By: Schorsch
- 25th June 2010 at 20:02Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
What is that OEW?
You have the manual, it should state the OEW or basic weight. I know only the Wikipedia-numbers, which are chronically in-accurate (normally too optimistic).
By: vanir
- 26th June 2010 at 00:55Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Hopefully backtracking the thread to be on topic...
Agree with Sens about the numbers thing, in the mid-80s the numbers in service I'm unclear of if in Warsaw Pact or Soviet Union alone, are around 1800 MiG-23 of all versions. By early 90s there was already 600 MiG-29 listed on station among the CIS member nations.
ex-Soviets of the General staff have admitted themselves the primary strategy remained similar to that of the Great Patriotic War, the presumption that all sustained warfare comes down to attrition and numbers and reinforcement is most important over quality.
Certainly this is a completely different game to the modern RuAF which is vastly downsized, underfunded and functions with a large number of volunteer personnel. It is part of the process of recreating it in the new political environment, which will be much more like western air forces in organisation and logistics.
But the USSR/WP functioned by all accounts rather similarly to the popular ideas about Soviet conventional warfare tactics in the west, at least on a strategic scale. Large numbers of everything, quantity over quality, very robust equipment, use tenaciousness.
New
Posts: 6,983
By: obligatory
- 26th June 2010 at 03:07Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
In a strict sense, local concentration and superiority is and has been the foundation in any kinds of fight worldwide since before dawn of mankind, your local red-scarf gang being a shining example.
But yes, Red army built their strategy around the concept, no doubt influenced by the fact that it worked for them in WW2, and that resources where allocated so they could.
By: nastle
- 28th June 2010 at 03:33Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Hopefully backtracking the thread to be on topic...
Agree with Sens about the numbers thing, in the mid-80s the numbers in service I'm unclear of if in Warsaw Pact or Soviet Union alone, are around 1800 MiG-23 of all versions. By early 90s there was already 600 MiG-29 listed on station among the CIS member nations.
.
vanir where does this number of 600 fulcrums in early 90s come from ?
By: vanir
- 28th June 2010 at 07:20Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Janes Information Group, numbers for the year 1994. It's actually just over, 620 iirc but throughout the CIS, mostly Ukraine, Belarus, Kazakhstan and Russian Federation but includes other central Asian states, does not include satellites (production deliveries by this time necessarily higher).
However...production had only recently shifted to the 9-13 back then so most would be 9-12 airframes, many were decommissioned in the late 90s, if not updated to 9-13 standard (without extra fuel) they were shifted to second echelon (operating in mixed regiments but mostly used for training like MiG-23MLD). Ukraine always gave pride of position for their Flankers (guards regiments), but they did have mostly Fulcrums.
The main problem for the 9-12 (which is what the Luftwaffe had) is the central fuel tank causes problems with the gun ejection and isn't mounted properly, and the radar set is older and simpler with many problems.
Today the numbers in service with Russian Federation are only a couple of hundred I know, haven't looked it up but it's something like 300 serviceable of both types iirc. The Russian (and CIS) military really languished through the 90s, but started off good.
By: Sens
- 28th June 2010 at 07:51Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Here this is relevant, the MiG-29 was designed as a fighter that first was going to use its BVR AA-10 Alamos and later get close with four AA-11s, the Su-27 was different it supposed to use six Alamos first and just later use its last four AA-11s as a last result.
The Graph show the most likely conditions of a Dogfight between a F-15 and a Su-27, with the Russian plane using two AA-10s and two AA-11s versus an F-15 with four AIM-9Ls, this is the most possible combat situation since the Flanker carries six AA-10s versus the F-15 with four AIM-7 so it is likely the Flanker was going to face a F-15 without AIM-7s and still the Flanker was going to have a pair of AA-10s that is tactics, also most combat is spent at low speeds where the aircraft is more agile and can dodge Air to air missiles more easily. those are cold war tactics by making the Su-27 agile at lower speeds and lower overload values
From the 80s the fighters did no longer the dogfight in the sense of the 40s and 50s, when all pilots were forced to point their guns to get a hit from that or to deny the tail-cone to the opponent. Even at that time-scale all pilots used the maneuver-fight. From bi-plane to mono-plane the former turn-contest in the horizontal has changed more and more in the vertical too. Not even that but with a constant rising speed or energy-state. By raw turning data or wing-load a Grumman Hellcat had no chance against a Mitsubishi Zero fighter at lower speeds. But it is the pilot of the higher energy fighter who decided the fight will take place at first.
The AIM-7 offered head-on engagements from the 60s and the first all aspect AAMs in the 70s freed the fighter pilots from the typical tail-chase = "dogfight" of former times. In the 80s high agility and energy-fighters entered the ranks in numbers, when the weaponary had caught up too. From the 90s the fighter with the best AAMs, SA and positioning (= highest energy-state for first shooting opportunity) had the edge. He decides about the kind of the fight most of the time. In most air-combats with AAMs outside exercises the pilots were unable to fire that. The dumb seeker-head of the AAM is unable to distinguish between friend or foe. Just in exercises or demonstrations the pilots can be sure that no friendly will pass through the line of fire when the AAM is released in a multiple engagement. In exercises the signal of the seeker head shows that he has aquired something to justify a claim of Fox One or Fox Two, but that is limited to a clear situation only. During the multiple clashes over Lebanon 1982 most Israeli pilots were unable to fire an AAM or were limited to no more than two of that after the WVR range identification. The BVR-AAMs were used to have more range to catch the disengageing fighters as last option.
The MiG-29 had two longer range AAMs and 4 short range AAMs. The Russian style was the use of two AAMs per target to get a higher killing propability from that. The first two were used in the typical interceptor mission, when the four smaller ones were used against fighter-size targets by chance. Since the 90s the EW-suit decides about the chance to outsmart hostile AAMs, when be surprised by that. :cool:
By: vanir
- 28th June 2010 at 15:25Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
To further extrapolate the MiG-29A from 1985-90 you'd often see with 2x R-27R or T, 2x R-73 and the outer pylons just with R-60T self defence missiles.
It is basically what you said Sens, it appears to me the VVS intended two Alamo fired BVR to take one out on approach and then two Archers upon closing for targets of opportunity. In addition there was two Aphids carried for self defence when turning for home. What happened very quickly though, possibly as stockpiles of R-73 increased with production, the Aphids were swapped out for four Archers to be carried. MiG-25 and 23 still in service also started swapping out Aphids for Archers until retired.
A popular practise among export operators (former Soviet satellites) was to drop the Alamos entirely and carry either four or six Archers by themselves. Basically the radar set on the Fulcrum is that bad and the contrast of HMS/Archer in CWC is that good. This was also the findings of the Luftwaffe during service evaluation of the Fulcrum-A.
What is highly likely, during any service use by experienced operators of the Fulcrum, would be employment of any possible tactics to close for close weapons combat (CWC) at the earliest possible time, preferrably avoiding BVR conflict by any means available (masking, beaming, passivity, point defence protocols, etc.).
The 9-13 topaz set is an improvement on the sapphire of the 9-12 but it's still just not in the class of frontline 80s NATO radar set. BVR is only a smart play in the Fulcrum if you're up against outdated enemy equipment, like small nation forces. Most of the time you're only going to be a couple of seconds short of Archer range before you can get a reliable Alamo lock anyway, from what the Germans say.
If there had been a conflaguration of hostilities with VVS forces this would've been discovered very quickly in practise, as it is I have photos of Fulcrums patrolling in mixed formation with Flogger-Gs. I think what you'd find in a large scale Cold War conflict at the end of the 80s, is attrition being used with everything and the kitchen sink tossed into the fight so Fulcrums can close to CWC and start making an impact dogfighting.
By: Schorsch
- 28th June 2010 at 22:00Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
The problem of SARH-guided AAMs is that it changes the tactics. If the opponent does have them, you will use different tactics. I think having them is an advantage, even if no direct kills result from them.
The problem is the associated weight. As soon as a maneuvering fight evolves, the BVR-equipment is of no use any more.
Today thee is no need for SARH any more, and an AMRAAM can be guided by basically any radar. Living through an air engagement these days isn't easy, the quest for stealth by the USAF is not unreasonable.
By: Sens
- 29th June 2010 at 01:09Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
The F-15 chart says 20 deg/s at sea level actually the MiG-29 chart says at a clean configuration and 1000 meters of altitude it will take it, 19 seconds to turn with 50% internal fuel and a total weight of around 13 tons it means a turn rate of 19 deg/s at 1000 meters with 50% fuel.
The Manual says, the MiG-29`s max weight without weapons 14375kg, max internal fuel 3300kg, so 1500kg of fuel is around a weight 13000 kg.
The F-15 is not flying at 50% fuel at 35000 pounds, consider the F-15 has engines with higher yield and a total extra 5 tonnes of thrust of power, so 3 tonnes is hardly 50% of fuel
10900 kg = empty equipped + 50% fuel ~1700 kg + 4 AAM ~800 kg = 13400 kg
At ~13000 kg that MiG-29A is at 40% internal fuel.
To compare two fighters about their fuel state is their respective fuel ratio and the installed thrust-ratio and engine sfc are similar. So both are comparable by the given weights. ;)
The one with the higher kinetic energy but nominal lower turn rate will choose a maneuver in the vertical to keep that advantage: High Yo Yo or in the case of the F-15 do a Lag Pursuit f.e. . :cool:
By: Sens
- 29th June 2010 at 01:25Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
If the AIM-7 has a kill rate of 100% then you need only one to kill a target, but in reality, it does not, so you also need two or three AIM-7 per target so the Soviet practice was the same as the real AIM-7 kill rate will indicate, a 50% kill rate.
So you need two AIM-7s per target as the AA-10 needs
In general it will come close to that. Depending to the situation the Western pilots had more freedom to decide if they will use ripple fire.
By: Sens
- 29th June 2010 at 01:59Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
сухая масса самолета means empty dry weight
that is 10900kg предслетная масса самолета бес подвесок и бес апу с боекомпдектом для пушки 150 патронов means weight ready to fly with internal gun ammunition and no weapons on pylons 14375kg
I did and that is the reason to name it "Rüstgewicht" or operational empty in other languages.
14375 kg minus internal fuel = 10900 kg. The internal fuel-load of 3475 kg or 4365 liter or a specific fuel-weight of ~0,796 kg per liter. ;)
I will ignore some small details by that because there is a small difference (200-300 liter) in the usuable amount shown at the fuel state and the total in the MiG-29.
By the way even empty dry is without the pylons/external load-stations, because the related weight is added to the AAMs/weapons/ETs f.e.
None surprised by that because modern load-stations incorporate auxilary systems in need for the specific weapon. The former MiG-29A had three different ones for the R-60, R-73 and R-27 f.e. Depending on the choosen mission configuration the weight will differ by that alone.
By: Sens
- 29th June 2010 at 02:51Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
The manuals gives a total internal fuel of 3300kg, but adds ammunition, the weight the page 206 has is 12575kg you have 175kg of ammunition.
The F-15 is much heavier and has at least 5000kg more in thrust available, the page 206 says it will turn in 19 seconds so that gives a 19deg/s turn rate, this is at 1km of altitude.
35000pounds is not even the same amount of fuel and more if you add ammunition.
the MiG-29 manual says a TWR of 1.14 at flight and 9Gs overload at 20% of internal fuel at full afterburner it has 16600kg available each RD-33 is rated at 8300kg of thrust, at 19 deg/s it has a TWR of 1.3:1 now the F-15 at 35000 pounds has a higher TWR if we consider it has 50000 pounds of thrust available at full afterburner
Stick to the facts. Every bullet has 0,410 kg and how many are carried for the GSh-301 gun of the MiG-29.
Both fighters have a similar TWR at clean TOW and a known fuel-load. So no problem to figure out the related fuel fraction for both.
From my memory the fuel fraction of the MiG-29 is ~0,24 and for the F-15A ~0,28.
When both are down to 40 % internal nothing has changed about that.
It is some work to do the related math, but you can rise your credibility, when you will do that first before guessing about fuel-loads. ;)
By: Sens
- 29th June 2010 at 03:11Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
The F-15 at 35000 pounds and with a total thrust of 50000 pounds has a higher TWR than a MiG-29 with 12575kg and 16600kg of thrust.
The F-15 also is turning at a lower altitude, but the MiG-29 is turning at 1km of altitude.
The F-15 gets 20 deg/s at sea level and 1.4:1 TWR, while the MiG-29 gets 19deg/s at 1km of altitude with a TWR of 1.32:1.
The F-15 carries 900 rounds of ammunitions while the MiG-29 150 rounds, the MiG-29 uses less rounds because its gun has bigger bullets.
Primary Function Tactical fighter.
Contractor McDonnell Douglas Corp.
Power Plant Two Pratt & Whitney F100-PW-100 turbofan engines with afterburners.
Thrust (C/D models) 25,000 pounds each engine ( 11,250 kilograms).
Length 63 feet, 9 inches (19.43 meters).
Height 18 feet, 8 inches (5.69 meters).
Wingspan 42 feet, 10 inches (13.06 meters)
Speed 1,875 mph (Mach 2.5-plus) at 45,000 ft.
Ceiling 65,000 feet (19,697 meters).
Maximum Takeoff Weight (C/D models) 68,000 pounds (30,600 kilograms).
Range 3,450 miles (3,000 nautical miles) ferry range with conformal fuel tanks and three external fuel tanks.
Armament 1 - M-61A1 20mm multibarrel internal gun, 940 rounds of ammunition
4 - AIM-9L/M Sidewinder and
4 - AIM-7F/M Sparrow missiles, or
combination of AIM-9L/M, AIM-7-F/M and AIM-120 missiles.
F-15C Weapon Loads http://www.fas.org/programs/ssp/man/uswpns/air/fighter/f15.html
Take your time to do the related math first. In the internet there is no shortage of questionable data.
For the development of the MiG-29A the F-15A was the yardstick when it came to the 80s. The MiG-29C got a better fuel ratio similar to the F-15C to got more combat endurance from the high installed thrust.
By: Schorsch
- 29th June 2010 at 12:31Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
So then carrying 2 Alamos and 2 Archers against 4 sidewinder means the Su-27 has the advantage over the F-15
If the BVR-missile equipped fighter is able to fight the fight to his conditions, yes. If not, he may find himself with unsuitable weapons in a undesirable position. The opponent usually knows what your weapons are and will adapt their tactics. SARH-weapons can be outsmarted in many different ways.
By: Sens
- 29th June 2010 at 13:23Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
F-15A has STR at sea level 20.5 deg. At 3000m it drops to 16.5 deg. At 1000m 19 deg STR shouldn’t be a problem.
So every F-15A "driver" is well advised to avoid low speed STR as a Hellcat "driver" before when he wanted engage Zero-fighters successful. No problem as long as you have the higher energy fighter on your side and not be surprised by the opponent.
Just the fighter running out of energy runs out of ideas too. Since the 80s the turning capability is no longer a prime factor, when capable all aspect AAMs came into use. In short low speed maneuverability is just nice to have but no longer in real need.
By: exec
- 29th June 2010 at 13:43Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
So every F-15A "driver" is well advised to avoid low speed STR as a Hellcat "driver" before when he wanted engage Zero-fighters successful. No problem as long as you have the higher energy fighter on your side and not be surprised by the opponent.
This is also the reason why comparing max STR is meaningless. What does it matter that the MiG has a better low-speed STR when the Eagle can deny to fight at such low speed? Only reasonable comparison is when you compare turning capabilities of 2 a/c at certain speed and altitude.
By: exec
- 29th June 2010 at 15:07Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
these numbers are clean, and at 35000 pounds, to be comparable to the MiG-29 the F-15 would need to fly at a weight of 38462 pounds and at 1km or the MiG-29 would need to fly at weight of 11690kg and at sea level.
That is of course pure nonsense.
F-15A empty weight is ~27500 lb (~12500kg)
MiG-29 empty weight is 11 000 kg.
Now: 6 pylons for the MiG, gun ammo (and a pilot) weighs 500kg.
F-15 has only 2 pylons + gun ammo and a pilot = +/- 325kg
Now we have MiG-29 weighing 11 500kg and F-15A 12 825kg.
MiG-29 weighing 12 500kg (like on the charts in Russian manual) has only ~1000kg of fuel onboard. Now if you want the Eagle to be ‘comparable’ you have to give him the exact amount of fuel with which it will be able to travel the same distance. I’m guessing it will be +/- 1200kg.
The conclusion is: if you want to compare MiG-29 with a GW of 12500kg you have to compare this to the F-15 with a GW of 14 025kg (31 000 lb).
The AA-11s in the 1980s, was the longest range short range weapon with a range of 31km of range, basicly the Su-27 would had faced the F-15 at longer ranges than the F-15 would.
I don’t think so. Both weapons were designed to be used WVR. Such ranges as 31km for the Archer is just a fantasy.
Posts: 1,838
By: over G - 25th June 2010 at 18:12 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I really don't care about this, I'm not here for a cold war macho contest.
This is applied for every plane as well, with enough starting speed and height a Mig-23 can outurn a F-15, so what?
The point here is the airframe limitations, and the probability for a fatal failures.
Posts: 408
By: exec - 25th June 2010 at 18:34 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
What is that OEW?
He was the one intentionally comparing clean to armed a/c.
Posts: 3,718
By: Schorsch - 25th June 2010 at 20:02 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
You have the manual, it should state the OEW or basic weight. I know only the Wikipedia-numbers, which are chronically in-accurate (normally too optimistic).
Posts: 165
By: vanir - 26th June 2010 at 00:55 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Hopefully backtracking the thread to be on topic...
Agree with Sens about the numbers thing, in the mid-80s the numbers in service I'm unclear of if in Warsaw Pact or Soviet Union alone, are around 1800 MiG-23 of all versions. By early 90s there was already 600 MiG-29 listed on station among the CIS member nations.
ex-Soviets of the General staff have admitted themselves the primary strategy remained similar to that of the Great Patriotic War, the presumption that all sustained warfare comes down to attrition and numbers and reinforcement is most important over quality.
Certainly this is a completely different game to the modern RuAF which is vastly downsized, underfunded and functions with a large number of volunteer personnel. It is part of the process of recreating it in the new political environment, which will be much more like western air forces in organisation and logistics.
But the USSR/WP functioned by all accounts rather similarly to the popular ideas about Soviet conventional warfare tactics in the west, at least on a strategic scale. Large numbers of everything, quantity over quality, very robust equipment, use tenaciousness.
Posts: 6,983
By: obligatory - 26th June 2010 at 03:07 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
In a strict sense, local concentration and superiority is and has been the foundation in any kinds of fight worldwide since before dawn of mankind, your local red-scarf gang being a shining example.
But yes, Red army built their strategy around the concept, no doubt influenced by the fact that it worked for them in WW2, and that resources where allocated so they could.
Posts: 545
By: nastle - 28th June 2010 at 03:33 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
vanir where does this number of 600 fulcrums in early 90s come from ?
Posts: 165
By: vanir - 28th June 2010 at 07:20 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Janes Information Group, numbers for the year 1994. It's actually just over, 620 iirc but throughout the CIS, mostly Ukraine, Belarus, Kazakhstan and Russian Federation but includes other central Asian states, does not include satellites (production deliveries by this time necessarily higher).
However...production had only recently shifted to the 9-13 back then so most would be 9-12 airframes, many were decommissioned in the late 90s, if not updated to 9-13 standard (without extra fuel) they were shifted to second echelon (operating in mixed regiments but mostly used for training like MiG-23MLD). Ukraine always gave pride of position for their Flankers (guards regiments), but they did have mostly Fulcrums.
The main problem for the 9-12 (which is what the Luftwaffe had) is the central fuel tank causes problems with the gun ejection and isn't mounted properly, and the radar set is older and simpler with many problems.
Today the numbers in service with Russian Federation are only a couple of hundred I know, haven't looked it up but it's something like 300 serviceable of both types iirc. The Russian (and CIS) military really languished through the 90s, but started off good.
Posts: 11,742
By: Sens - 28th June 2010 at 07:51 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
From the 80s the fighters did no longer the dogfight in the sense of the 40s and 50s, when all pilots were forced to point their guns to get a hit from that or to deny the tail-cone to the opponent. Even at that time-scale all pilots used the maneuver-fight. From bi-plane to mono-plane the former turn-contest in the horizontal has changed more and more in the vertical too. Not even that but with a constant rising speed or energy-state. By raw turning data or wing-load a Grumman Hellcat had no chance against a Mitsubishi Zero fighter at lower speeds. But it is the pilot of the higher energy fighter who decided the fight will take place at first.
The AIM-7 offered head-on engagements from the 60s and the first all aspect AAMs in the 70s freed the fighter pilots from the typical tail-chase = "dogfight" of former times. In the 80s high agility and energy-fighters entered the ranks in numbers, when the weaponary had caught up too. From the 90s the fighter with the best AAMs, SA and positioning (= highest energy-state for first shooting opportunity) had the edge. He decides about the kind of the fight most of the time. In most air-combats with AAMs outside exercises the pilots were unable to fire that. The dumb seeker-head of the AAM is unable to distinguish between friend or foe. Just in exercises or demonstrations the pilots can be sure that no friendly will pass through the line of fire when the AAM is released in a multiple engagement. In exercises the signal of the seeker head shows that he has aquired something to justify a claim of Fox One or Fox Two, but that is limited to a clear situation only. During the multiple clashes over Lebanon 1982 most Israeli pilots were unable to fire an AAM or were limited to no more than two of that after the WVR range identification. The BVR-AAMs were used to have more range to catch the disengageing fighters as last option.
The MiG-29 had two longer range AAMs and 4 short range AAMs. The Russian style was the use of two AAMs per target to get a higher killing propability from that. The first two were used in the typical interceptor mission, when the four smaller ones were used against fighter-size targets by chance. Since the 90s the EW-suit decides about the chance to outsmart hostile AAMs, when be surprised by that. :cool:
Posts: 165
By: vanir - 28th June 2010 at 15:25 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
To further extrapolate the MiG-29A from 1985-90 you'd often see with 2x R-27R or T, 2x R-73 and the outer pylons just with R-60T self defence missiles.
It is basically what you said Sens, it appears to me the VVS intended two Alamo fired BVR to take one out on approach and then two Archers upon closing for targets of opportunity. In addition there was two Aphids carried for self defence when turning for home. What happened very quickly though, possibly as stockpiles of R-73 increased with production, the Aphids were swapped out for four Archers to be carried. MiG-25 and 23 still in service also started swapping out Aphids for Archers until retired.
A popular practise among export operators (former Soviet satellites) was to drop the Alamos entirely and carry either four or six Archers by themselves. Basically the radar set on the Fulcrum is that bad and the contrast of HMS/Archer in CWC is that good. This was also the findings of the Luftwaffe during service evaluation of the Fulcrum-A.
What is highly likely, during any service use by experienced operators of the Fulcrum, would be employment of any possible tactics to close for close weapons combat (CWC) at the earliest possible time, preferrably avoiding BVR conflict by any means available (masking, beaming, passivity, point defence protocols, etc.).
The 9-13 topaz set is an improvement on the sapphire of the 9-12 but it's still just not in the class of frontline 80s NATO radar set. BVR is only a smart play in the Fulcrum if you're up against outdated enemy equipment, like small nation forces. Most of the time you're only going to be a couple of seconds short of Archer range before you can get a reliable Alamo lock anyway, from what the Germans say.
If there had been a conflaguration of hostilities with VVS forces this would've been discovered very quickly in practise, as it is I have photos of Fulcrums patrolling in mixed formation with Flogger-Gs. I think what you'd find in a large scale Cold War conflict at the end of the 80s, is attrition being used with everything and the kitchen sink tossed into the fight so Fulcrums can close to CWC and start making an impact dogfighting.
Posts: 3,718
By: Schorsch - 28th June 2010 at 22:00 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
The problem of SARH-guided AAMs is that it changes the tactics. If the opponent does have them, you will use different tactics. I think having them is an advantage, even if no direct kills result from them.
The problem is the associated weight. As soon as a maneuvering fight evolves, the BVR-equipment is of no use any more.
Today thee is no need for SARH any more, and an AMRAAM can be guided by basically any radar. Living through an air engagement these days isn't easy, the quest for stealth by the USAF is not unreasonable.
Posts: 11,742
By: Sens - 29th June 2010 at 01:09 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
10900 kg = empty equipped + 50% fuel ~1700 kg + 4 AAM ~800 kg = 13400 kg
At ~13000 kg that MiG-29A is at 40% internal fuel.
To compare two fighters about their fuel state is their respective fuel ratio and the installed thrust-ratio and engine sfc are similar. So both are comparable by the given weights. ;)
The one with the higher kinetic energy but nominal lower turn rate will choose a maneuver in the vertical to keep that advantage: High Yo Yo or in the case of the F-15 do a Lag Pursuit f.e. . :cool:
Posts: 11,742
By: Sens - 29th June 2010 at 01:25 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
In general it will come close to that. Depending to the situation the Western pilots had more freedom to decide if they will use ripple fire.
Posts: 11,742
By: Sens - 29th June 2010 at 01:59 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I did and that is the reason to name it "Rüstgewicht" or operational empty in other languages.
14375 kg minus internal fuel = 10900 kg. The internal fuel-load of 3475 kg or 4365 liter or a specific fuel-weight of ~0,796 kg per liter. ;)
I will ignore some small details by that because there is a small difference (200-300 liter) in the usuable amount shown at the fuel state and the total in the MiG-29.
By the way even empty dry is without the pylons/external load-stations, because the related weight is added to the AAMs/weapons/ETs f.e.
None surprised by that because modern load-stations incorporate auxilary systems in need for the specific weapon. The former MiG-29A had three different ones for the R-60, R-73 and R-27 f.e. Depending on the choosen mission configuration the weight will differ by that alone.
Posts: 11,742
By: Sens - 29th June 2010 at 02:51 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Stick to the facts. Every bullet has 0,410 kg and how many are carried for the GSh-301 gun of the MiG-29.
Both fighters have a similar TWR at clean TOW and a known fuel-load. So no problem to figure out the related fuel fraction for both.
From my memory the fuel fraction of the MiG-29 is ~0,24 and for the F-15A ~0,28.
When both are down to 40 % internal nothing has changed about that.
It is some work to do the related math, but you can rise your credibility, when you will do that first before guessing about fuel-loads. ;)
Posts: 11,742
By: Sens - 29th June 2010 at 03:11 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Take your time to do the related math first. In the internet there is no shortage of questionable data.
For the development of the MiG-29A the F-15A was the yardstick when it came to the 80s. The MiG-29C got a better fuel ratio similar to the F-15C to got more combat endurance from the high installed thrust.
Posts: 408
By: exec - 29th June 2010 at 08:46 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
F-15A has STR at sea level 20.5 deg. At 3000m it drops to 16.5 deg. At 1000m 19 deg STR shouldn’t be a problem.
Posts: 3,718
By: Schorsch - 29th June 2010 at 12:31 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
If the BVR-missile equipped fighter is able to fight the fight to his conditions, yes. If not, he may find himself with unsuitable weapons in a undesirable position. The opponent usually knows what your weapons are and will adapt their tactics. SARH-weapons can be outsmarted in many different ways.
Posts: 11,742
By: Sens - 29th June 2010 at 13:23 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
So every F-15A "driver" is well advised to avoid low speed STR as a Hellcat "driver" before when he wanted engage Zero-fighters successful. No problem as long as you have the higher energy fighter on your side and not be surprised by the opponent.
Just the fighter running out of energy runs out of ideas too. Since the 80s the turning capability is no longer a prime factor, when capable all aspect AAMs came into use. In short low speed maneuverability is just nice to have but no longer in real need.
Posts: 408
By: exec - 29th June 2010 at 13:43 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
This is also the reason why comparing max STR is meaningless. What does it matter that the MiG has a better low-speed STR when the Eagle can deny to fight at such low speed? Only reasonable comparison is when you compare turning capabilities of 2 a/c at certain speed and altitude.
Posts: 408
By: exec - 29th June 2010 at 15:07 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
That is of course pure nonsense.
F-15A empty weight is ~27500 lb (~12500kg)
MiG-29 empty weight is 11 000 kg.
Now: 6 pylons for the MiG, gun ammo (and a pilot) weighs 500kg.
F-15 has only 2 pylons + gun ammo and a pilot = +/- 325kg
Now we have MiG-29 weighing 11 500kg and F-15A 12 825kg.
MiG-29 weighing 12 500kg (like on the charts in Russian manual) has only ~1000kg of fuel onboard. Now if you want the Eagle to be ‘comparable’ you have to give him the exact amount of fuel with which it will be able to travel the same distance. I’m guessing it will be +/- 1200kg.
The conclusion is: if you want to compare MiG-29 with a GW of 12500kg you have to compare this to the F-15 with a GW of 14 025kg (31 000 lb).
I don’t think so. Both weapons were designed to be used WVR. Such ranges as 31km for the Archer is just a fantasy.