Operational Performace Comparison: Viper, Beagle, and Stubby

The F-35 compared with other modern jets.
  • Author
  • Message
Offline

garrya

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 834
  • Joined: 25 Dec 2015, 12:43

Unread post02 Sep 2019, 13:38

southerncross wrote:I am not sure what you mean: MiG's missiles having an increased range because of its speed and altitude or enemy missiles enjoying increased WEZ against it when head on?

I mean both
southerncross wrote:If you mean the later, do you expect the MiG not to be able to change course after being locked / detecting launch / detecting the missile & radio link?

It can change course but the turn rate at 60-70k feet is insignificant so the aircraft will fly a great amount of distance toward the threat even if it can detect the missile launch, and the thin air at high altitude will let missile fly further. This is quite obvious from Spurt's simulation.
Offline
User avatar

ricnunes

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2243
  • Joined: 02 Mar 2017, 14:29

Unread post02 Sep 2019, 14:06

fidgetspinner wrote:@ricnunes
...
http://www.enemyforces.net/missiles/r_27.htm " ...
There are also designed downgraded export versions of these missiles, designated as R-27R1 (AA-10A "Alamo-A") and R-27T1 (AA-10B "Alamo-B") respectively." Sorry but it seems exports do exist of this missile


Well, sorry but your source doesn't seem that reliable IMO. I mean that's a site made by some enthusiast - nothing wrong with that - but it doesn't seem to quote any sources about the information displayed on that same page.
Even wikipedia which usually isn't the best source available, quotes sources.

Searching a bit more about the R-27R1 and R-27T1 variants what I found is that they surely don't look like to be "downgraded export versions". They actually seem to be an upgraded versions of the baseline R-27R and R-27T variants respectively!

For example, read this site - airforce-technology - which seems to be a quite reliable site (at least much more reliable than your site, IMO that is):
https://www.airforce-technology.com/pro ... r-missile/

In the above you can read the following:
The R-27 is available in six variants, R-27R1, R-27T1, R-27P1, R-27RE1, R-27ET1 and R-27EP1, to cater to the varying mission requirements of the armed forces. The R-27 missile range also included the R-27 submarine-launched ballistic missile (SLBM), which was a single-stage, storable liquid-propellant missile. The R-27RE1,R-27TE1 and R-27EP1 are extended range versions of R-27R1, R-27T1 and R-27P1 respectively.

The R-27R1 missile is designed to destroy air targets in adverse weather conditions at any time of day. The missile has a length of 4m, body diameter of 0.23m and wing span of 0.77m. The weight of the missile is 253kg. The R-27R1 can be launched from an altitude of 25km, up to a range of 60km. The guidance system of the missile includes semi-active radar seeker with command updates.
The R-27R1 can be launched from an altitude of 25km, up to a range of 60km. The guidance system of the missile includes semi-active radar seeker with command updates.

...

The R-27Т1 missile variant is designed to strike air targets at all angles during day and night. The variant uses fire-and-forget system for better control over the flight of the missile. The missile has a length of 3.7m and diameter of 0.23m. The missile has a launch weight of 245kg. It can be launched from an altitude of 24km and has a range of 50km. The missile uses infrared (IR) seeker guidance system.


Above there's not a single mention that either the R-27R1 and R-27T1 are export variants - By the contrary! Actually there isn't even a mention of the baseline R-27R and R-27T. And knowing that the Russians place a -1 next to the missile name/model to designate an improved variant - look at the latest and improved variant of the R-77, the R-77-1 - I would say that the R-27R1 and R-27T1 are actually improved and upgraded versions and currently the standard and manufactured version of the baseline variants and definitely not downgraded/export variants as you claimed.

Here's another site - this one official - which basically backs up everything that I mentioned above:
http://www.artem.ua/en/produktsiya/avia ... les-r-27r1

And another site - also official - this one from the manufacturer itself:
http://roe.ru/eng/catalog/aerospace-sys ... r-missile/


fidgetspinner wrote:I agree that they are better than the su-30s but what about the su-30SMs or su-30SM1?
I got an example either way that I want to share. https://www.air-cosmos.com/article/maks ... e-ku-21639


The Russian -SM variants of the Su-30 are indeed improved variants (and quite so apparently) of the -M variants which were the variants in existence with the Russian Air Force when variants like the Su-30MKK and Su-30MKI were conceived and first exported.
But then again you have to realize that the Su-30MKK and the Su-30MKI have also been improved as well. Specially and namely the Su-30MKI (the Indian version) have been extensively upgraded since then.
So after all these years of upgrades, I agree that it's hard to tell which current variant of the Su-30 is the "most advanced" but if I had to guess, I would put my money on the Su-30MKI.
“Active stealth” is what the ignorant nay sayers call ECM and pretend like it’s new.
Offline

southerncross

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 131
  • Joined: 23 Jul 2019, 17:09

Unread post02 Sep 2019, 16:27

garrya wrote:It can change course but the turn rate at 60-70k feet is insignificant so the aircraft will fly a great amount of distance toward the threat even if it can detect the missile launch, and the thin air at high altitude will let missile fly further. This is quite obvious from Spurt's simulation.

I see, the question then is how fast the MiG (or any other fighter for that matter) can turn at least 90º at such altitudes. I guess it would take some seconds, but I admit I would need to research on that. And of course, the range at which the missiles are shot does matter, if very near the plane's time to turn may be significant compared to the missile's flight time, if far both would travel a lot of distance until the missile catches up and by then it could have bled all its energy.
Offline

sprstdlyscottsmn

Elite 4K

Elite 4K

  • Posts: 4545
  • Joined: 10 Mar 2006, 01:24
  • Location: Phoenix, Az, USA

Unread post02 Sep 2019, 17:02

garrya wrote:
southerncross wrote:If you mean the later, do you expect the MiG not to be able to change course after being locked / detecting launch / detecting the missile & radio link?

It can change course but the turn rate at 60-70k feet is insignificant so the aircraft will fly a great amount of distance toward the threat even if it can detect the missile launch, and the thin air at high altitude will let missile fly further. This is quite obvious from Spurt's simulation.

To put numbers to this, a 5G turn at 2.5M at 75,000ft is just under 4 degrees of turn per second. The MiG will have no warning until the AMRAAM seeker head goes active a few seconds prior to impact.

To put MORE numbers to this, 2.5M at 75,000ft only gives a dynamic pressure of 319lb/ft^2. If we assume the MiG-31 is able to hit a CL of 1 (i have doubts under those atmospheric conditions) to can generate a maximum of 212,000lb of lift. If we assume the MiG is down to 50% fuel by this point and is only carrying six semi-conformal R-37s then it weighs 72,000lb. 2.9G turn at best (2.7G horizontal component). 2 degrees per second with a radius of 11.2nm.

Lets run some numbers assuming EVERYTHING in the MiGs favor. AIM-120D launched at maximum range from a plane traveling at 1.0M at 36,000ft (~145nm assuming missile only has 180s of electrical power). We will also assume that the MiG-31 can ignore drag due to turning and sustain a 2.9G pull but that it takes 4 seconds from time of RWR notice until the pilot can bank enough to turn.

13.9 seconds from impact the AMRAAM goes active (9.8nm distant). The 2 dps turn does indeed generate enough separation that the poor AMRAAM (itself down to 1.7M) is unable to make the turn. It took less than 10s of turning to generate enough separation that the MiG was no long even in seeker gimbal limits of the missile. In reality the MiG would have slowed and lost altitude during those ten seconds, but not enough for it to have mattered.

Now lets see things from a less ideal (for the Foxhound) scenario. It is detected on radar a great distance out, and with that speed it is assumed hostile and the defending fighters have more time to accelerate. Now they launch from 45,000ft and 1.4M with a range of 150nm. Now the speed of the AMRAAM is much higher when it goes active so it is only 10.9 seconds from impact. Within 7 seconds of turning the MiG has once again defeated the AMRAAMs turn.

What if an F-22 fires from 150nm while cruising at 1.7M and 60,000ft? 8.7seconds of warning. Still gains needed separation. How? Because IF the MiG can generate a CL of 1 under those conditions and can start turning within 4 seconds its 11.3nm turn radius out does the AMRAAMs 18.8nm turn radius at that altitude (according to my sim).

Now, I haven't built a performance model for the MiG-31 which would give me a better idea of the effectiveness of the wing and tailplane at altitude as well as the deceleration rate when turning. Like I said, I have doubts of it's ability to pull a CL of 1 at that altitude.
"Spurts"

-Pilot
-Aerospace Engineer
-Army Medic
-FMS Systems Engineer
Offline

garrya

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 834
  • Joined: 25 Dec 2015, 12:43

Unread post02 Sep 2019, 17:06

southerncross wrote:I see, the question then is how fast the MiG (or any other fighter for that matter) can turn at least 90º at such altitudes. I guess it would take some seconds, but I admit I would need to research on that. And of course, the range at which the missiles are shot does matter, if very near the plane's time to turn may be significant compared to the missile's flight time, if far both would travel a lot of distance until the missile catches up and by then it could have bled all its energy.

I search for Mig-31 sustain turn rate:
approximately 1.1 deg/sec at 55k feet.
Image

sprstdlyscottsmn wrote:To put numbers to this, a 5G turn at 2.5M at 75,000ft is just under 4 degrees of turn per second. The MiG will have no warning until the AMRAAM seeker head goes active a few seconds prior to impact.

To put MORE numbers to this, 2.5M at 75,000ft only gives a dynamic pressure of 319lb/ft^2. If we assume the MiG-31 is able to hit a CL of 1 (i have doubts under those atmospheric conditions) to can generate a maximum of 212,000lb of lift. If we assume the MiG is down to 50% fuel by this point and is only carrying six semi-conformal R-37s then it weighs 72,000lb. 2.9G turn at best (2.7G horizontal component). 2 degrees per second with a radius of 11.2nm.

Lets run some numbers assuming EVERYTHING in the MiGs favor. AIM-120D launched at maximum range from a plane traveling at 1.0M at 36,000ft (~145nm assuming missile only has 180s of electrical power). We will also assume that the MiG-31 can ignore drag due to turning and sustain a 2.9G pull but that it takes 4 seconds from time of RWR notice until the pilot can bank enough to turn.

13.9 seconds from impact the AMRAAM goes active (9.8nm distant). The 2 dps turn does indeed generate enough separation that the poor AMRAAM (itself down to 1.7M) is unable to make the turn. It took less than 10s of turning to generate enough separation that the MiG was no long even in seeker gimbal limits of the missile. In reality the MiG would have slowed and lost altitude during those ten seconds, but not enough for it to have mattered.

What if we replace the AMRAAM with Meteor or R-37 (launched from Su-35) ?
Offline

fidgetspinner

Banned

  • Posts: 67
  • Joined: 17 Nov 2018, 02:27

Unread post02 Sep 2019, 17:15

@ricnunes

"Above there's not a single mention that either the R-27R1 and R-27T1 are export variants - By the contrary! Actually there isn't even a mention of the baseline R-27R and R-27T. And knowing that the Russians place a -1 next to the missile name/model to designate an improved variant - look at the latest and improved variant of the R-77, the R-77-1 - I would say that the R-27R1 and R-27T1 are actually improved and upgraded versions and currently the standard and manufactured version of the baseline variants and definitely not downgraded/export variants as you claimed."

Number of supposed R-27 variants.

R27
R-27R
R-27R1
R-27T
R-27P
R-27T1
R-27P1
R-27EP1
R-27T1
R-27E1
R-27ET1
R-27ET
R-27ER
R-27RE
R-27R1E
R-27EP
R-27PE1
R-27PE
R-27TE
R-27ER1
R-27EM
R-27AE
R-27EA

R-27ER: the E means the longer range

R-27TE: if its after the guidance designator, the E means export model

R-27T1: the 1 just means an incremental update. No different from saying AIM-120C-7.

web articles say different things out in the web in which some contradict each other making it a huge cluster **** on which is domestic and which is export.

a lot of variants exists on the web and there are domestic and export versions. https://militarywatchmagazine.com/artic ... i-fighters I don't really think the Indians would want to purchase 1000 R-27 missiles if only 40 would reach their targets.

more sources

"Russia releases passive 'Alamo' for export
Robert Hewson Editor, Jane's Air-Launched Weapons
London
--------------------------------------------------

The Russian authorities have made a significant shift in their arms export policies by approving foreign sales of the Vympel R-27P air-to-air missile (AAM). The R-27P (Pasivnaya) is fitted with Avtomatika's 9B-1032 (PRGS-27) anti-radiation seeker, which homes in on other airborne radars. It is one of three basic versions of the R-27 (AA-10 'Alamo') developed in the early 1980s.

Until now the R-27P has been fielded only by the Russian, and probably Ukrainian, air forces. It is part of the baseline weapon set for the MiG-29 and Su-27/Su-30 fighter families. Despite several reports to the contrary, Russia has not yet supplied the R-27P to foreign users. During the recent FIDAE 2004 exhibition in Santiago, Vympel confirmed to JDW that it has now been given permission to offer the R-27P on the export market for the first time.

Despite its age, the R-27P is a radical and effective beyond-visual-range (BVR) air-to-air weapon with no Western parallels. For decades, Soviet (now Russian) missile engineers have produced passive BVR AAMs that allowed their fighters to make undetected stealthy missile attacks. There is already an infra-red-guided version of the weapon - the R-27T - and the R-27P is an extension of this capability.

The R-27P's seeker was designed to be modular and interchangeable with the RVV-AE/R-77 (AA-12 'Adder') active-radar AAM. Vympel's designers discovered that the R-27E (Energitisheskaya) variant, the so-called 'Long Alamo' with its larger rocket motor, had superior ballistic performance to the R-77 and, therefore, more straight-line range. As a result, an R-27EP has been developed, but there is no passive R-77 yet. Export versions of the R-27P variants are designated R-27P1 and R-27EP1.

According to Vympel, the R-27P's 9B-1032 seeker has an effective range of 200km: this significantly outreaches the 110km maximum range of the R-27E missile. Vympel is considering further improvements to the missile design but says it will still not match the capability of the seeker. The preferred solution would be a ramjet-powered R-77. Such a concept has been studied and the basic missile design was tested in the late 1980s, but since then there has been no funding to take this weapon further. "

Now the problem is no one knows what exact R-27 missiles the Ethiopians or Eritreans have used but I do not see these countries being able to financially afford the best stuff. But I can bet you what R-27 variants the Indians are buying are a little better than whatever variants they have bought and thus this already breaks the theory of domestic is the same as export. Some newer exports might exceed the older domestic models but overall you, me or anyone has yet to prove what exact R-27s the Africans have used without this you cannot make comparisons that something is the same.

In the article above the R-27P was more than likely made in the 1980s until the Russians decide to sell the same version in a 2004 exhibition than there is also the issue of did the Africans use infrared, passive, semi-active or active guided missiles. Example a F-18 missed a Syrian su-22 with infrared guidance in which he had to switch to active guided missiles to shoot the aircraft down.

"I agree that it's hard to tell which current variant of the Su-30 is the "most advanced" but if I had to guess, I would put my money on the Su-30MKI."

I just want to add that the SM1 version comes with Irbis I do not think Chinese or Indians have this radar placement on their su-30s. And I really do not think the Indians have signed an AESA radar upgrade from the Russians yet for their su-30s. But also keep my mig-35 example in mind.
Offline

sprstdlyscottsmn

Elite 4K

Elite 4K

  • Posts: 4545
  • Joined: 10 Mar 2006, 01:24
  • Location: Phoenix, Az, USA

Unread post02 Sep 2019, 17:32

I also found that at 50,000ft and 2.5M the MiG-25 could only generate a CL of .45 with a CD of .11 (.03 base+wave and .08 induced). That adds up to a lot of deceleration.
"Spurts"

-Pilot
-Aerospace Engineer
-Army Medic
-FMS Systems Engineer
Offline

garrya

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 834
  • Joined: 25 Dec 2015, 12:43

Unread post02 Sep 2019, 19:31

sprstdlyscottsmn wrote:I also found that at 50,000ft and 2.5M the MiG-25 could only generate a CL of .45 with a CD of .11 (.03 base+wave and .08 induced). That adds up to a lot of deceleration.

Can you please elaborate how did you étimate or calculate that
Offline
User avatar

ricnunes

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2243
  • Joined: 02 Mar 2017, 14:29

Unread post02 Sep 2019, 20:00

fidgetspinner wrote:Number of supposed R-27 variants.


The current R-27 variants being build and distributed/sold are 6 (six) and only six which are the following:

R-27R1
R-27T1
R-27P1
R-27ER1
R-27ET1
R-27EP1

See my sources above which includes official sources being one of them from the manufacturer itself! Sources of which that I'll re-post below (and please go read them before you reply again):

http://roe.ru/eng/catalog/aerospace-sys ... r-missile/

http://www.artem.ua/en/produktsiya/avia ... les-r-27r1


fidgetspinner wrote:R-27ER: the E means the longer range

R-27TE: if its after the guidance designator, the E means export model

R-27T1: the 1 just means an incremental update. No different from saying AIM-120C-7.


Yes, I'm aware that -E stands for Extended Range or more precisely R-27ER stands for Extended Range while R stands for Radar guided! And R-27ET stands for Extended Range (E) and IR guided (T) missile.
And R-27ER1 Stands for Extended Range (E), Radar Guided (R) and Updated or first increment update if you will (1).
And so on...

And as you can read in the sources above there are NO R-27RE or R-27TE variants whatsoever! (again read the sources above - The manufacturer contradicts you!)
The R-27RE or R-27TE names are misspelled R-27ER an R-27ET names respectively which you can find misspelled in several sources including globalsecurity such as in the site which you can find below:
https://www.globalsecurity.org/military ... -specs.htm

(As you can read in the globalsecurity link above you can see that R-27RE and R-27TE are erroneous ways to refer to the R-27ER an R-27ET respectively and are in NO WAY related to Export variants whatsoever!)

Another example of the (erroneous) usage of the R-27RE and R-27TE names:
https://defence-ua.com/index.php/en/pub ... ed-missile

The "E" letter in the R-27 rocket designation index indicates that the missile has increased powerplant power landing, "energetic" and has increased operating range. So, for R-27R missiles (inertial guidance with radio-correction and semi-active radar homing in the final phase of flight), the declared operating range is 80 km, and for the R-27RE - up to 130 km. For the R-27T (all-aspect passive infra-red self-direction) operating range of up to 70 km, and for the R-27TE - up to 120 km.


So when you see R-27RE or R-27TE mentioned in fact it means R-27ER and R-27ET respectively, get it?


fidgetspinner wrote:web articles say different things out in the web in which some contradict each other making it a huge cluster **** on which is domestic and which is export.


For "Christ Sake", I'm quoting/basing my information on the manufacturer itself. For some odd reason you pretend to know more or to rely on unreliable sources rather than the manufacturer itself. Go figure... :doh: :roll:
“Active stealth” is what the ignorant nay sayers call ECM and pretend like it’s new.
Offline

sprstdlyscottsmn

Elite 4K

Elite 4K

  • Posts: 4545
  • Joined: 10 Mar 2006, 01:24
  • Location: Phoenix, Az, USA

Unread post02 Sep 2019, 21:05

garrya wrote:
sprstdlyscottsmn wrote:I also found that at 50,000ft and 2.5M the MiG-25 could only generate a CL of .45 with a CD of .11 (.03 base+wave and .08 induced). That adds up to a lot of deceleration.

Can you please elaborate how did you étimate or calculate that

Found a MiG-25 manual online and was able to get info from the charts.
"Spurts"

-Pilot
-Aerospace Engineer
-Army Medic
-FMS Systems Engineer
Offline

fidgetspinner

Banned

  • Posts: 67
  • Joined: 17 Nov 2018, 02:27

Unread post02 Sep 2019, 21:30

@ricnunes

thank you for the sources. I was never against the idea that certain missile variants can be equal to or better than other variant missiles. But that all depends what year model one of the 1st domestic missiles have come out and what time frame the other domestic variant missiles have come out. For example I wont disagree that an r-27 missile made in 2000 would outperform a domestic made r-27 missile made in the 1980s. But bringing this war up is pointless if no one knows what exact R-27 variant was used :bang:

https://spetstechnoexport.com/en/product/58

Ukraine also has had partnership manufacturing the missile and it seems there are export variants.

https://adalvoice.wordpress.com/2008/04 ... he-border/ "The result of following dog-fight was one Eritrean MiG-29 shot down, probably by an R-73/AA-11 IR-homing, short range air-to-air missile (fired again by Maj. Workneh). The ERAF fighter came down near Ethiopian Army positions. The fate of the pilot, rumoured to have been the commander of the Eritrean Air Force, Brig. Gen. Habte Zion Hadgu, was not reported by either side. Like his deputy, Col. Abraham Oqbaselassie, Hadgu used to be a EtAF MiG-23-pilot during the Derg regime. He was never again mentioned in the public, but was apparently replaced by Maj.Gen. Teklay Habteselassie, who remains Commander-in-Chief ERAF until today."

active homing is better than infrared if we follow the F-18 and Syrian su-22 example.

https://adalvoice.wordpress.com/2008/04 ... he-border/

all the air-to-air kills were reportedly scored by R-73, even if quite a few (up to 24) R-27s were fired, pointing to some possible problems with R-27s, which is otherwise highly praised by quite a few air forces around the world! Supposedly, there should be no significant differences between early and new – or domestic and export – versions of R-27s, however, it seems, that this type so far has a worst combat record than even US Vietnam-era AIM-7Es or AIM-7Fs! This was certainly no good news for the Russians, which were keen to try out their new mounts and weapons under conditions of conventional warfare, and against a well organized enemy.

AIM-7s claims of 8-15% hits have used, Aim-7R added infrared homing, while the AIm7Es and AIM-7Fs are telling me they are semi-active. Although the R-27 infrared variant was 4% is there any other infrared missile model of the same year that was used in any other war with a higher 4% chance? Supposedly I think a semi-active or active sensor on a r-27 would perform better than an infrared one so it sort of does matter what domestic model missile is used.
Offline

garrya

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 834
  • Joined: 25 Dec 2015, 12:43

Unread post02 Sep 2019, 21:37

sprstdlyscottsmn wrote:Found a MiG-25 manual online and was able to get info from the charts.

I see, do they have EM chart or only CL curve?
AFAIK, Mig-31 and Mig-25 have very similar airframe arrangement except for the strake at the top of Mig-31's wing. I wonder what that for? Mig-31 won't be making tight turn like F-16 so Lerz and strake seem redundance?
CB2DF64D-C8B6-44D7-A8B6-487A196592FA.jpeg

11C387D7-C584-4F5D-A85C-42A0BC8ADA9F.png
Offline

southerncross

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 131
  • Joined: 23 Jul 2019, 17:09

Unread post03 Sep 2019, 03:23

Very interesting sprstdlyscottsmn and garrya, thanks for sharing that.

The MiG-31 was supposed to be more polivalent and maneoverable than the MiG-25, but it seems if it can out-turn the AMRAAM it would be by a little margin. The whole engagement looks strange since it is the interceptor with high speed that is supposed to close in on a target as indicated by ground guidance or by their own radars and shoot those huge missiles it carries high and fast while still out of reach for the enemy and keep controlling the engagement through speed delta, but I guess it can get caught by surprise too. Interestingly, if I understood it right, the defeat of the missile is not related to range but to simple turning capabilities at high altitude. Shouldn't the AMRAAM have strakes in the body as other missiles do, in order to create more lift?

How do you think the new K-77M would behave aerodynamically in that situation? They have some additional fins in the tail, probably allowing higher AoA of the control surfaces before airflow detaches. Would that help at high altitude or is it rather meant for low altitude maneouvering?
Image

One further question: why does the MiG not detect the missile until it activates is homing head? Is this a realistic consideration or just created for the analysis of the respective turning characteristics? We still don't know if the MiG could out-run the missile

@garrya: may I ask where that table comparing the MiG and F-14 comes from? Looks very detailed indeed...
Offline

sprstdlyscottsmn

Elite 4K

Elite 4K

  • Posts: 4545
  • Joined: 10 Mar 2006, 01:24
  • Location: Phoenix, Az, USA

Unread post03 Sep 2019, 05:05

garrya wrote:I see, do they have EM chart or only CL curve?
AFAIK, Mig-31 and Mig-25 have very similar airframe arrangement except for the strake at the top of Mig-31's wing. I wonder what that for? Mig-31 won't be making tight turn like F-16 so Lerz and strake seem redundance?

CL curve for different speeds and altitudes along with drag polar curves.

southerncross, The MiG-31 is a huge plane with a huge RCS. While it has the largest PESA ever, it is handedly outclassed by western AESAs and even the Irbis-E from what I understand. Against a modern fighter the MiG-31 will not get first look, and as I have shown it can be fired upon from 150nm under most conditions head on with the missile having the kinematic oomf to reach the MiG. What my initial pass of simulation was showing was that the speed of the MiG meant that it generated lateral separation relatively quickly compared to its turn rate. However, my research has shown that it likely had a max G turn closer to 1.5G instead of 2.9G, which only allowed for 1.12G horizontal instead of 2.7G horizontal. This means it's turn rates and radii are worse than my initial simulation (0.85dps and 27nm radius). Also, it will be experiencing roughly .5G deceleration, which granted at these speeds and for these times means a reduction in speed from 2.5M to 2.4M. As to not detecting the missile until the missile goes active? That is the point of the AMRAAM. Fired from 150nm it gives no MAWS warning. It is too small to be detected at any meaningful distance by the MiGs radar. It does not require the host aircraft to "lock" it's radar onto the target. Your first warning is the missile going active. My sim has that happening around 9.8nm, others say 5nm.
"Spurts"

-Pilot
-Aerospace Engineer
-Army Medic
-FMS Systems Engineer
Offline

wrightwing

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3340
  • Joined: 23 Oct 2008, 15:22

Unread post03 Sep 2019, 05:50

southerncross wrote:


One further question: why does the MiG not detect the missile until it activates is homing head? Is this a realistic consideration or just created for the analysis of the respective turning characteristics? We still don't know if the MiG could out-run the missile

Because missile launch detectors have a relatively short range, and it's difficult to detect missiles that are coasting or haven't gone active. All of the previous calculations mentioned involve 10 seconds warning for the Mig. That isn't necessarily how much notice, that they'll have though. AIM-120D can make entirely passive shots, or use the emissions of the target aircraft to home onto.
PreviousNext

Return to F-35 versus XYZ

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Majestic-12 [Bot] and 10 guests