Operational Performace Comparison: Viper, Beagle, and Stubby

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

garrya

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 831
  • Joined: 25 Dec 2015, 12:43

Unread post03 Sep 2019, 08:54

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

The specific photo, I found on Google, but AFAIK, it came from Yefim Gordon's book
https://books.google.com.vn/books/about ... edir_esc=y
https://forum.keypublishing.com/forum/m ... 5a-c/page3

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

Can you share the chart here too? I obtained a Russian Mig-25 manual but TBH, I have no idea what it say.
A.PNG

B.PNG

4.PNG

1.PNG

2.PNG

3.PNG

5.PNG
Offline
User avatar

ricnunes

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2222
  • Joined: 02 Mar 2017, 14:29

Unread post03 Sep 2019, 15:47

fidgetspinner wrote:@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


First of all thanks for the link above. That surely seems to be from a manufacturer and thus a reliable source.
But the only thing that remotely points out for something that resembles an "export variant" of the R-27 is the following sentence:
"R-27EP1 and R-27P1 (export version) upgraded guided missiles of R-27 missile family of air-to-air class are available"

From what I gather from above, that can either be:
1- A misspell due to something lost in the translation from Russian to English which could mean that the R-27P variant and its extended range variant the R-27EP which are specially versions - Passive Radar Homing (P) - are available to export (and not exactly being export variants).
Or,
2- It could be that due to being a special version of the missile (R-27P and R-27EP - both Passive Radar Homing) that there's indeed an export variant for this same and "unique" version/variant.

Anyway and according to your source above and the sources that I previously posted and also another source that you also posted and which I'll quote above, there doesn't seem to be any export variants for the most common variants of the R-27 which are the -R (Semi-Active Radar Homing) and -T (Infrared Homing) and respective Extended Range variants (-ER and -ET).


fidgetspinner wrote: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 exportversions 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.


So as you can see above, even your source above states that there shouldn't be any diference between the exported and domestic/Russian R-27 missiles.
“Active stealth” is what the ignorant nay sayers call ECM and pretend like it’s new.
Offline

sprstdlyscottsmn

Elite 4K

Elite 4K

  • Posts: 4539
  • Joined: 10 Mar 2006, 01:24
  • Location: Phoenix, Az, USA

Unread post03 Sep 2019, 15:52

garrya wrote:Can you share the chart here too? I obtained a Russian Mig-25 manual but TBH, I have no idea what it say.

Those are some of the charts I grabbed. I don't read Russian but by Aero Engineering background helps me to see what I'm looking at.

The first one looks like Cl max and the AoA it happens at with various speed and altitudes (H=0.5km, 10km, 15km). Now, to be fair, IIRC one of the things the MiG-31 addressed was improved speed at low level and improved supersonic turn performance. This is just a reference starting point.

Second one is CL-alpha (or lift curve slope) as it changes with speed.

Third one is some kind of G loading and speed chart with various heights and I think weights. Not too sure about this one.

Same with the fourth one.

The fifth one is interesting to me it looks like a complex turn chart but I need to run it through a translator to see what the relationship the other three quadrants have with the top right.

The sixth one looks like G over Speed at different weights and altitudes.

The seventh and final one looks like a basic flight envelope diagram that shows a few different limits on it.
"Spurts"

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

hythelday

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 552
  • Joined: 25 Jul 2016, 12:43
  • Location: Estonia

Unread post03 Sep 2019, 16:31

sprstdlyscottsmn wrote:
Third one is some kind of G loading and speed chart with various heights and I think weights. Not too sure about this one.

Same with the fourth one.


Judging by the other diagrams n with subscript y is how they symbolise g, G is weight and p seems to be thrust.

In the third one abscissa axis is Mach number and ordinate is "g limited by thrust(???), g max allowed," and some other value with a phi in it, I can't think what the abbreviations stand for.

The fourth is titled "max allowed g-forces, aircraft weight G = 28000 kgs". Why on earth do they measure weight in "kgs" i don't know. Kilograms in russian plural would not have "s" at the end.
Offline

garrya

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 831
  • Joined: 25 Dec 2015, 12:43

Unread post04 Sep 2019, 12:42

sprstdlyscottsmn wrote: 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

How does that affect your initial estimation? can Mig-31 still out turn AMRAAM?, how does that change if we subtitude AMRAAM for Meteor?
Offline

sprstdlyscottsmn

Elite 4K

Elite 4K

  • Posts: 4539
  • Joined: 10 Mar 2006, 01:24
  • Location: Phoenix, Az, USA

Unread post04 Sep 2019, 15:33

garrya wrote:
sprstdlyscottsmn wrote: 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

How does that affect your initial estimation? can Mig-31 still out turn AMRAAM?, how does that change if we subtitude AMRAAM for Meteor?

How does the slower turning MiG fare against the Raptor-shot? dead.

Against the "low and slow" shot from 36,000ft and 1.0M, it still survives. However, if I change the activation point from my models 9.8nm (a baselss number only related to expected range of detection for 1m RCS) to 5nm as I have seen in other simulations (this missile is being guided by a datalink so no need to go active sooner than needed) then even the Low and Slow shot hits. Clearly minimizing detection time is key.

If I change the low and slow to a Meteor and use the 9.8nm activation time the MiG NEARLY gets outside the seeker limit. This isn't so much a "Meteor turns tighter" issue as it is a "Meteor under this shot had fuel to accelerate to 4.56M thereby still reducing warning time. The question is this though; What kind of MAWS does a MiG-31 have? The Meteor will be burning the entire time so if the MiG has a MAWS it will detect the Meteor at "x" distance, giving it more time to gain separation.
"Spurts"

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

garrya

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 831
  • Joined: 25 Dec 2015, 12:43

Unread post04 Sep 2019, 18:38

sprstdlyscottsmn wrote:How does the slower turning MiG fare against the Raptor-shot? dead.

Against the "low and slow" shot from 36,000ft and 1.0M, it still survives. However, if I change the activation point from my models 9.8nm (a baselss number only related to expected range of detection for 1m RCS) to 5nm as I have seen in other simulations (this missile is being guided by a datalink so no need to go active sooner than needed) then even the Low and Slow shot hits. Clearly minimizing detection time is key.

If I change the low and slow to a Meteor and use the 9.8nm activation time the MiG NEARLY gets outside the seeker limit. This isn't so much a "Meteor turns tighter" issue as it is a "Meteor under this shot had fuel to accelerate to 4.56M thereby still reducing warning time. The question is this though; What kind of MAWS does a MiG-31 have? The Meteor will be burning the entire time so if the MiG has a MAWS it will detect the Meteor at "x" distance, giving it more time to gain separation.

AFAIK, Mig-31 doesn't have MAWS
BTW, when you said Mig-31 get outside the seeker limit, what do you mean?. Mig-31 fly outside missile's seeker detection range? or Mig-31 fly outside missile's field of regard? (what is your value for field of regard?)
Offline

sprstdlyscottsmn

Elite 4K

Elite 4K

  • Posts: 4539
  • Joined: 10 Mar 2006, 01:24
  • Location: Phoenix, Az, USA

Unread post04 Sep 2019, 19:02

The MiG gets outside the 60 degree field of regard. good question.

This happens because from the missiles point of view the initial turn is very small so it makes very small corrections to it's own heading.
"Spurts"

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

southerncross

Active Member

Active Member

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

Unread post04 Sep 2019, 22:05

@garrya: thanks for the book reference and charts :thumb:

@sprstdlyscottsmn: I don't have the time now to check the performance of Zaslon-M. In any case what I find surprising is that it seems to be an agreement here that a massive radar, specifically designed to detect cruise missiles against ground clutter, cannot detect a (at least from what I know) not particularly stealthy missile closing in head-on at ca. 7 M, shouldn't it produce a massive Doppler shift on the signal and, in general, produce a return within the sensitivity of a fighter radar? Even if not, wouldn't the data link coming directly in the MiG's direction give away the whole tactical situation going on? (I am considering one on one engagement without external help, the same I am not considering the IADS informing the MiG about the ongoing attack and present adversaries, is that the scenario you are considering too?)
Offline

sprstdlyscottsmn

Elite 4K

Elite 4K

  • Posts: 4539
  • Joined: 10 Mar 2006, 01:24
  • Location: Phoenix, Az, USA

Unread post04 Sep 2019, 22:40

southerncross wrote:@garrya: thanks for the book reference and charts :thumb:

@sprstdlyscottsmn: I don't have the time now to check the performance of Zaslon-M. In any case what I find surprising is that it seems to be an agreement here that a massive radar, specifically designed to detect cruise missiles against ground clutter, cannot detect a (at least from what I know) not particularly stealthy missile closing in head-on at ca. 7 M, shouldn't it produce a massive Doppler shift on the signal and, in general, produce a return within the sensitivity of a fighter radar? Even if not, wouldn't the data link coming directly in the MiG's direction give away the whole tactical situation going on? (I am considering one on one engagement without external help, the same I am not considering the IADS informing the MiG about the ongoing attack and present adversaries, is that the scenario you are considering too?)



Zaslon-M is only good for up to 6M closure.

An AIM-120D may not be "stealthy" but it is still incredibly small. Based on what I have read about AAM RCS an AIM-120D should be between 0.01 and 0.001m^s. Zaslon-M is noted as detecting a 20m target at 400km. Correcting this for differences in detection probabilities (Ru uses 50% detection, US uses 75% or greater) this would have it detecting an incoming missile (if it was moving less than 3.5M) with 50% probability at ~44km. This would be the radar getting a blip that goes away. No altitude or speed info. Just a blip at range. I have honestly never read a single claim of any radar tracking an air to air missile. A cruise missile is ten times the size and is slower moving.

As for the datalink itself being detected, this isn't Link-16. Missile guidance is always, and has always been, done on a tight beam. 1-2 degrees wide. Since the missile, firing plane, and the MiG are not all in one straight line, this signal will not be intercepted.

I am considering the previously described scenario about a MiG trying to shoot down an AWACS with the massive R-37 while being defended by an AMRAAM equipped aircraft. If the AMRAAM equipped aircraft is an F-15, then the MiG can lock it up at the same time the F-15 fires it's AMRAAM. If the AMRAAM equipped aircraft is so much as a Super Hornet then it will be fired upon before finding the aircraft on radar. Zaslon-M is huge, but it does not hold a candle to current US radars (or even the Irbis-E) in terms of ability, and the MiG-31 has a huge RCS of its own. In the end I am looking at how far away the MiG can be engaged and what defenses it has against engagement. It's tremendous speed helps it to generate lateral separation quickly, but unless it is just going to zig zag across the sky for no reason then it is still susceptible to an AMRAAM head on.

I love the MiG-31. I would love to see what an Irbis sized to Zaslon size would do, as well as giving it the full MAWS and EW kit from the Su-35S. In the end, the Flanker was given the latest and greatest systems Russia could field, and the Foxhound was not.
"Spurts"

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

garrya

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 831
  • Joined: 25 Dec 2015, 12:43

Unread post05 Sep 2019, 02:43

southerncross wrote:@garrya: thanks for the book reference and charts :thumb:

Can you read Russian? can you help us translate the chart?

sprstdlyscottsmn wrote:The MiG gets outside the 60 degree field of regard. good question.

This happens because from the missiles point of view the initial turn is very small so it makes very small corrections to it's own heading.

I have no idea about the current seeker on Meteor. However, I think the field of regard should be higher than 60 degree, the Field of regard for RVV-AE is nearly 120 degrees, I think Meteor and AMRAAM are similar
800px-Seeker_Vympel-R-77-maks2009.jpg


it worth mentioning that Japan is planning to integrate GaN AESA seeker on AAM-4 with ramjet body of Meteor for their F-35 fleet. Fixed AESA should have around 120 degrees field of regard, but much faster scan rate
image_259849.jpg

JNAAM.PNG


sprstdlyscottsmn wrote: If the AMRAAM equipped aircraft is an F-15, then the MiG can lock it up at the same time the F-15 fires it's AMRAAM. If the AMRAAM equipped aircraft is so much as a Super Hornet then it will be fired upon before finding the aircraft on radar. Zaslon-M is huge, but it does not hold a candle to current US radars (or even the Irbis-E) in terms of ability, and the MiG-31 has a huge RCS of its own. In the end I am looking at how far away the MiG can be engaged and what defenses it has against engagement. It's tremendous speed helps it to generate lateral separation quickly, but unless it is just going to zig zag across the sky for no reason then it is still susceptible to an AMRAAM head on.

It is important to note that thanks to Mig-31 tremendous speed and altitude advantage,if both side launch at the same time, its missiles will reach the opponents first, therefore, F-15 will have to abandon guiding AMRAAM early.
Last edited by garrya on 05 Sep 2019, 03:07, edited 2 times in total.
Offline

knowan

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 259
  • Joined: 24 Jul 2018, 10:39

Unread post05 Sep 2019, 02:45

R-27P/EP never entered service; they're offered by the manufacturer for exports, but nobody has bought them.

I'm not sure if the R-27ET is in service either; I can't find any photos of Flankers or Fulcrums with them in flight, only R-27R, R-27ER and R-27T.
Offline

garrya

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 831
  • Joined: 25 Dec 2015, 12:43

Unread post05 Sep 2019, 03:20

sprstdlyscottsmn wrote:This happens because from the missiles point of view the initial turn is very small so it makes very small corrections to it's own heading.

What if the missile is constantly being guided by the mother aircraft?
Offline

sprstdlyscottsmn

Elite 4K

Elite 4K

  • Posts: 4539
  • Joined: 10 Mar 2006, 01:24
  • Location: Phoenix, Az, USA

Unread post05 Sep 2019, 03:49

The change is still initially so small that the new predicted impact point is very close to where it was so the missile move very little at first. I will double check something in my guidance timing to make sure it is working right for a 10Hz cycle (practical limit of my sim)
"Spurts"

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

ricnunes

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2222
  • Joined: 02 Mar 2017, 14:29

Unread post05 Sep 2019, 10:58

knowan wrote:R-27P/EP never entered service; they're offered by the manufacturer for exports, but nobody has bought them.


Thanks knowan! :thumb:

That explains the "export version" sentence on fidgetspinner's source regarding the R-27P/EP.
“Active stealth” is what the ignorant nay sayers call ECM and pretend like it’s new.
PreviousNext

Return to F-35 versus XYZ

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests