Easy? Well all things are possible but "shooting" down the satellites would not be "easy." There are over 30 satellites that have to be taken out pretty much at the same time, and the constellation is not in "low earth" orbit. They are over 12,000 miles up (MEO), so the demonstrated ASAT systems would not be up to the challenge.

However, electronic counter measures, jamming, cyber or signal blinding techniques are probably well thought out. Even here, attacking 30 satellites at once tends to get the attacker "Noticed." That can be a negative when it comes to conflict escalation. Local jamming is probably the only realistic capability that exists today ... but then there are counter measures for those things as well.

Bottom line is ECM/ECCM/EW/Cyber stuff is highly classified and we will not know where the current state of the art is for that. But kinematic attacks are more problematic. I'd say kinematic shoot downs falls into the category of debates we've had here on just attacking with "swarms of missiles," and expecting that to be unnoticed, and not create a serious response even before the missiles hit. Such attacks would tend to run the risk of having your Capitol City turned into a glass parking lot, before your attack hits the targets.

MHO FWIW,
BP

Re: F-35 vs. Mig-29

Unread postPosted: 14 Aug 2017, 07:41
by nathan77
talkitron wrote:Wouldn't it be easy to shoot down a GPS satellite? As the backup lowers the range, it does provide a selling point for Meteor.


GPS satellites are in a geo-stationary orbit - significantly higher than the orbit of satellites that China demonstrated it could destroy (most other military satellites are only a couple hundred miles up). Getting to geo-stationary altitudes is actually quite difficult (requiring large multi-stage rockets, and several orbits around the earth - and would provide at least 6 - 8 hours of forewarning).

GPS already has a fair bit of redundancy - IIRC, there are over 30 satellites, and for any position on the globe, there between 4-8 satellites in line of sight. Additionally, the Japanese Quasi-Zenith Satellite System is GPS compatible, and it's possible that the EU's Galileo system is as well. I think that there are also 'decommissioned' 1st gen satellites still in position which can act as a back-up.

The current Achilles heal of GPS is it can be easily jammed (although I'm not sure how easy it is to jam when a missile flying at Mach 4). The GPS system is scheduled for upgrade starting next year (SpaceX won the contract). It includes significant improvements in jamming resistance (including a high-gain directional 'spot beam' which can be focused on particular areas).

Re: F-35 vs. Mig-29

Unread postPosted: 14 Aug 2017, 08:42
by SpudmanWP
The Iraqis tried GPS jammers.. and we took them out with JDAMs just to make a point.

"Easily jammed", not.

Re: F-35 vs. Mig-29

Unread postPosted: 14 Aug 2017, 08:50
by charlielima223
also wouldn't destroying satellites providing GPS information also degrade the other side as well because they rely on it as well?

Re: F-35 vs. Mig-29

Unread postPosted: 14 Aug 2017, 09:08
by spazsinbad
:devil: Nah. They are into Feng shui. :doh:

Re: F-35 vs. Mig-29

Unread postPosted: 14 Aug 2017, 09:14
by gideonic
SpudmanWP wrote:The Iraqis tried GPS jammers.. and we took them out with JDAMs just to make a point.

"Easily jammed", not.


I think that instead of jamming, it's more likely to encounter this. After all it's suggested that it's also what happened to the RQ-170 in Iran.

Re: F-35 vs. Mig-29

Unread postPosted: 14 Aug 2017, 09:48
by gta4
Regarding PURE old school performance...(DAS+LOAL is not considered since it will ruin the game)

1) I am pretty confident F-35 has better SEP than fulcrum in subsonic, for two reasons:

A) A clean F-16 has better SEP than a clean fulcrum, and a F-35 won a drag race against a F-16 with one central line tank.
download/file.php?id=25165&mode=view
B) F-35 out-accerates Su-27 by 20% in subsonic
viewtopic.php?f=55&t=52510

2) F-35 could loop much tighter in the vertical. It flips 270 deg in only 9 seconds.
download/file.php?id=25023&mode=view
Take a look at the Mig-29 at 1:41
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LER_nq9viKM

3) F-35 can perform the J-turn.

Re: F-35 vs. Mig-29

Unread postPosted: 14 Aug 2017, 09:51
by Dragon029
charlielima223 wrote:also wouldn't destroying satellites providing GPS information also degrade the other side as well because they rely on it as well?


China and Russia have their own GPS-like constellations; China has 21 Beidou satellites in orbit with a goal of 30 by 2020, Russia has 24 GLONASS satellites. The EU also currently has 14 Galileo satellites with a goal of 24 by 2020.

Re: F-35 vs. Mig-29

Unread postPosted: 14 Aug 2017, 12:11
by popcorn
nathan77 wrote:
GPS satellites are in a geo-stationary orbit

Not AFAIK.

Re: F-35 vs. Mig-29

Unread postPosted: 14 Aug 2017, 13:04
by Dragon029
GPS satellites orbit at MEO, about 20,000km up / half the alt of geosynchronous satellites - if GPS satellites were geostationary (staying in one place, which is only possible at the equator) you'd have crap reception towards the poles.

It's worth remembering that even for geosynchronous orbits you only need about 40% extra fuel than to put something in LEO; so to hit a MEO GPS satellite would maybe require 20%+ extra fuel than to hit something in LEO.

Re: F-35 vs. Mig-29

Unread postPosted: 14 Aug 2017, 16:12
by SpudmanWP
gideonic wrote:I think that instead of jamming, it's more likely to encounter this. After all it's suggested that it's also what happened to the RQ-170 in Iran.

Without our ability to recover the RQ-170, there is no real way to determine what happened. However, I never believe anything the Iranians claim, just look at the Qaher-313.

Besides, to be an effective GPS jammer, the transmitter would need to be on the target fighter. Do you really want an active, easily detectable transmitter going off in the middle of a "stealth" BVR fight? Also keep in mind that military grade GPS receivers have a lot of anti-spoofing/jamming features built in. The AIM-120D also has a two-way datalink so that any anomalies will likely be compensated for.

Re: F-35 vs. Mig-29

Unread postPosted: 14 Aug 2017, 20:36
by count_to_10
Dragon029 wrote:GPS satellites orbit at MEO, about 20,000km up / half the alt of geosynchronous satellites - if GPS satellites were geostationary (staying in one place, which is only possible at the equator) you'd have crap reception towards the poles.

It's worth remembering that even for geosynchronous orbits you only need about 40% extra fuel than to put something in LEO; so to hit a MEO GPS satellite would maybe require 20%+ extra fuel than to hit something in LEO.

There is a very big difference between reaching a particular altitude and attaining orbital velocity there--which is probably figuring into that calculation. So it may be only a factor of two beween the energies of LEO and GSO, but it might be a factor of ten between the energies you need to intercept a satellite in the respective orbits.

Re: F-35 vs. Mig-29

Unread postPosted: 14 Aug 2017, 21:16
by spazsinbad
Dragon029 wrote:GPS satellites orbit at MEO, about 20,000km up / half the alt of geosynchronous satellites - if GPS satellites were geostationary (staying in one place, which is only possible at the equator) you'd have crap reception towards the poles.

It's worth remembering that even for geosynchronous orbits you only need about 40% extra fuel than to put something in LEO; so to hit a MEO GPS satellite would maybe require 20%+ extra fuel than to hit something in LEO.

More GPS upgrades in the works:
"... M-code is an upgraded transmission capability of the GPS system that will provide to military users a stronger signal and one that is more resistant to jamming and spoofing. ...The Air Force has 19 on-orbit satellites that are capable of transmitting M-Code signals..." http://www.airforcemag.com/Features/Pag ... -Code.aspx

Re: F-35 vs. Mig-29

Unread postPosted: 14 Aug 2017, 23:39
by popcorn
Improving the GPS satellites goes on. Also tech being developed to make GPS receivers on the ground, sea and air more capable of cutting thru the jamming.
So I don't think it's a given that GPS service will be so easily denied during a conflict.


https://www.thalesgroup.com/en/topshiel ... ng-threats
https://defensesystems.com/articles/201 ... mming.aspx

Re: F-35 vs. Mig-29

Unread postPosted: 15 Aug 2017, 03:40
by arian
Its one thing to "jam" GPS signals on ground attack weapons since their intended target and location can be guessed with some degree of certainty: ie you're protecting a fixed target. It's quite another to try and jam GPS signals used for mid-course updates on air-air missiles. Jam them from where? At what distance? From the targeted aircraft? How powerful would this jammer need to be to affect GPS signals of a missile flying above its altitude several dozen kms away?

Not likely, if even possible at all.

And would also make a good target itself too. Even for ground based jammers the US has certainly developed (and used) JDAMs home-on-jam modes.

Knocking out satellites and GPS constellations is another issue but probably far from simple or easy and certainly not quick. I mean, these satellites themselves have orbits of 10-12 hours, so how fast would one be able to knock out enough satellites, if even possible, to degrade coverage over a particular area? Assuming the satellites can't maneuver themselves and put themselves out of reach, or more can't be maneuvered into certain orbits. And there's lots of redundancy in coverage. And the ASAT weapons themselves, if one such thing ever actually exists (as opposed to brochure and BS internet propaganda) and as opposed to those intended for very low earth orbit type satellites, would need to be very large, very slow in deployment, and wouldn't be able to be launched anytime you'd want to since it would need to be within certain parameters of being able to intercept satellites in certain orbits. It's not as easy as launching a satellite. It's more restrictive. So you'd need large liquid-fueled rockets to get you up to those altitudes. Basically the same sort of thing needed to get the satellites there in the first place.

Engaging a recon satellite at 200 mile altitude is a totally different thing from engaging a satellite at 20,000 miles. You'd need to deploy an orbital weapon in the first place, as opposed to sub-orbital which may be used for LEO satellites, and you'd need to do a couple or more orbits to get into position, orbits which themselves are half a day long. Assuming nothing else changes in the meantime. And in that 1-2 days of orbit time, the satellite can be maneuvered enough to make it unapproachable. And even if you destroyed one or two or three, or whatever, it's easy enough to move additional satellites into those orbits and recover coverage quickly (with trade-off of losing redundancy somewhere else) And assuming that said orbital weapon isn't itself intercepted by Mr. X-37.

This is in the realm of science fiction for now and most certainly nobody has even close to such a capability.

Re: F-35 vs. Mig-29

Unread postPosted: 15 Aug 2017, 16:18
by mixelflick
I can't see the Mig-29 (even flown by experienced pilots) being much of a threat to the F-35.

Take for example gulf war I. You had some VERY experienced Mig-29 drivers in that war, getting waxed by American F-15's who's pilots had no combat experience (at least to my knowledge). So if the Mig-29 was downed in every engagement with F-15's, how is it going to go about beating an F-35?

To me, the accounts of these Eagle victories had more to do with superior SA (via AWACS, mostly) and of course tactics. The F-35 is almost certainly going to see the Mig's first, shoot first and kill first. In the event of a knife fight, I still say it'll have the upper hand in acceleration, nose pointing authority and of course WVR SA. If memory serves, F-15 pilots elected to merge more than once to make sure they weren't shooting friendlies. If the F-35 technology is to be believed, keeping track of friendlies and bandits is going to be a lot easier/happen sooner, allowing the F-35 to gain the upper hand.

None of this should come as any surprise. The Mig-29 is an old design, and the F-35 is a generation beyond it. The bigger question is will all of this be true vs. the SU-35. I believe it will, as the situation is still the same (F-35 has superior stealth, sensors and I dare say weapons). Although I'd love to see her carrying the 9x for these occasions. Hopefully, hanging 2 9x's off either wing doesn't degrade its RCS too much...

Re: F-35 vs. Mig-29

Unread postPosted: 15 Aug 2017, 16:41
by sprstdlyscottsmn
mixelflick wrote: Hopefully, hanging 2 9x's off either wing doesn't degrade its RCS too much...

I know I say this a lot, but when I look at the pylons designed specifically for heat seekers on F-35s with their odd double cant I think to myself, "Why would they do that? That will make more drag than the standard straight pylon." The answer of course is obvious. Why design a new pylon with more drag for a VLO plane? To reduce the RCS penalty to a point that offsets the drag penalty. There is literally no other reason to do it.

Re: F-35 vs. Mig-29

Unread postPosted: 15 Aug 2017, 18:32
by steve2267
sprstdlyscottsmn wrote:
mixelflick wrote: Hopefully, hanging 2 9x's off either wing doesn't degrade its RCS too much...

I know I say this a lot, but when I look at the pylons designed specifically for heat seekers on F-35s with their odd double cant I think to myself, "Why would they do that? That will make more drag than the standard straight pylon." The answer of course is obvious. Why design a new pylon with more drag for a VLO plane? To reduce the RCS penalty to a point that offsets the drag penalty. There is literally no other reason to do it.


Spurts, the only other reason I could think of would be if wind tunnel testing or CFD analysis showed the airflow doing some "interesting" things and the pylon design alleviated those "interesting" things. My mind wonders about vortices or buffet or other dynamic phenomena. But this is more "guessing" on my part. I would say your guess is as good as mine, probably better.

Re: F-35 vs. Mig-29

Unread postPosted: 15 Aug 2017, 19:37
by sprstdlyscottsmn
You bring up an excellent point. The canted pylons on the Super Hornet were a result of stores separation issues IIRC, having larger stores closer to the fuselage. It resulted in all wing pylons canting to some degree. On the F-35 the inboard cants down a little, the middle cants up a little, the outboard cants down, out, and bends out as well. It COULD be a flow thing, I just think it's an RCS thing. We may never know.

Re: F-35 vs. Mig-29

Unread postPosted: 16 Aug 2017, 06:06
by geforcerfx
sprstdlyscottsmn wrote:You bring up an excellent point. The canted pylons on the Super Hornet were a result of stores separation issues IIRC, having larger stores closer to the fuselage. It resulted in all wing pylons canting to some degree..


Is the degree of the canting known? It always seemed to me that if you wanted to actually improve the range of the Super it made more sense to make a swiveling pylon system, so the pylons are at there most aerodynamic for the cruise then shift for weapons or tank release. Seems like it would be more cost efficient to me over using CFT's to carry more fuel.

Re: F-35 vs. Mig-29

Unread postPosted: 16 Aug 2017, 13:19
by sprstdlyscottsmn
Swiveling pylons would be an expressive upgrade to make. I'm sure it was explored as an option and not chosen.

Re: F-35 vs. Mig-29

Unread postPosted: 16 Aug 2017, 15:30
by lbk000
geforcerfx wrote:It always seemed to me that if you wanted to actually improve the range of the Super it made more sense to make a swiveling pylon system, so the pylons are at there most aerodynamic for the cruise then shift for weapons or tank release. Seems like it would be more cost efficient to me over using CFT's to carry more fuel.

Moving parts that have to resist moving, and worse, be expected to be able to actuate up to a 2000lb load away from the airstream at any part of the speed envelope, possibly under 9g+ loading, is asking for trouble. As in, it would be heavy, very heavy, and weight is a worse enemy than drag, especially for a carrier aircraft. It would also add major points of failure. Yes, the F-111 and Tornado had counter-swivelling pylons, but Grumman expressly sought to avoid this particular mechanism for the F-14. And this was with the payload only required to point into the airflow.

Theres only so much juice you can squeeze out of an orange and the P-600 aerodynamic configuration seems pretty much at the end of the road here.

Re: F-35 vs. Mig-29

Unread postPosted: 28 Aug 2017, 06:43
by spazsinbad
MiG-29 German Air Force Flight Manual dated Sep 2001 - but no performance data sadly:

https://www.filefactory.com/file/1gsgad ... Manual.pdf (2Mb)

Re: F-35 vs. Mig-29

Unread postPosted: 28 Aug 2017, 08:14
by neurotech
sprstdlyscottsmn wrote:You bring up an excellent point. The canted pylons on the Super Hornet were a result of stores separation issues IIRC, having larger stores closer to the fuselage. It resulted in all wing pylons canting to some degree. On the F-35 the inboard cants down a little, the middle cants up a little, the outboard cants down, out, and bends out as well. It COULD be a flow thing, I just think it's an RCS thing. We may never know.

The Super Hornet pylons have RAM to reduce RCS, although they used legacy hornet pylons without RAM for non-combat operations, especially when the SuperBug first went to training squadrons.

The canted pylons was due to separation issues, especially with the 480 tanks. They actually tested pylons with actuators to forcefully "push" the tank away from the aircraft. These were based on F-22 weapons bay "pusher" racks, and worked quite well. Some "brilliant" engineers decided increasing the pylon cant angle was simpler and cheaper. Using the new pylons would have required a significantly more stores separation testing, so they went with the increased pylon cant.

The dumb part about the Super Hornet pylons is that the kind of situations when major stores separation issues occur (eg. dropping inboard 4/8 tanks before 3/9 tanks) doesn't occur operationally, except in unusual situations.

Re: F-35 vs. Mig-29

Unread postPosted: 09 Nov 2017, 17:02
by spazsinbad
Malaysia Grounds MiG-29s and Rethinks Future Fighter
09 Nov 2017 Chen Chuanren

"...In another change of policy, the service has grounded its remaining airworthy MiG-29s instead of upgrading them, although the government has not made a final decision about their future...."

Source: https://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news ... re-fighter

Re: F-35 vs. Mig-29

Unread postPosted: 09 Nov 2017, 17:46
by optimist
I don't want to flame the russian fans, (yes, I do :)) but the aussie legacy hornets and USN fly regular exercises with Malaysia. We know the mig-29 and it isn't a match for 20 year old hornets, let alone the f-35. You can google info on the exercises. We still run patrols out of Malaysia.
7 years ago when they were fresher, you won't find much from the aussies, they generally have a no comment policy
https://www.airspacemag.com/military-av ... g-5996629/

Re: F-35 vs. Mig-29

Unread postPosted: 09 Nov 2017, 18:43
by steve2267
Too bad Malaysia grounded their -29s. Would have been nice for VMFA-121 to get some practical experience with them at some point.

Re: F-35 vs. Mig-29

Unread postPosted: 11 Jan 2018, 13:18
by gta4
Super hornet used to defeat Malaysian Mig-29 easily, even with FLIR pod (which is in fact an A/G equipment).

Re: F-35 vs. Mig-29

Unread postPosted: 11 Jan 2018, 15:25
by mixelflick
gta4 wrote:Super hornet used to defeat Malaysian Mig-29 easily, even with FLIR pod (which is in fact an A/G equipment).


The flip side of this is they have the SU-30MKK...

Re: F-35 vs. Mig-29

Unread postPosted: 11 Jan 2018, 22:30
by optimist
It's the same story, just different platforms, It could be better on the su30 thread

https://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/navy- ... 1703838609
During the dissimilar air combat training (DACT) event, Carrier Air Wing 17’s Hornets and Super Hornets went to war with and against Malaysian Su-30sMKMs, MiG29Ns, and their own F/A-18Ds.
Image

Re: F-35 vs. Mig-29

Unread postPosted: 12 Jan 2018, 16:05
by mixelflick
Well if that's true, I guess pilot training is the difference. Sorry, but I see no part of the envelope where the SH has a decided edge over the SU-30MKK. I'm open to being corrected, but things are way too close to parity for my liking...

Re: F-35 vs. Mig-29

Unread postPosted: 12 Jan 2018, 17:11
by ricnunes
mixelflick wrote:Well if that's true, I guess pilot training is the difference. Sorry, but I see no part of the envelope where the SH has a decided edge over the SU-30MKK. I'm open to being corrected, but things are way too close to parity for my liking...


Well, like others have already stated here (and IMO, correctly so) the Hornet (legacy) and Super Hornet are probably the most underrated fighter aircraft of the very late XX century and early XXI century while at the same time the Mig-29 and the Flanker family (including the Su-30MKK) are probably the most overrated fighter aircraft of the same very late XX century and early XXI century period.
With this in mind, I "adventure" to say that there's a good chance that the Super Hornet edge over the SU-30MKK is bigger than you (and many others) may think.

Re: F-35 vs. Mig-29

Unread postPosted: 12 Jan 2018, 19:03
by splittingatoms
ricnunes wrote:
mixelflick wrote:Well if that's true, I guess pilot training is the difference. Sorry, but I see no part of the envelope where the SH has a decided edge over the SU-30MKK. I'm open to being corrected, but things are way too close to parity for my liking...


Well, like others have already stated here (and IMO, correctly so) the Hornet (legacy) and Super Hornet are probably the most underrated fighter aircraft of the very late XX century and early XXI century while at the same time the Mig-29 and the Flanker family (including the Su-30MKK) are probably the most overrated fighter aircraft of the same very late XX century and early XXI century period.
With this in mind, I "adventure" to say that there's a good chance that the Super Hornet edge over the SU-30MKK is bigger than you (and many others) may think.


I agree with you. I think we've started to see some glimpses of it, since the Paris F-35 display. The recent Superhornet and Swiss Hornet demos seem to be showing some more of their capabilities, doing decent facsimiles of some of the F-35 display. They don't appear to have the energy retention/recovery capabilities of an F-35, but they sure can point their noses all over the place. I think, given the clear upgrade paths which exist (414EPE engine, modified pylons perhaps), the USN would have done something about their performance if it was truly subpar.

gta4 has put together some video clips from airshows which appear to show the Superbugs doing SU-35-like maneuvers with quite a bit more energy on the other end. One can clearly pick and choose to make one platform look better than another, but they certainly look to be in similar ballparks. The SU's are big birds, so it's not impossible to imagine a smaller aircraft having the edge...and that's before we consider avionics.

I also don't believe I've ever read a single word from an actual pilot disparaging the Hornet/Superhornet. They almost always seem to indicate it's one of the hardest opponents there is.

Re: F-35 vs. Mig-29

Unread postPosted: 12 Jan 2018, 23:21
by optimist
mixelflick wrote:Well if that's true, I guess pilot training is the difference. Sorry, but I see no part of the envelope where the SH has a decided edge over the SU-30MKK. I'm open to being corrected, but things are way too close to parity for my liking...

You would need to google up some pilot stories from Malaysia and the US. Malaysia would train the SU and their hornets regularly and may have more stories in print. As I said, there won't be much from the RAAF.

The su-30 may flog the hornet in the guns BFM part of DACT? I don't know and haven't tried to find out. The point I was making and have made on this thread, is that the Russian platforms are a known thing and trained with and against. I do know that is the real world, both on and offboard. The trons, missiles and tactics will reduce the odds of guns BFM combat ever happening between the SH and the su-30, or any other platform for that matter. As you know, it's the last line, not the first. A lot of things have to go wrong to end up in a guns dogfight. Is the wingman asleep, was aegis and sams a waste of money?

Re: F-35 vs. Mig-29

Unread postPosted: 13 Jan 2018, 04:44
by gta4
By simple reasoning and deduction.

Super Hornet (A/G laodout) can defeat Mig-29 easily.

And Mig-29 can also defeat SU-30MKK easily (MKK is not MKM. MKK has no thrust vectoring)

So.... :mrgreen: :mrgreen: :mrgreen:

Re: F-35 vs. Mig-29

Unread postPosted: 13 Jan 2018, 04:56
by gta4
Fun fact:

In terms of subsonic acceleration, Super hornet can easily out-accelerate Su-27/30, and is very close to Su-35.

Su-27, Low altitude, 18920 kg flying wight, accelerate from 600km/h to 1100km/h in 15 seconds. Average acceleration is 9.26m/s^2.

Superhornet, 17241 kg flying weight (definitely more ordnance than a 18920 kg Su-27), accelerate:
from 360knots to 420 knots, in 3 seconds, average 10.28m/m^s
from 420knots to 480 knots, in 4 seconds, average 7.71m/m^s
from 480knots to 520 knots, in 2 seconds, average 10.28m/m^s
from 520knots to 550 knots, in 1 second, average 15.43m/m^s

(From super hornet block 2 flight manual, performance data, Edition Sep. 2008)

And, super hornet has Pirouette maneuver, which allows it to turn tighter than any non-tvc 4th gen.
F18F fast pirouette.gif

F18F fast reversal EN.gif

Better nosing pointing + better acceleration = better probability of winning.

During India MMRCA flight test, super hornet's sustained turn rate is 93% as good as that of Typhoon. This is good enough to defeat most Ruskie fighters.

Re: F-35 vs. Mig-29

Unread postPosted: 13 Jan 2018, 05:17
by gta4
In fact I don't know why people keep arguing that SH is under-powered. The most under-powered fighter jets are:

JAS39 C/D, NG (espicailly C/D).

Su-30 family, Su-33 (aka Su-27K), Mig-29 K, which are underpowered with heavy airframe.

Re: F-35 vs. Mig-29

Unread postPosted: 13 Jan 2018, 15:45
by quicksilver
"In fact I don't know why people keep arguing that SH is under-powered."

Because, amongst those who know such things (because we have flown against them), SH is generally deficient in energy addition compared to its contemporaries.

Re: F-35 vs. Mig-29

Unread postPosted: 13 Jan 2018, 16:04
by gta4
quicksilver wrote:"In fact I don't know why people keep arguing that SH is under-powered."

Because, amongst those who know such things (because we have flown against them), SH is generally deficient in energy addition compared to its contemporaries.


This is because Su-33 and Mig-29K never participated in any DACT.

Re: F-35 vs. Mig-29

Unread postPosted: 13 Jan 2018, 16:26
by quicksilver
gta4 wrote:
quicksilver wrote:"In fact I don't know why people keep arguing that SH is under-powered."

Because, amongst those who know such things (because we have flown against them), SH is generally deficient in energy addition compared to its contemporaries.


This is because Su-33 and Mig-29K never participated in any DACT.


Which is irrelevant to the matter of SH energy addition.

Re: F-35 vs. Mig-29

Unread postPosted: 13 Jan 2018, 16:28
by XanderCrews
mixelflick wrote:Well if that's true, I guess pilot training is the difference. Sorry, but I see no part of the envelope where the SH has a decided edge over the SU-30MKK. I'm open to being corrected, but things are way too close to parity for my liking...



In the 80s it was common for people to accuse the Pentagon of inflating threats, now people are unhappy they don't.

We literally have flankers in the US. Operated by civilians.

We've had mig-29s since the early 1990s thanks Moldova, thanks defectors

People are still acting like these airplanes are terrifying mysteries that need to be stolen by Clint Eastwood or something lol

I don't know how people keep getting fooled by the boogeyman. And I know the Komrade fanboi s think that the latest uber flanker is a game changer in terms of maneuver and energy etc, but it's just basically plugging in New numbers to the same old charts

Only in internet land will stealth be obsolete thanks to Moore's law but in the next breath there is no amount of computing power that can crack the decades old Flanker or Fulcrum EM abilities, even with the real McCoy in a hanger

Re: F-35 vs. Mig-29

Unread postPosted: 13 Jan 2018, 17:29
by ricnunes
XanderCrews wrote:People are still acting like these airplanes are terrifying mysteries that need to be stolen by Clint Eastwood or something lol



LOL, very good one :mrgreen:

Image

Image

Re: F-35 vs. Mig-29

Unread postPosted: 13 Jan 2018, 18:14
by rheonomic
XanderCrews wrote:People are still acting like these airplanes are terrifying mysteries that need to be stolen by Clint Eastwood or something lol


Not to mention that NASIC is a thing...

Re: F-35 vs. Mig-29

Unread postPosted: 13 Jan 2018, 22:05
by XanderCrews
https://www.airspacemag.com/military-av ... 180952403/


17 MiG-29 purchased by the US in 1997.^

Image

Re: F-35 vs. Mig-29

Unread postPosted: 13 Jan 2018, 23:21
by swiss
XanderCrews wrote:https://www.airspacemag.com/military-aviation/truth-about-mig-29-180952403/


17 MiG-29 purchased by the US in 1997.^


Thanks XenderCrews. Very interesting to read. So again. A top dogfighter thanks to the Archer and HMCS. But very limited in BVR because of his poor avionics. And not easy to fly.

Whats about the Su-27? I know the US buy some of them. But i assume they are not ready for combat. I mean without Russian avionics.

Re: F-35 vs. Mig-29

Unread postPosted: 13 Jan 2018, 23:55
by southernphantom
swiss wrote:
XanderCrews wrote:https://www.airspacemag.com/military-aviation/truth-about-mig-29-180952403/


17 MiG-29 purchased by the US in 1997.^


Thanks XenderCrews. Very interesting to read. So again. A top dogfighter thanks to the Archer and HMCS. But very limited in BVR because of his poor avionics. And not easy to fly.

Whats about the Su-27? I know the US buy some of them. But i assume they are not ready for combat. I mean without Russian avionics.


The Flanker has received more upgrades in Russian service than the Fulcrum, generally speaking. Virtually all modernization efforts have been focused on the Flanker.

As far as ergonomics and how the thing flies, ask someone who has flown one. I'm not your guy for that.

Re: F-35 vs. Mig-29

Unread postPosted: 14 Jan 2018, 00:27
by XanderCrews
southernphantom wrote:
swiss wrote:
XanderCrews wrote:https://www.airspacemag.com/military-aviation/truth-about-mig-29-180952403/


17 MiG-29 purchased by the US in 1997.^


Thanks XenderCrews. Very interesting to read. So again. A top dogfighter thanks to the Archer and HMCS. But very limited in BVR because of his poor avionics. And not easy to fly.

Whats about the Su-27? I know the US buy some of them. But i assume they are not ready for combat. I mean without Russian avionics.


The Flanker has received more upgrades in Russian service than the Fulcrum, generally speaking. Virtually all modernization efforts have been focused on the Flanker.

As far as ergonomics and how the thing flies, ask someone who has flown one. I'm not your guy for that.


We do have a Mig-29 flyer on F-16.net. USAF exchange officer. Forget his screen handle but it has fulcrum in it.

The big reason I bring any of this up, is that the prevailing narrative, is that the Russians are "trading" avionics and LO for power and maneuver and my point is that even a flanker with 10 percent more power, is still the same flanker we already fly and have flown with an upyick of 10 percent. And that's if its a favourable ratio. I think it was SMSGT Mac that pointed out that we are seeing an increase in power as the engines evolve but near same same as the empty weights are increasing as well (regarding Su-35S.)

So honestly if all the Russians have are aircraft that "sacrifice" LO and avionics sophistication for "performance" i dont think I'm too worried.

https://youtu.be/ddQ-OoUraqs

Here is bill sweetman explaining how the Russians are betting it all on performance.

Re: F-35 vs. Mig-29

Unread postPosted: 14 Jan 2018, 00:52
by f-16adf
His name is Fulcrumflyer.

His posts contain a wealth of knowledge about the jet.

People forget that in many circumstances the Russian jets that perform these "impressive" air show demos are not your typical squadron jet. The Su-xxxxx Flanker is a gigantic target, it is even larger than the F-15 or F-14 (which are considered flying tennis courts). At certain weights he has even described the Su-27 as a "wallowing pig".

I have never been up close to a Flanker. Yet I was fortunate enough to once get up close to GAF Mig-29's. The Mig-29 is smaller than the F-18, yet bigger than the F-16. Even if you subtract the Archer, the Mig-29 still has good WVR performance. Fulcrumflyer said that it's a little better than the F-15, but behind the F-16. It's a short range fighter with mediocre BVR and A-G capability. And as he said, why buy one when you can have something much better like an F-16.

As they have attempted to make the Flanker and Fulcrum more "multi-role", they have gained weight (while still generally keeping the same wing dimension). The worst example probably being the SMT Fulcrum "aka big spine".

As keeping with the topic, the F-35 would never have a problem against this airplane.

Re: F-35 vs. Mig-29

Unread postPosted: 14 Jan 2018, 02:27
by optimist
swiss wrote:
XanderCrews wrote:https://www.airspacemag.com/military-aviation/truth-about-mig-29-180952403/


17 MiG-29 purchased by the US in 1997.^


Thanks XenderCrews. Very interesting to read. So again. A top dogfighter thanks to the Archer and HMCS. But very limited in BVR because of his poor avionics. And not easy to fly.

Whats about the Su-27? I know the US buy some of them. But i assume they are not ready for combat. I mean without Russian avionics.

Lets assume for a moment that red defeated all BVR and offboard attacks and moved to WVR. I would think it still isn't a dogfight, It's HOBS missiles and HMS. Other than the odds are of a mutual kill. I think the ASRAAM has this, as it's almost a WVR/BVR missile with good tech. Followed by the aim-9x blk 3 and then the rest.
When everyone is out of missiles, at the merge, it's down to BFM and guns. Then it's a dogfight, sustained turn and the rest of the stuff becomes more important.

Sustained turn rate won't save you from a missile and this video is a good reminder.


Re: F-35 vs. Mig-29

Unread postPosted: 14 Jan 2018, 03:44
by XanderCrews
optimist wrote:
swiss wrote:
XanderCrews wrote:https://www.airspacemag.com/military-aviation/truth-about-mig-29-180952403/


17 MiG-29 purchased by the US in 1997.^


Thanks XenderCrews. Very interesting to read. So again. A top dogfighter thanks to the Archer and HMCS. But very limited in BVR because of his poor avionics. And not easy to fly.

Whats about the Su-27? I know the US buy some of them. But i assume they are not ready for combat. I mean without Russian avionics.

Lets assume for a moment that red defeated all BVR and offboard attacks and moved to WVR. I would think it still isn't a dogfight, It's HOBS missiles and HMS. Other than the odds are of a mutual kill. I think the ASRAAM has this, as it's almost a WVR/BVR missile with good tech. Followed by the aim-9x blk 3 and then the rest.
When everyone is out of missiles, at the merge, it's down to BFM and guns. Then it's a dogfight, sustained turn and the rest of the stuff becomes more important.

Sustained turn rate won't save you from a missile and this video is a good reminder.



I've said it before and I'll say it again MiG-29s in real combat have faired terribly against teen fighters.

Re: F-35 vs. Mig-29

Unread postPosted: 14 Jan 2018, 08:25
by gta4
I agree with "fulcrum flyer"'s comments on Mig-29 v F-15 when both aircraft are loaded with 50% fuel.

However, note that F-15 carries much more fuel (6 ton vs 3.4 ton), 50% fuel of F-15 is almost the full fuel of fulcrum.

I have done the conversion from official performance chart. If both jet are loaded with the fuel for the same A/B duration, F-15 will out-perform Mig-29 in every aspect, and is the best performer amongst 4th Gen.

Re: F-35 vs. Mig-29

Unread postPosted: 14 Jan 2018, 21:53
by swiss
XanderCrews wrote:and my point is that even a flanker with 10 percent more power, is still the same flanker we already fly and have flown with an upyick of 10 percent. And that's if its a favourable ratio. I think it was SMSGT Mac that pointed out that we are seeing an increase in power as the engines evolve but near same same as the empty weights are increasing as well (regarding Su-35S.)


Good point. The empty weight for the Su-27 was around 16.500 KG. The empty weight of the Su-35 seems to be between 18-19 Tons.

@ optimist: Nice Video about the AIM-9x.

Re: F-35 vs. Mig-29

Unread postPosted: 14 Jan 2018, 23:01
by icemaverick
swiss wrote:
XanderCrews wrote:https://www.airspacemag.com/military-aviation/truth-about-mig-29-180952403/


17 MiG-29 purchased by the US in 1997.^


Thanks XenderCrews. Very interesting to read. So again. A top dogfighter thanks to the Archer and HMCS. But very limited in BVR because of his poor avionics. And not easy to fly.

Whats about the Su-27? I know the US buy some of them. But i assume they are not ready for combat. I mean without Russian avionics.


The US has several Su-27s that are operational. Back in late 2016, a person visiting Area 51 managed to get some pictures of an F-16 dogfighting against an Su-27: https://theaviationist.com/2017/01/06/t ... e-area-51/

Surely the Air Force is conducting extensive tests on the Flankers because they are the most dangerous adversary aircraft currently in service.

Re: F-35 vs. Mig-29

Unread postPosted: 15 Jan 2018, 02:27
by optimist
I wouldn't say they are the most dangerous. Russian planes are the most likely to come up against. Chinese may also be ones in the future, if they start selling to others in volume. The odds of coming up against a eurocanard is small and is also a known.

Re: F-35 vs. Mig-29

Unread postPosted: 15 Jan 2018, 04:25
by optimist
swiss wrote:
@ optimist: Nice Video about the AIM-9x.

I think they were early 9x, but still were worth looking at. You aren't going to out manoeuvre that, even with an airshow special. The proximity fuse will do you in, even if it misses. The ASRAAM and 9X blk 3 is something else again.

Re: F-35 vs. Mig-29

Unread postPosted: 15 Jan 2018, 08:49
by zero-one
optimist wrote:
swiss wrote:
@ optimist: Nice Video about the AIM-9x.

I think they were early 9x, but still were worth looking at. You aren't going to out manoeuvre that, even with an airshow special. The proximity fuse will do you in, even if it misses. The ASRAAM and 9X blk 3 is something else again.


well last time a Su-25 managed to survive a 9X shot without doing much maneuvering at all. :mrgreen: :mrgreen: :mrgreen:

Re: F-35 vs. Mig-29

Unread postPosted: 15 Jan 2018, 10:53
by hythelday
zero-one wrote:
well last time a Su-25 managed to survive a 9X shot without doing much maneuvering at all. :mrgreen: :mrgreen: :mrgreen:


It was a Fitter, not Frogfoot

Re: F-35 vs. Mig-29

Unread postPosted: 15 Jan 2018, 11:06
by ricnunes
hythelday wrote:
zero-one wrote:
well last time a Su-25 managed to survive a 9X shot without doing much maneuvering at all. :mrgreen: :mrgreen: :mrgreen:


It was a Fitter, not Frogfoot


Yup, it was a Su-22 and not a Su-25.

Re: F-35 vs. Mig-29

Unread postPosted: 15 Jan 2018, 11:19
by popcorn
optimist wrote:
swiss wrote:
@ optimist: Nice Video about the AIM-9x.

I think they were early 9x, but still were worth looking at. You aren't going to out manoeuvre that, even with an airshow special. The proximity fuse will do you in, even if it misses. The ASRAAM and 9X blk 3 is something else again.


9X blk 3?

Re: F-35 vs. Mig-29

Unread postPosted: 15 Jan 2018, 11:55
by optimist
It wasn't a typo, honest. :bang: It's not still paper, it's a black missile that I can't say anything about :mrgreen:
I think I got ahead of myself with blk 3, but there was a change, how about blk 2 plus that brings in BVR, similar to ASRAAM

Re: F-35 vs. Mig-29

Unread postPosted: 15 Jan 2018, 12:20
by optimist
ricnunes wrote:
hythelday wrote:
zero-one wrote:
well last time a Su-25 managed to survive a 9X shot without doing much maneuvering at all. :mrgreen: :mrgreen: :mrgreen:


It was a Fitter, not Frogfoot


Yup, it was a Su-22 and not a Su-25.

I saw this being talked about on another site. The pilot got out okay, but I'm pretty sure that still counts as a hit. One of the USN missile fizzed, didn't it?

Re: F-35 vs. Mig-29

Unread postPosted: 15 Jan 2018, 12:22
by botsing
zero-one wrote:well last time a Su-22 managed to survive a 9X shot without doing much maneuvering at all. :mrgreen: :mrgreen: :mrgreen:

That AIM-9X was probably a dud, the pilot stated that he had no clue what happened with that missile (this might suggest that there was also no trail from the missile).

Re: F-35 vs. Mig-29

Unread postPosted: 15 Jan 2018, 12:27
by spazsinbad



Re: F-35 vs. Mig-29

Unread postPosted: 15 Jan 2018, 13:17
by ricnunes
Honestly I don't understand all the fuzz about this AIM-9X having failed its target (Su-22)?? :?

Apparently it was a missile malfunction but even if it wasn't, what's the deal?
Yes, missiles (even the most advanced ones) will fail! Or do you think that if and when for example the Meteor will be used in combat that no Meteor will miss its target? Or an ASRAAM?? Of any Russian or Chinese missile?

From what I could gather from the situation, the missile was shot well off boresight which by itself is already a very challenging shot, this even for the most advanced and agile short-range "dogfight" missiles and this against a fast moving target (remember that the Su-22 is a supersonic aircraft). Add to this, countermeasures like Flares (I don't remember if the Su-22 employed them) and even if the missile didn't malfunction there would still be a probability that the missile could end up missing the target.

You want to know what was really bad?? The Russian made missile's performance during the Ethopia-Eritrean conflict in 2000 where the missile Hit Ratio (namely the AA-10) was even worse than American missile's performance during Vietnam - yet I don't see much of a fuzz about this...

Re: F-35 vs. Mig-29

Unread postPosted: 15 Jan 2018, 16:49
by zero-one
I guess for me the frustration stems from all the over hyped promises followed by the less than stellar actual performance.
Then we now have to over hype the adversary to explain the failures. The cycle just won't end.

1960s
Promises before combat: Guided missiles will make dogfighting obsolete. BFM training was deemed unnecessary and even illegal. Scrap the gun.

Excuses after combat: Early generation Sparrows were intended for, large, slow bombers not small, fast and agile fighters. Maintenance procedures were horrible. Training was inadequate.

1980s
Promises before combat: All aspect IR missiles are game changers and will render WVR combat as mutual kill scenarios. The F-14s AWG-9 Radar and TCS system will kill bandits, long before they ever know they are in a fight.

Excuses after combat: ROEs restricted full utilization of BVR capabilities. Malfunctions caused misses. 1/3 of all A-A kills in ODS ended up in WVR despite AWACS and Rivet Joint support. No mutual kill scenarios reported.

Post Cold War
Promises before combat: All aspect HOBS IR missiles are game changers and will render WVR combat as mutual kill scenarios. 5th Gen systems and characteristics will kill bandits, long before they ever know they are in a fight.

Now we have never sent them to a big war, but from what we've seen so far with the 9X, we already have the excuses:

Su-22 is too fast, HOBS shots are difficult for any missile, looks like it was a malfunction.

Problem is, the new systems look too good on paper because people tend to pit them against threats from the last war.

Re: F-35 vs. Mig-29

Unread postPosted: 15 Jan 2018, 16:53
by nutshell
Statistical relevance of a single event (positive or not): NONE.

Re: F-35 vs. Mig-29

Unread postPosted: 15 Jan 2018, 17:30
by steve2267
zero-one wrote:
1980s
Promises before combat: All aspect IR missiles are game changers and will render WVR combat as mutual kill scenarios. The F-14s AWG-9 Radar and TCS system will kill bandits, long before they ever know they are in a fight.

Excuses after combat: ROEs restricted full utilization of BVR capabilities. Malfunctions caused misses. 1/3 of all A-A kills in ODS ended up in WVR despite AWACS and Rivet Joint support. No mutual kill scenarios reported.


The Brits seemed downright ecstatic over Sidewinder performance in the Falklands.

Re: F-35 vs. Mig-29

Unread postPosted: 15 Jan 2018, 17:40
by ricnunes
zero-one wrote:I guess for me the frustration stems from all the over hyped promises followed by the less than stellar actual performance.
Then we now have to over hype the adversary to explain the failures. The cycle just won't end.


I was preparing a reply when then I read nutshell's reply:

Statistical relevance of a single event (positive or not): NONE.


He's 100% correct! You cannot judge of accuracy (or the lack of accuracy) of a weapon in a single event/situation.

If you're looking at missile with a 100% accuracy/kill/hit ratio than let me the bearer of bad news:
- This WILL likely NEVER happen! :wink:

Even if a missile has a kill/hit ratio of 90% which would be AWESOME than there's still a 10% chance of missing.
If a missile had a kill/hit ratio of 95% than there's still a 5% chance of missing and so on...
Maybe this AIM-9X failure was one of those 5%-10%...

And then you seem to try to compare "missiles with a gun" (please excuse me if I'm wrong) but if this is the case, you really, really want to compare the kill/hit ratio of a missile, namely a modern missile with a gun?? Really? :shock:
All I could say from such comparison would be... poor gun... :wink:

Re: F-35 vs. Mig-29

Unread postPosted: 15 Jan 2018, 20:19
by zero-one
No...no, my problem is not with Pk. I know missiles will never have anywhere close to 100% Pk.

The problem is with the hype. Just scroll up a bit or go back . Comments over the Aim 9X are as follows

optimist wrote:You aren't going to out manoeuvre that, even with an airshow special. The proximity fuse will do you in, even if it misses.


And then just a few comments later

ricnunes wrote:the missile was shot well off boresight which by itself is already a very challenging shot, this even for the most advanced and agile short-range "dogfight" missiles and this against a fast moving target (remember that the Su-22 is a supersonic aircraft). Add to this, countermeasures like Flares (I don't remember if the Su-22 employed them) and even if the missile didn't malfunction there would still be a probability that the missile could end up missing the target.


Granted these are from 2 different people, but the notion is the same, when there is a new wiz bang system. Everyone is like "oh this new Gizmo will get you no matter what" then after it fails for some reason we are all like, oh but you see actually killing a target is far far harder than what you might think.


I'm not saying the 9X is a failure. Actually, I'm convinced that its the best WVR missile available. But to say that it will hit you no matter what is just rediculous.

Terms like "game changer", "kill bandits before they ever know they're in a fight" , "mutual kill scenarios" have literally been thrown around since ACEVAL/AIMVAL, and maybe even before that. But somhow adversaries still find ways to make us play their game.

My point is simply, we should know how to win both ways. Lets not rule out any type of scenario because things do get out of hand.

Re: F-35 vs. Mig-29

Unread postPosted: 15 Jan 2018, 20:31
by optimist
The brits were using the ASRAAM, I don't know what model 9 caught up with it and may now even exceed it.
I stand by you not being able to out turn a 9x. Or being able to out turn a Russian missile. It's maths. If it works, If it's fired within its NEZ.
I've also seen handwringing on the ME, when a missile was shot as a warning, well outside its range. I'd have to look up the event. I'm not sure if the ROE of not firering the 120, while pointing into red space came into it. I recall they didn't want them to recover a fizzer.

Re: F-35 vs. Mig-29

Unread postPosted: 15 Jan 2018, 20:33
by wrightwing
The Israelis and British had pretty amazing results, using all aspect missiles.

Re: F-35 vs. Mig-29

Unread postPosted: 15 Jan 2018, 21:21
by ricnunes
zero-one wrote:No...no, my problem is not with Pk. I know missiles will never have anywhere close to 100% Pk.

The problem is with the hype. Just scroll up a bit or go back . Comments over the Aim 9X are as follows

optimist wrote:You aren't going to out manoeuvre that, even with an airshow special. The proximity fuse will do you in, even if it misses.


And then just a few comments later

ricnunes wrote:the missile was shot well off boresight which by itself is already a very challenging shot, this even for the most advanced and agile short-range "dogfight" missiles and this against a fast moving target (remember that the Su-22 is a supersonic aircraft). Add to this, countermeasures like Flares (I don't remember if the Su-22 employed them) and even if the missile didn't malfunction there would still be a probability that the missile could end up missing the target.


Granted these are from 2 different people, but the notion is the same, when there is a new wiz bang system...


I don't think that my and optimist (and others) comments are "mutually exclusive".
Instead of thinking that everything is either black or white (which is the impression that I get, again excuse if I'm wrong) you just have to have into account very different situations which may and actually happens in real combat. What I mean with this is if a pilot launches a AIM-9X against the enemy aircraft with a "perfect" firing solution - for example the enemy aircraft is located at around 12 o'clock (a bit more or a bit less) in front of the launching aircraft and within the AIM-9X NEZ then it will be very, very difficult to escape the missile and it sure won't be able to "outmaneuver" the incoming AIM-9X missile.
Now if the same enemy aircraft instead of being in front of the launching aircraft is in a very off-boresight position (which apparently was the case of that Su-22 regarding the Super Hornet) than the probability of hitting the enemy aircraft reduces and the probability of the enemy aircraft to "outmaneuver" the incoming AIM-9X increases since afterall the missile will have to expend much more energy in such flight profile and with this drastically reducing its range and its flight performance.

Then there's the countermeasures. Yes, these new missiles are harder to spoof with countermeasures such as Flares but nonetheless they can still be spoofed by Flares.
If an aircraft manages to evade an incoming missile with the help of Flares which helped spoofing the incoming missile than does this count as "out-maneuvering" the missile?? IMO, I don't think so... Maybe this was what optimist was talking about (evading incoming missile resorting only to maneuvering), but only him can answer this.

Again, what I mean is that in the best case scenario evading an AIM-9X is extremely hard to do it so. But once the scenario is far from being the best case scenario it becomes "less hard" (note: not exactly easier) to be able to evade an AIM-9X or other similar missiles.
Hence why nose pointing ability (more of less tied to High AoA maneuvering, which is an important feature implemented for example in the F-35) is very important since it improves the odds of any missile, including the AIM-9X to hit its target.

I hope that what I'm saying makes some sense...

Re: F-35 vs. Mig-29

Unread postPosted: 15 Jan 2018, 21:59
by steve2267
wrightwing wrote:The Israelis and British had pretty amazing results, using all aspect missiles.


The Sidewinder Story: The Evolution of the AIM-9 Missile

British Falklands Experience: 80% Pk Sidewinder
Israeli Bekka Valley Experience: 80% Pk Sidewinder

Air War in the Falklands: Grand miscalculations, unknown odds, miserable weather, vast distances—and unlikely adversaries -- A good read. RAF Flight Lieutenant David Morgan was credited with four air-to-air kills. (Oh so close.)

Using Math to Defeat the Enemy: Combat Modeling for Simulation p. xi Falklands: British Sidewinder Pk: 0.78

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weapons_o ... klands_War states the British achieved 20 Sidewinder Kills.

Re: F-35 vs. Mig-29

Unread postPosted: 15 Jan 2018, 22:12
by swiss
ricnunes wrote:Even if a missile has a kill/hit ratio of 90% which would be AWESOME than there's still a 10% chance of missing.
If a missile had a kill/hit ratio of 95% than there's still a 5% chance of missing and so on...
Maybe this AIM-9X failure was one of those 5%-10%...



According to a experienced EF pilot even the best AAM has a failure chance of 20% from the start. Because they are so many things that could go wrong.


BTW i was thinking the best IR Missile is the Iris-T?

Re: F-35 vs. Mig-29

Unread postPosted: 15 Jan 2018, 22:21
by steve2267
swiss wrote:BTW i was thinking the best IR Missile is the Iris-T?


I have not heard that argument made. I suppose it is possible. However, the consensus seems to be that either the AIM-132 ASRAAM or the AIM-9X Blk3 is the best. I think the ASRAAM may have better kinematics, but wouldn't be surprised if the AIM-9X Blk3 has better seeker / electronics.

Re: F-35 vs. Mig-29

Unread postPosted: 15 Jan 2018, 22:29
by steve2267
Wikipedia states that the USN cancelled the AIM-9X Blk3 in its FY2016 budget. It was supposed to feature an improved motor, longer range among other things. Can anyone confirm Blk3 was indeed cancelled?

Re: F-35 vs. Mig-29

Unread postPosted: 15 Jan 2018, 22:35
by ricnunes
swiss wrote:
ricnunes wrote:Even if a missile has a kill/hit ratio of 90% which would be AWESOME than there's still a 10% chance of missing.
If a missile had a kill/hit ratio of 95% than there's still a 5% chance of missing and so on...
Maybe this AIM-9X failure was one of those 5%-10%...



According to a experienced EF pilot even the best AAM has a failure chance of 20% from the start. Because they are so many things that could go wrong.



Yes, I can certainly believe in that.
A 90% chance of success or 10% chance of failure was a very best case scenario devised out of my head. My point was that even if/when a missile comes up with an astonishing (and better than real life) 10% chance of failure only, it still has a 10% chance of failure - which means that 1 in 10 missiles can miss the target - If one thinks this way (1 in 10), this is in itself a considerable number.
Considering that in real life the chance of failure is closer to 20% even for the most modern missiles, I don't think that it's strange that the situation of that Super Hornet vs Su-22 did happen.

Re: F-35 vs. Mig-29

Unread postPosted: 15 Jan 2018, 22:41
by ricnunes
steve2267 wrote:
swiss wrote:BTW i was thinking the best IR Missile is the Iris-T?


I have not heard that argument made. I suppose it is possible. However, the consensus seems to be that either the AIM-132 ASRAAM or the AIM-9X Blk3 is the best. I think the ASRAAM may have better kinematics, but wouldn't be surprised if the AIM-9X Blk3 has better seeker / electronics.


Here, I also don't believe that the best missile is the Iris-T.

Regarding the AIM-9X Block 3, I don't know if it was canceled or not but even if not, it sure is still far from seeing the "light of day".

Regarding the AIM-9X versus ASRAAM comparison, what I've read about these two missiles is the following:
- The seeker is the same for both AIM-9X and ASRAAM so in this regard they have the same/similar capabilities.
- The AIM-9X has thrust-vectoring while the ASRAAM has not. This translates into the AIM-9X having a better agility while the ASRAAM having a better range.
So which is better, AIM-9X or ASRAAM? It (again) depends on the situation.

Re: F-35 vs. Mig-29

Unread postPosted: 15 Jan 2018, 23:13
by SpudmanWP
The 9X has better control surfaces and a datalink when compared to ASRAAM.

Re: F-35 vs. Mig-29

Unread postPosted: 15 Jan 2018, 23:14
by wrightwing
steve2267 wrote:
swiss wrote:BTW i was thinking the best IR Missile is the Iris-T?


I have not heard that argument made. I suppose it is possible. However, the consensus seems to be that either the AIM-132 ASRAAM or the AIM-9X Blk3 is the best. I think the ASRAAM may have better kinematics, but wouldn't be surprised if the AIM-9X Blk3 has better seeker / electronics.

The ASRAAM has longer range, but the 9x is more agile. The Block 2 has considerably more range than Block 1, so ASRAAM's range advantages aren't as much. When combined with the short range abilities of the AIM-120, the trade offs are probably worth it.

Re: F-35 vs. Mig-29

Unread postPosted: 16 Jan 2018, 01:11
by optimist
steve2267 wrote:Wikipedia states that the USN cancelled the AIM-9X Blk3 in its FY2016 budget. It was supposed to feature an improved motor, longer range among other things. Can anyone confirm Blk3 was indeed cancelled?

That is a possibility, as they are going with a blk 2 plus delivery in 2020. That has improvements including the BVR. You would have to check the budget documents, to see if it was funded. Or it was cancelled and something else is on the horizon to replace the blk3 specs.

The last I read from DSTO or ADF papers some years ago, was that the asraam actually targeted an image of the plane. It also had a threat image library, to refer to onboard. As well as range, elsewhere it was considered a more advanced missile. They stopped being heat seekers a long time ago. Now I would guess that that tech is now in the 9x at an unknown date and the 9x blk '2 plus' is BVR capable, similar to the asraam.

Re: F-35 vs. Mig-29

Unread postPosted: 16 Jan 2018, 01:54
by steve2267
optimist wrote:As well as range, elsewhere it [sic ASRAAM] was considered a more advanced missile. They stopped being heat seekers a long time ago. Now I would guess that that tech is now in the 9x at an unknown date and the 9x blk '2 plus' is BVR capable, similar to the asraam.


I believe elsewhere in this thread, and I have read elsewhere on the interwebs, that the ASRAAM seeker and the 9x seeker are the same (from Hughes, subsequently bought by Raytheon). It is unsurprising that ASRAAM has better kinematics as its rocket motor diameter is 166mm vs 127mm for the AIM-9x. The ASRAAM only weighs some 2.7kg more than the 9x, so I wonder how much more actual propellant it has. Certainly the larger rocket diameter should enable a higher mass flow rate out the back end, more or less ensuring a higher top speed. (3.3Mach vs 2.5Mach for the 9x.)

I found it interesting that the ASRAAM has a [i]dual-pulse[i] rocket motor. Does this mean it is able to re-ignite its motor on command when it determines it is close enough?

With thrust vectoring, it makes sense that the 9x has higher agility off the rail (someone mentioned 80g's?!?), but once its motor cuts out, 9x agility is going to be similar to most other A2A IR missiles.

Re: F-35 vs. Mig-29

Unread postPosted: 16 Jan 2018, 03:51
by optimist
same IIR sensor, or was the same sensor, with different backend and software. I know when DSTO and stuff was done inhouse. aus had input to both the asraam and other US missiles. It is known we fixed some stuff. A lot of stuff is outsourced now and may have lost the edge through not enough R&D money/time and keeping the white coats together.
all missiles are black boxes, you can only get glimpses of what is going on and half of that is strategic misinformation. There are glimpses of the 120 directional warhead, packed in a bunch, but not much out there.

This is the latest I found on the new named DST,
https://www.dst.defence.gov.au/sites/de ... 0Suite.pdf
VIRSuite is a software application for the generation of
visible and infrared scenes in real-time. This software
was developed by the Defence Science and Technology
(DST) Group for the simulation, analysis, development
and evaluation of electro-optical systems in a range of
complex scenarios and environments.
VIRSuite has been developed and used for over 10 years
for the test and development of the ASRAAM imaging
infrared seeker. VIRSuite was calibrated using imagery
from flight trials and validated using real-world seeker
telemetry.

Re: F-35 vs. Mig-29

Unread postPosted: 16 Jan 2018, 08:40
by zero-one
I agree with the points given above. I just wanted to say something about the super hype that we sometimes fall into.
Remember for every advancement, there will always be a counter.

IR missile technology has certainly advanced, but so has IR countermeasures
https://www.orbitalatk.com/flight-syste ... XS1200.pdf

the MJU-73B next generation flare may give aircraft a better chance against these focal plane array seekers

Re: F-35 vs. Mig-29

Unread postPosted: 16 Jan 2018, 10:17
by hornetfinn
I think all the latest IR missiles with imaging seekers are extremely dangerous and performance differences are likely fairly small.

These include:
AIM-9X
IRIS-T
ASRAAM
MICA-IR (often forgotten)
Python 5
A-Darter (also often forgotten, since it's only used by South African AF)
AAM-5 (Japanese missile)

A lot would depend on software and how "smart" the missile is. All have very high flight performance (compared to earlier gen missiles) and (physically) very capable seekers.

R-73/74 (used in MiG-29) are clearly less capable due to not having imaging seeker and thus their seekers have less range and have no real target discrimination/recognition capabilities. They also have less HOBS capability and have no LOAL capability. Same thing seems to be true with operational Chinese missiles.

Re: F-35 vs. Mig-29

Unread postPosted: 16 Jan 2018, 15:59
by swiss
Thanks for your IR missiles review hornetfinn.

The reason why i mentioned the IRST is the Hush-kit blog:

https://hushkit.net/2016/12/05/ten-most ... -missiles/

Extremely agile and almost impossible to distract with decoy flares, the IRIS-T is a fighter pilot’s nightmare. At least eleven air arms have opted for the IRIS-T, spurning the Sidewinder for this masterpiece of European engineering. The design was German-led, fed by the Luftwaffe’s desire for a super agile weapon to counter the Archer threat. Entering service in 2005, it was the third Western AAM (following the MICA and 9X) to feature thrust vectoring. Several of the nations, notably Norway, that selected the IRIS-T did so after an in-depth comparison with the AIM-9X.


And the german Wiki.

https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/IRIS-T#ci ... -any_one-8

Ok you can say this are not reliable sources. But some interesting points. The IRIS-T should be faster (mach3), more maneuverable (100g?) and also have a better seeker then the AIM-X. A combination of a FPA and mechanical scan.

Also Interesting:

https://web.archive.org/web/20060426212 ... rdwr07.htm

According to Rudolf Meller, strategic marketing manager at BGT, the missile is equipped with an advanced stabilized seeker, which consists of a 128 x 128 scanning array. Due to its wide field of view, its scanning operation, and advanced ECCM, this seeker is less susceptible to deception than "staring" arrays. The seeker is equipped with a large target library that includes all known military aircraft, viewed from different angles. Each target has eight focus points. The radar proximity fuze is programmed to activate at specific points, determined by the type of aircraft, so that the missile is directed at its most vulnerable areas.



https://www.flightglobal.com/news/artic ... off-67103/

IRIS-T, meanwhile, uses a two-colour seeker based around a 128 x 2 array which uses a scanning mirror to build a larger picture of its ±90° field of view. Matra BAe Dynamics uses a similar system on the IR-guided version of its medium-range Mica missile. Mica is also available with a radar seeker. Another difference between IRIS-T and AIM-9X is that the former uses a Ku-band radar as the fuze, whereas Raytheon's missile has a laser sensor.

BGT IRIS-T marketing manager Gerhard Dussler says the 128 x 2 element array produces a 128 x 128 size picture 80 times a second and, like its competitors, uses aim point selection for greater accuracy and to defeat IR countermeasures. He claims the array allows a smaller radome that eliminates dome-heating problems. Dome heating caused by a missile's high speed is an issue for a sensor which relies on detecting differences in temperature. A high temperature dome will appear as background radiation, often obliterating the image of a target at a distance.

Dussler says the two rows of 128 elements are offset, creating a so-called "staggered linear array" so that data does not "fall through the gaps" created when the rows are aligned.

Re: F-35 vs. Mig-29

Unread postPosted: 16 Jan 2018, 16:29
by steve2267
Swiss, thanks for those links. I found the Hushkit webpage after posting earlier yesterday. The IRIS-T does indeed seem to be a formidable weapon and would appear to be in the same class as ASRAAM & AIM-9X.

I found it interesting, though, that Norway, which had switched to the IRIS-T in 2005, has apparently switched back to the AIM-9X in 2015:

https://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htairw/20150619.aspx

Why they did that, I do not know. Perhaps for upcoming F-35 integration?

Re: F-35 vs. Mig-29

Unread postPosted: 17 Jan 2018, 11:11
by hornetfinn
swiss wrote:Ok you can say this are not reliable sources. But some interesting points. The IRIS-T should be faster (mach3), more maneuverable (100g?) and also have a better seeker then the AIM-X. A combination of a FPA and mechanical scan.


IRIS-T is definitely very capable missile. I think AIM-9X should be very close in speed as AIM-9L/M got to Mach 2.5+ and AIM-9X is more aerodynamic with less drag. I doubt either is significantly more maneuverable as both employ TVC and are otherwise very similar (size, shape etc). AIM-9X has 128x128 staring array seeker where IRIS-T uses scanning array seeker to create similar 128x128 image. I doubt there is that much difference there. Nowadays staring array is usually preferred, mostly because of simplicity due to having no moving parts. Performance wise there is not much difference. ASRAAM uses same seeker as AIM-9X and is probably the fastest missile of these three. I'd say IRIS-T and AIM-9X are likely very close in real world capabilties and performance. Software and processing system being likely the biggest factors and these are impossible to compare without very detailed knowledge of both missiles.

Re: F-35 vs. Mig-29

Unread postPosted: 17 Jan 2018, 15:16
by zero-one
Curious about the 9X.
Since it uses TVC it should be more maneuverable than older sidewinders, but it also has smaller fins.
So is it inherently less maneuverable when the motor burns out?

Re: F-35 vs. Mig-29

Unread postPosted: 17 Jan 2018, 15:54
by swiss
You are welcome Steve. Interesting Link also.

hornetfinn wrote:
IRIS-T is definitely very capable missile. I think AIM-9X should be very close in speed as AIM-9L/M got to Mach 2.5+ and AIM-9X is more aerodynamic with less drag. I doubt either is significantly more maneuverable as both employ TVC and are otherwise very similar (size, shape etc). AIM-9X has 128x128 staring array seeker where IRIS-T uses scanning array seeker to create similar 128x128 image. I doubt there is that much difference there. Nowadays staring array is usually preferred, mostly because of simplicity due to having no moving parts. Performance wise there is not much difference. ASRAAM uses same seeker as AIM-9X and is probably the fastest missile of these three. I'd say IRIS-T and AIM-9X are likely very close in real world capabilties and performance. Software and processing system being likely the biggest factors and these are impossible to compare without very detailed knowledge of both missiles.


So we can say the AIM-9X was inferior to the IRIS-T, but Block II close the gap?

Another question. I read several times that the IRIS-T and the Mica IR can shoot down a incoming missiles in a sphere around the plane. Is this true? And if, can every modern western missiles do this, or depends this also on the sensor suit of the fighter?

Re: F-35 vs. Mig-29

Unread postPosted: 17 Jan 2018, 17:29
by ricnunes
swiss wrote:So we can say the AIM-9X was inferior to the IRIS-T, but Block II close the gap?


No, I don't think you can say that or reach that same conclusion.

And specially I believe that what you said below is a somewhat wrong conclusion:
swiss wrote:The IRIS-T should be faster (mach3), more maneuverable (100g?) and also have a better seeker then the AIM-X. A combination of a FPA and mechanical scan.


What you posted (in your previous post) was a "bunch of specs" about the IRIS-T. And how about getting the same "bunch of spec" for the AIM-9X in order to get a comparison?
It's a bit hard to find specs for the AIM-9X but this doesn't mean that it's outright inferior to the IRIS-T, even if we refer to the AIM-9X Block 1.
Like hornetfinn said the AIM-9X has 128x128 staring array seeker (since Block 1) which probably means that the AIM-9X seeker is NOT inferior to the one found in the IRIS-T. Like hornetfinn said, lets say they are "equivalent".
About the agility, I cannot understand where can you reach the conclusion that the IRIS-T is "more agile" than the AIM-9X?

Besides, I found this interesting web-based book:
https://books.google.pt/books?id=oOw2Cg ... ed&f=false

There you can read that the IRIS-T has a speed of Mach 3 and a Range of approximately 25 Km.
A bit below in the next page you can read that the AIM-9X (presumably Block 1) has a speed of Mach 2.5 and a Range of approximately 35 Km.
What can we conclude in the link above?
The IRIS-T is indeed faster than the AIM-9X like you said, however the range of the AIM-9X is significantly higher than the IRIS-T (almost 30% more).

Re: F-35 vs. Mig-29

Unread postPosted: 18 Jan 2018, 00:39
by swiss
ricnunes wrote:No, I don't think you can say that or reach that same conclusion.

And specially I believe that what you said below is a somewhat wrong conclusion:
swiss wrote:The IRIS-T should be faster (mach3), more maneuverable (100g?) and also have a better seeker then the AIM-X. A combination of a FPA and mechanical scan.


What you posted (in your previous post) was a "bunch of specs" about the IRIS-T. And how about getting the same "bunch of spec" for the AIM-9X in order to get a comparison?
It's a bit hard to find specs for the AIM-9X but this doesn't mean that it's outright inferior to the IRIS-T, even if we refer to the AIM-9X Block 1.
Like hornetfinn said the AIM-9X has 128x128 staring array seeker (since Block 1) which probably means that the AIM-9X seeker is NOT inferior to the one found in the IRIS-T. Like hornetfinn said, lets say they are "equivalent".
About the agility, I cannot understand where can you reach the conclusion that the IRIS-T is "more agile" than the AIM-9X?

Besides, I found this interesting web-based book:
https://books.google.pt/books?id=oOw2Cg ... ed&f=false

There you can read that the IRIS-T has a speed of Mach 3 and a Range of approximately 25 Km.
A bit below in the next page you can read that the AIM-9X (presumably Block 1) has a speed of Mach 2.5 and a Range of approximately 35 Km.
What can we conclude in the link above?
The IRIS-T is indeed faster than the AIM-9X like you said, however the range of the AIM-9X is significantly higher than the IRIS-T (almost 30% more).


Hello Ric. Like i said this are specs from the German Wiki. And they mentioned the IRIS-T can do over 100g. Don't no if this is true.

And in the Link from steve you can read, that only the blk 2 aim-X has a LOAL mode. That i was meaning with close the gap. I should have written it better. I have no doubt, this missiles are very close in performance.

Re: F-35 vs. Mig-29

Unread postPosted: 22 Jan 2018, 14:29
by gta4
If my memory serves, aim-9x has smaller fin than 9L and is less draggy, so it can reach Mach 3 despite the same rocket engine.

And this used to be a feature in aim-9x brochure.

Re: F-35 vs. Mig-29

Unread postPosted: 22 Jan 2018, 17:09
by SpudmanWP
I wonder how the 9x being "tail-turned" will be different than "nose-turned" of previous generation Sidewinders in terms of endgame maneuverability?

Re: F-35 vs. Mig-29

Unread postPosted: 23 Jan 2018, 10:11
by hornetfinn
SpudmanWP wrote:I wonder how the 9x being "tail-turned" will be different than "nose-turned" of previous generation Sidewinders in terms of endgame maneuverability?


I'm no aerodynamics expert, but here is some interesting info about missile aerodynamic control systems:
http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/we ... 0158.shtml
https://www.aticourses.com/sampler/Mode ... alysis.pdf

It seems like tail control system is much better for high-AoA maneuvering and pretty much all newer air-to-air missile designs are tail control systems. Canard control systems (like previous AIM-9 versions before AIM-9X) is easier and cheaper to implement because the guidance section is very near the control fins. I would say that tail control system allows much higher maneuverability in the end game and having lower drag, higher stability and uniform weight distribution allows higher speed also. Top speed might not be that much different, but I'd bet the deceleration is much slower and thus the average speed is significantly higher at longer ranges. Thus there is much more energy available for maneuvering.

Re: F-35 vs. Mig-29

Unread postPosted: 23 Jan 2018, 14:25
by tailgate
Don’t forget about it’s TVC capability. That alone enhanced high g maneuverability.

Re: F-35 vs. Mig-29

Unread postPosted: 23 Jan 2018, 14:33
by hornetfinn
tailgate wrote:Don’t forget about it’s TVC capability. That alone enhanced high g maneuverability.


True, but that matters "only" during the few seconds when the rocket motor is burning. Of course that's when the hardest maneuvers are required for HOBS shots.

Re: F-35 vs. Mig-29

Unread postPosted: 23 Jan 2018, 14:46
by tailgate
I think the engineers wanted this missile to maneuver straight off the rail, so as to take advantage of its limited “ burn” time time. Great advantage for HOBS, LOAL ( and HHOBS).

Re: F-35 vs. Mig-29

Unread postPosted: 25 Jan 2018, 12:21
by hornetfinn
tailgate wrote:I think the engineers wanted this missile to maneuver straight off the rail, so as to take advantage of its limited “ burn” time time. Great advantage for HOBS, LOAL ( and HHOBS).


Definitely so. That's the time when missile can do pretty insane maneuvers as it has enormous amount of thrust to use for maneuvering. I'd say AIM-9X for example has much higher maneuverability than missile like R-73 used in MiG-29 (to keep on topic). It has TVC and better control system for high maneuverability at longer ranges, not to mention much better seeker technology.

Re: F-35 vs. Mig-29

Unread postPosted: 25 Jan 2018, 16:01
by mixelflick
Sooner or later, she's going to fly into combat with those block II 9x's. Maybe we'll find out then if they compromise her stealth. I personally feel the canted pylons are for just that reason (minimize RCS) but who knows. Are there plans to carry the 9x internally?

I know she can carry 4 AMRAAM's now, with plans ultimately for 6..

Re: F-35 vs. Mig-29

Unread postPosted: 25 Jan 2018, 16:52
by tailgate
mixelflick wrote:Sooner or later, she's going to fly into combat with those block II 9x's. Maybe we'll find out then if they compromise her stealth. I personally feel the canted pylons are for just that reason (minimize RCS) but who knows. Are there plans to carry the 9x internally?

I know she can carry 4 AMRAAM's now, with plans ultimately for 6..


If you are talking about the 22, you are incorrect.....I cannot go into some load outs ( some are still classified), but AMRAAM, 9X have been carried since late 2015 in varying numbers and in combat although not fired in anger yet. When I retired, the talk was still trying to get HCMS up and trying to get the MALD system viable again.....

Re: F-35 vs. Mig-29

Unread postPosted: 25 Jan 2018, 17:59
by sprstdlyscottsmn
tailgate wrote:
mixelflick wrote:Sooner or later, she's going to fly into combat with those block II 9x's. Maybe we'll find out then if they compromise her stealth. I personally feel the canted pylons are for just that reason (minimize RCS) but who knows. Are there plans to carry the 9x internally?

I know she can carry 4 AMRAAM's now, with plans ultimately for 6..


If you are talking about the 22, you are incorrect.....I cannot go into some load outs ( some are still classified), but AMRAAM, 9X have been carried since late 2015 in varying numbers and in combat although not fired in anger yet. When I retired, the talk was still trying to get HCMS up and trying to get the MALD system viable again.....

No, tailgate, mixelflick is talking about the F-35 here.

Re: F-35 vs. Mig-29

Unread postPosted: 25 Jan 2018, 19:08
by nutshell
Edit: it seems I must have confused the aim9x with something else. Dunno but sry :X

Re: F-35 vs. Mig-29

Unread postPosted: 25 Jan 2018, 19:13
by SpudmanWP
Trapeze launcher, just like the F-22's side bays.

Image

Re: F-35 vs. Mig-29

Unread postPosted: 25 Jan 2018, 21:02
by lbk000
If its going to require bay doors to be open anyways it should just use the door itself as part of the arm.

Re: F-35 vs. Mig-29

Unread postPosted: 26 Jan 2018, 00:33
by nutshell
Bay doors need to be as light as possible, actuators have to open and close the bay really fast.

Then there's all the mechanical stress.

Re: F-35 vs. Mig-29

Unread postPosted: 26 Jan 2018, 17:21
by mixelflick
sprstdlyscottsmn wrote:
tailgate wrote:
mixelflick wrote:Sooner or later, she's going to fly into combat with those block II 9x's. Maybe we'll find out then if they compromise her stealth. I personally feel the canted pylons are for just that reason (minimize RCS) but who knows. Are there plans to carry the 9x internally?

I know she can carry 4 AMRAAM's now, with plans ultimately for 6..


If you are talking about the 22, you are incorrect.....I cannot go into some load outs ( some are still classified), but AMRAAM, 9X have been carried since late 2015 in varying numbers and in combat although not fired in anger yet. When I retired, the talk was still trying to get HCMS up and trying to get the MALD system viable again.....

No, tailgate, mixelflick is talking about the F-35 here.


Correct. I was referencing the F-35

Re: F-35 vs. Mig-29

Unread postPosted: 19 Feb 2018, 22:10
by marsavian
Apparently the standard MiG-35 being built for Russia has NO AESA and NO TVC being mainly a somewhat upgraded land-based version of the MiG-29KR carrier variant.

http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-bu ... ased-19246

“The current plane is essentially an upgrade of the MiG-29KR,” a Russian industry source told me. “There is no thrust vectoring. And the lack of an AESA radar is of a more cost problem from a procurement standpoint rather than a technical problem.”

“The entire MiG-35 project exists only in order to maintain the production line of RSK-MiG as well as for export,” the source continued. “Technical specifications were a secondary factor. The MoD [Ministry of Defense] wants an AESA radar, but wants it [the MiG-35] as cheaply as possible. Foreign customers, who can buy MiGs, are still buying the jet without an AESA due to cost factors.”

Re: F-35 vs. Mig-29

Unread postPosted: 19 Feb 2018, 22:25
by tsl256
What Russia is doing with Mig is exactly what the U.S is doing with Boeing, corporate welfare to keep production lines running.

Re: F-35 vs. Mig-29

Unread postPosted: 19 Feb 2018, 22:39
by marsavian
Maybe but the Super Hornet is a very capable modernish fighter which is being enhanced to its maximum all the time whereas the MIG-35 is like a minimum cost/effort MIG-29+ at the moment. SHs can also double up as tankers and EW aircraft enhancing their utility.

Re: F-35 vs. Mig-29

Unread postPosted: 20 Feb 2018, 01:01
by nutshell
Boeing is delivering good products tho.

There's a lot to gain for the US to keep'em in the business.

Besides, any mentally sane government would and should preserve such an important asset.

Now, if the board of Boeing could be a little less obsessed by the bug...

Re: F-35 vs. Mig-29

Unread postPosted: 20 Feb 2018, 03:17
by rheonomic
nutshell wrote:Now, if the Navy could be a little less obsessed by the bug...


Fixed that for you.

Re: F-35 vs. Mig-29

Unread postPosted: 20 Feb 2018, 08:53
by nutshell
rheonomic wrote:
nutshell wrote:Now, if the Navy could be a little less obsessed by the bug...


Fixed that for you.


Yup ty for the correction :D

I meant the us navy

Re: F-35 vs. Mig-29

Unread postPosted: 20 Feb 2018, 09:33
by gta4
marsavian wrote:Apparently the standard MiG-35 being built for Russia has NO AESA and NO TVC being mainly a somewhat upgraded land-based version of the MiG-29KR carrier variant.

http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-bu ... ased-19246

“The current plane is essentially an upgrade of the MiG-29KR,” a Russian industry source told me. “There is no thrust vectoring. And the lack of an AESA radar is of a more cost problem from a procurement standpoint rather than a technical problem.”

“The entire MiG-35 project exists only in order to maintain the production line of RSK-MiG as well as for export,” the source continued. “Technical specifications were a secondary factor. The MoD [Ministry of Defense] wants an AESA radar, but wants it [the MiG-35] as cheaply as possible. Foreign customers, who can buy MiGs, are still buying the jet without an AESA due to cost factors.”


Current Mig-35 has no AESA?

Good. This thread won't evolve into T/R module number counting contest.

Re: F-35 vs. Mig-29

Unread postPosted: 20 Feb 2018, 09:51
by optimist
I like those posts, I'm waiting for them to be uploaded to wiki specs. They should include the number of t/r modules. The plane that can do a good airshow, flies higher, faster and with the most t/r modules, wins.

Re: F-35 vs. Mig-29

Unread postPosted: 20 Feb 2018, 09:59
by gta4
MIG-35 has no TVC.
No Mig-29 variants in mass production has TVC.
With J-turn and tight loop capability, F-35 can easily out-maneuver a Mig.

Re: F-35 vs. Mig-29

Unread postPosted: 20 Feb 2018, 14:38
by mixelflick
gta4 wrote:MIG-35 has no TVC.
No Mig-29 variants in mass production has TVC.
With J-turn and tight loop capability, F-35 can easily out-maneuver a Mig.


Why on earth then are they pumping more $ into such an old airframe? To make it look good for potential export customers? I see a bigger airframe and perhaps more fuel, but buying an aircraft devoid of an AESA in this day and age seems so... pedestrian.

Why wouldn't they just buy more SU-35's? Granted, there's no AESA there either but it's a lot more capable airframe..

Re: F-35 vs. Mig-29

Unread postPosted: 20 Feb 2018, 15:20
by marsavian
Russia wants to keep Mikoyan solvent so they can bid for future contracts, a bit like the US with the defense division of Boeing. Actually the TVC design of MIG-29OVT/MIG-35 is better than the Sukhoi design, all aspect rotational and >20deg but no customer wants to pay for it nor an AESA and still keep the MIG cost under $50m. Comes down to money, do you really want premium cost items on your cheapest light fighter ?

There is a parallel in the West with this situation, Eurofighter developed a similar all aspect TVC nozzle for Typhoon years ago but no customer wants to pay to integrate it and AESA is still in pending status for the original customers. TVC is great when you and your opponent have run out of speed and you still want to point your aircraft anywhere but most air forces think how relevant is that in this day of stealth/powerful AESA radars/BVR missiles/IRST and all aspect WVR missiles ? Fine if it is a standard item but do you want to pay extra for it ? Apparently not.

Re: F-35 vs. Mig-29

Unread postPosted: 20 Feb 2018, 16:05
by gta4
Personally I think Mig29OVT is a better airframe than Su35.
Just check the official maneuverability data (climb rate, acceleration...), Su35 is even inferior than Mig29A. So Mig29A with TVC would be a more lethal airframe (kinematic-wise). When it come to payload/range/radar power it's a different story.

Re: F-35 vs. Mig-29

Unread postPosted: 20 Feb 2018, 16:07
by gta4
F100 and 110 also have AVEN/PYBBN nozzles which are ready for customers. They are even more advanced (20 deg deviation in any direction). Personally I believe F-15E+GE129+AVEN-CFT is the best possible 4th Gen configuration. Unfortunately no customer showed any interests to AVEN/PYBBN

Re: F-35 vs. Mig-29

Unread postPosted: 20 Feb 2018, 23:43
by marsavian
gta4 wrote:Personally I think Mig29OVT is a better airframe than Su35.
Just check the official maneuverability data (climb rate, acceleration...), Su35 is even inferior than Mig29A. So Mig29A with TVC would be a more lethal airframe (kinematic-wise). When it come to payload/range/radar power it's a different story.


Is the climb rate/acceleration more due to the fact that the MIG-29 has very little internal fuel (3500 kg) and engines with very good dynamic thrust (up to 11,500 kgf at Mach 1.2 at 1km) accentuating the already high initial thrust/weight ratio ? ( >1 with normal loaded weight of 15000 kg and keeping that when supersonic at altitude) After all it was designed as a combat field hotrod interceptor dogfighter with little regard for range or combat persistence.

Re: F-35 vs. Mig-29

Unread postPosted: 21 Feb 2018, 01:13
by nutshell
The ej230 was proposed to power up the Tejas; regarding the Typhoon it was deemed as a barely helpful item.

Technically speaking if you strip the Raptor of its tvc nozzles, you'd still have pretty much the same manoeuvring beast where it matters.

Re: F-35 vs. Mig-29

Unread postPosted: 01 Aug 2018, 04:44
by spazsinbad
OH dear - MiG-29 Woes in Malaysia. BUY RUSSIAN - NOT! :doh:
Mat Sabu: Only four out of RMAF's 28 Russian fighter jets can fly
31 Jul 2018 Martin Carvalho

"KUALA LUMPUR: Only four out of the 28 Russian fighters jets owned by the Royal Malaysian Air Force (RMAF) are able to take to the skies, says Mohamad Sabu. The Defence Minister said that the RMAF had 18 Russian-made Sukhoi Su-30MKM and ten MiG-29 jetfighters. "Only four of the Sukhois are able to fly well," he said, adding that the remaining 14 are under repair....

...He said the Defence Ministry had terminated the contractor engaged by the former administration and was looking at replacing them with local contractors. Mohamad Sabu also informed the House that the ten MiG-29 multi-role jets entered service in 1995, while six Sukhoi Su-30MKM Air-Superiority Fighter were delivered in 2007 and the remainder in 2009...."

Source: https://www.thestar.com.my/news/nation/ ... s-can-fly/

Re: F-35 vs. Mig-29

Unread postPosted: 01 Aug 2018, 16:08
by lbk000
"...He said the Defence Ministry had terminated the [maintenance] contractor engaged by the former administration and was looking at replacing them with local contractors"

While Russian MTBF is inferior to American, lack of maintenance grounds any aircraft, the F-35 especially. This report seems altogether not too different than the Luftwaffle's difficulties with their EF2000 fleet, and has less to do with Russian quality and more to do with just bungled logistical arrangements.

Re: F-35 vs. Mig-29

Unread postPosted: 02 Aug 2018, 22:41
by krieger22
Russian quality is a pretty big factor - the MiG-29 fleet is grounded due to simply hitting the end of service life without any further service life extension programs: http://www.malaysiandefence.com/selamat-jalan-fulcrum/

There were rumors about a deal being struck to remedy that, but that hasn't appeared to have materialized.