It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

AIM120 v R77

page: 2
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 15 2006 @ 03:21 AM
link   
And I thought lock on was some cheap arcade style psuedo-simulation game, I think I might get it, I miss having a good flight sim, I used to play F-22 Lightning 3 which is fairly well done.

ch1466, are you a pilot or just very knowledgable on this subject? your knowledge just blew me away and I don't think I understood half of what you just posted (or it's because it's 3:16am here).

For the record, I am working on a game that hopes to be a combination of a Real Time Strategy game (Total Annihilation Style) and a Simulation (BF2 style), the current engine uses the newly developed GPL-licensed RTS, Spring, it currently runs on content of Total Annihilation (which what my game was originally a mod for).

Anyone interested in this project, visit the TA:Spring homepage, they are already familiar with ATS as well funny enough. (I do apologize for this minor hijack, but I was just wanting to share what i'm working on).




posted on Feb, 15 2006 @ 01:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by 169th_Ice
At the moment the AIM120 in Lock-On has about a 10-30% kill ratio at 15-20 miles and about a 50-70% kill Ratio on the No Escape Zone (NEZ) which is about 3 to 5 miles.

[edit on 12-2-2006 by 169th_Ice]


Both of these stats seem very low to me. Im not an expert in BVRAAM so i might well be wrong.

Is the no escape zone for an aim-120 really 3-5 miles? sounds more like the no escape zone for a sidewinder. and if its a no escape zone how come up to 1 in 2 planes escape.

Justin



posted on Feb, 16 2006 @ 06:09 PM
link   
169th_Ice,

>>
Only one coffee so far. I think I will need the weekend to soak in all your amazing input. Keep it coming!
>>

Only one other thing really, if the MiG-29S' Topaz-M still runs on the same inverse cassegrain antenna as the original Slot Back then it's barXscan widths are going to be fixed and it's ability to run some variable monopulse channel ECCM/notch drill limited.

When taken in conjunction with this-

www.saunalahti.fi...

Especially pages 5-7, it becomes clear that the aircraft's relatively low FQ detection threshold (70km/38nm) for 'fighter sized' targets. Along with an /extensive/ amount of switchology required for mode optimization in various PRF/quarters and non-seamless integration with Lazur and the IRST means that two-target R-77 engagements may be more fictional than the Russians would like to have the rest of the world believe.

If you are emulating Zhuk based planar array systems (a copy of APG-65 technology base lifted almost in-total via espionage), then things may well be as stated but I am going with the modified No-19 as baseline because that is what the site tags the 29S as carrying.

Also, the R-77 is a bigger missile than AMRAAM (even the 360lb C) but I would still put a great deal of limitations on it's NEZ due to those GDV tails which pose a tremendous cruise drag penalty.

'Working the missile' (midcourse stress) may thus have a considerable degree of success in terms of endgame energy's remaining.

I'm pretty sure I said most of this before but now you have Easy Tartar's backing data to help.

>>
One thing that may interest you in the meantime is a statistics board for online competition. It can gave an insite of missile and aircraft effectiveness.
>>

Interesting but too vague for the engagement conditions involved.

The F-15 is not God's Gift, contrary to most opinions. But everyone I've talked to, including some Israeli's who have flown both, have said that at least the Fulcrum A is 'beatable' with the superior power and control harmonies of the Eagle in visual combat (keeping in mind they are also playing with Python and DASH) while in the intercept realm, there is no contest as the Fulcrum is from another age (as the F-4 analogue in the above LINK suggests) when it comes to managing the radar and sensors.

If you cannot finagle the tactical model to represent the difficulties of the Russian cockpit ergonomics system, you need to implement technologies which provide the Western player some Pole and ECM edge.

My preference would be for a MIDS/IFDL type system that made the MPCD more than 'a pretty picture' when it came to sort-to-mort target sharing vs. a MiG with only 50X30` of cone.

Even so, the real threat is always going to be the S2A one and that will take a lot of pages out of the F-15 play book for BVR.

>>
It's very simple and newer versions will be out soon. Interestingly though, Mig29s and F15 have a very similar kill rate which makes for a balanced sim.
>>

Everyone's entitled...;-)


KPl.



posted on Feb, 17 2006 @ 03:59 AM
link   
you explained it yourself Ch1466, ergonomics and training aren't accurately reflected in most flight sims. With those factors removed, is it really any suprise that both aircraft would have similar stats?



posted on Feb, 17 2006 @ 10:17 AM
link   
Travellar,

The F-15 makes good pilots great ones and hamburger into decent wingmen. Most of that is throttle and stick under CAS with the 220E+ engine. But the MPCD and the later MFD fitted to some Eagles (as the analogue radar display was replaced in PDM) is still important as are the basic HUD mode BVR displays.

The MiG-29 makes great pilots equal to the good in an F-15. But ONLY in the physical performance department.

OTOH, how hard is it for the best to get the best out of their airframes is going to be a lot about the operational environs.

The Fatback only gain about a 1,000lbs more fuel, over the Fulcrum A which means it's still going to be a CAP-the-airfield-beacon machine. Similarly, MiG-29s rarely drop the centerline due to tunnel flow issues. They are severely G limited with it full. If they are still operating with the original wings (which, in the C, WERE NOT wired for radar missiles on the midspan pylon, even though the C's A2G weapons load was increased to something like 4,000kg with new tandem pylons) carrying the wing tanks is going to cost you your BVR option. Wing tanks don't clear well at supersonic speeds and again, the jet is severely G limited with the wings wet and full.

Work their gas options, make them sprint early and then fade to come back off the tanker in your own time. Make the strikers look like fighter air and then pop the QRA response with a prepositione sweep (kill a radar or two with Cruise).

Some Russian pilots are still getting 60-80hrs a year. Most are under 20. Compare this to U.S./NATO standards which mandate 180-200hrs per year and are 'feeling the strain' of maintaining competencies at 120 while supporting a fairly hefty ops cycle.

None of the Russians (to my knowledge) train to fight at night. OTOH, our F-15 units have pioneered NVD use as a function of at least basic ACT skills.

If the threat has 4 Adder, I want 6 AMRAAM and I _will_ be firing from the outer pole inwards. Meep, Meep, Meep, coming thru, honor my lob shot or wish you had because there's 3 more spaced out behind it.

If I don't have AIM-9X/JHMCS and a decent flare, I _won't_ be giving them the daylight visual merge from an FQ position. EVER. I will work at night or quiet vector conversions and even then I will be looking for a 2v1 or 4v2 numeric advantagement after the last AMRAAM shot.

If I am fighting in a SAM-dense environment where I have to play lawnmower, I will want an IFDL so that I can do illuminator/shooter drills with my eyes considerably higher up and further back than my spear chuckers. Obviously I will also need a 'lethal decoy' (WOE) flight to keep the Russians from looking where they shouldn't be.

Again, this implies numeric AND technologic advantages.

I wouldn't give the Adder shooter even odds by going in with any AIM-120 before the C5. And I would prefer the C-6/7 or later. Because that gets me the new autopilot and superior shotclock calcs as well as a better warhead. Possibly even remote MCG (depending on which source you read about the two-way tethers).

If the 'S' is actually the 9.13-SD (mod-C) as I recall it, radar volumes will remain crippled so long as the system is still based on the No-19 and not the Zhuk based (planar array, new DSP) radar. I just don't believe any jet which still uses the 'Slot Back' antenna system is going to be doing real 10 plane TWS with two Adder shot support. The scan cone and notch magins are just too fixed. And can be exploited.

Conversely, APG-63V(2) would be nice but the sorting datalink is more important, IMO.

Given you -do have- a post MSIP-2 C model aircraft, all these are 'simmable' as a function of coding technology into an extant game engine irrespective of the tactical finesse of the players. The question then becoming how much the /other/ side is going to want in turn.

I don't think much of the Russian Gardeniya or their expendables. But that is where it's going to have to start for them in BVR warfare.

I want to slaughter them like sheep with the full court press of all my support agencies so that I can blast their airfields and destroy their DCA effort on the ramp, they want to reduce things to pure 'SUW' equivalent (element and division) level warfare hoping to add friction while they bring in other TVD assets.

Give them a monster missile like R-37 and/or a MiG-31 spread. And maybe they can get the chaos they want.

>>
you explained it yourself Ch1466, ergonomics and training aren't accurately reflected in most flight sims. With those factors removed, is it really any suprise that both aircraft would have similar stats?
>>

I would have to see the weapons stocks and the wing pylons before I believed any 9-13S (modified C) equivalent airframe could carry more than one Adder per wing.

Or that the Russians have enough of these missiles to 'make a fight of it' in a protracted theater war. Not least because I am going to be going after those weapon bunkers with Cruise from Day-1-1.

That on it's own would indeed be a decisive difference because, to me, better bullets win over newer scopes and rifles. Provided you can shoot enough of them. Always.

And Adder is not better than AIM-120 forward of the motor, while the boxkite tails make for a large base drag penalty which exacerbates losses in any extended midcourse maneuver. Work the missile and count on your wider scan volumes and better sort to keep /more of them/ under fire. Than you are suffering turn signalitis from.


KPl.


LINKS-
State Of Russian AF
aeroweb.lucia.it...

MiG-29 Variant Breakdown
en.wikipedia.org...

Cockpits
www.richard-seaman.com...
www.sweb.cz...

Interesting if Unrelated Comparison
www.aviation.ru...



posted on Feb, 20 2006 @ 04:41 PM
link   
I finally got ahold of "Lock on", and can finally understand where you're comoing from in terms of S2A threat. After playing with the mission edittor a bit, I finally got a raid to attack a Ticonderoga class cruiser with anti-ship missiles. Needless to say, I was rather disappointed to find the game only permits an AEGIS cruiser to have one missile in the air at a time. It should be a lot higher than that.



posted on Feb, 21 2006 @ 02:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by iqonx
well you cant really say anything about either technology.

usally russian technology is fielded by incompetent arab fighters and american technology is usally backed by superiour backup technology like :

multiple f15/f16(latest version) + multiple awacs etc.... vs single mig29(old version)

this is why you cant compare american vs russian technology and fact is russia wouldnt be manufacturing this if it wasnt of any use becuase it would just be easier to steal the tech for the amraam120 and reverse engineer the whole thing if it was that good.

russian & american tech are basically equal america might be superiour in one field russia in another but by the end they both balance out over a range of weopons. russia just got a bad reputation for its stuff from the arabs becuase the arabs have poor millitry tactics they would have lost even if they had american weopons. people shouldnt assume just becuase it has a made in russia lable that it will be inferior or worser then american tech becuase just like they where able to put out the s-300 they will be able to put out other quality tech as well.

I've heard quite the opposite; that in fact the Soviet's indigenously-designed aircraft radar and aircraft weapon's systems (most importantly the seekers themselves) and Soviet copies/clones of US-designed systems, were inferior in quality (and capabilities), primarily due to the fact that the Soviets didn't have the military-industrial infrastructure to fulfill the requirements of the end-user (the Soviet Air Force) or the expectations of the system designers themselves.



posted on Jul, 5 2007 @ 06:21 AM
link   
Hi all. Dragging this topic back up. there's still alot of debate but nothing difinitive. anyone got anything else to Ad?



posted on Jul, 5 2007 @ 01:35 PM
link   
Sorry for the offtopic, but:


I am a Beta Tester for Lock-On Flaming Cliffs by Eagle Dynamics. A high quality Combat Flight Simulator that some of you may be aware of.

There is continuous debate about how effective/realistic the BVR Weapons are in this sim.

Neat. Tell them to get rid of the freaken starforce if they want more customers... Will Black Shark have starforce?


Make the missiles outmaneuverable in the endgame

No thanks.


[edit on 5/7/07 by JimmyCarterIsSmarter]



posted on Jul, 5 2007 @ 11:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by jetsetter
I wouldn't trust official figures from both sides. The Russians usually provide numbers that are overestimates and the US usually gives underestiments. The AIM-120 has actually been fired and has destroyed enemy aircraft while I believe the R77 has not.
The notion that Russian give "overestimations", are nothing but U.S. myths, it is U.S. thats gives "Overestimations" of it's strengths, I mean all threw the cold war U.S. was saying they were better than Russia in military tech, yet we know now that Russia was actually with a major advantage (head) so why should we trust U.S. figures now (2007)



posted on Jul, 6 2007 @ 12:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by ch1466


Only one other thing really, if the MiG-29S' Topaz-M still runs on the same inverse cassegrain antenna as the original Slot Back then it's barXscan widths are going to be fixed and it's ability to run some variable monopulse channel ECCM/notch drill limited.

When taken in conjunction with this-

www.saunalahti.fi...

Especially pages 5-7, it becomes clear that the aircraft's relatively low FQ detection threshold (70km/38nm) for 'fighter sized' targets. Along with an /extensive/ amount of switchology required for mode optimization in various PRF/quarters and non-seamless integration with Lazur and the IRST means that two-target R-77 engagements may be more fictional than the Russians would like to have the rest of the world believe.

If you are emulating Zhuk based planar array systems (a copy of APG-65 technology base lifted almost in-total via espionage), then things may well be as stated but I am going with the modified No-19 as baseline because that is what the site tags the 29S as carrying.




KPl.





If you are emulating Zhuk based planar array systems (a copy of APG-65 technology base lifted almost in-total via espionage)


sounds like nonsense propaganda to me, soviets were leaders where radars were concerned
on PESA:
[edit] List of PESA radars
AN/MPQ-53
AN/SPQ-11 Cobra Judy
AN/TPQ-36 and AN/TPQ-37 Firefinder radars
AN/TPS-59
AN/APQ-181
Flap Lid and Tomb Stone for the SA-10 and SA-20 systems
Zaslon, first-ever electronically scanned radar in a fighter jet

so russikies were first ones to use PESA on fighters,the hen house abm radars were resistant to EMP,
The Russians have produced some of the damn finest radars in phased array. Do you know that the Russians were the first to employe phased array radars? Do you know the Russians were the first to emploe HMS? Russian technology is widely discredited because it has been used by incompetent forces in an incompetent manner in the ME.

Now Russians still have one of the finest radar industry. Check out the radar specs for the Bars radar employed in the Su-30MKI, then you will find out its capability, then compare it with the radar on the An-APG-68(V)9. There is a reason why the Su-30MKI is caleld a "Mini-AWACS".

Then check out the radar specs for the Irbis radar which is the proposed upgrade for the Su-30MKI. When you read its specs, i guarentee you will be amazed. Now figure if the MKI was called a mini awacs for having the Bars radar, what would it be with the Irbis-E radar.

also,Apart from the Swedes,a bunch of secretive blokes by themselves,no nation has utilised the concept of datalinked fighter packages as efficiently and absolutely as the russians have done.The yanks told the world all along,that the no19 on the MiG29 was a ripoff,in part from the APG set on the F/A18.They also painted the town red with lurid claims of the technology stolen and its vital importance....the end of the cold war proved that the NO19 was nothing like what the chaps had postulated and was moreorless a limited radar which made up for its weaknesses by tieing up with a centralized,far reaching GCI system which transmitted target data,track while scan information etc via datalink.

Net,its more worthwhile to look at Russian attempts and their work at technology from their viewpoint,ie what they wanted to do and where they wanted to go.



Does the openness of the American system ever work to its disadvantage?

No. And I know where this question leads. There is so much talking and writing about Russians implementing other countries' achievements into our weapon systems. This was done but to about one-tenth the level that most Americans probably suspect. I'd like to quote chief designer of the MIG-29 and a man for whom I worked for many years Mikhail Waldenberg. He said "Seeing how your neighbor plows his field does not prevent you from pouring your sweat when you plow your own field."

There was much speculation that the MIG-29's radar was a copy of the Hughes' APO-65 on the F/A-18. I swear this was not the case. The radars first of all are completely different. Russian radar designers went through their own paces to get what they got. We did acquire the APO-65 but it was too late in our design process to use it.

When an air-to-air missile was chosen for the MIG-29 in the early 1970s we had access to an AIM-7 Sparrow from North Vietnam. The missile was closely inspected and evaluated. We decided that it was not any better than our own R-27 missile (NATO-designated AA-10 Alamo) which was being developed for the MIG-29. The Sparrow was put on the shelf and forgotten.



The perception that we copied everything we could is not true. In fact I cannot think of one system in the MIG-29 that was copied from an American system. We went our own way and made our own mistakes. We tried of course to use foreign information to develop our system better. The MIG-29 and Su-27 have an infrared search and track and a laser rangefinder. There is no such system on the equivalent American fighters.

The MIG-31 had the first airborne phased-array radar with electronic scanning. The system permits you to throw the radar beam from one sector to another without having to mechanically move an antenna dish. Until your Advanced Tactical Fighter, not a single American fighter had an active phased-array radar with electronic scanning. Your first airborne electronic scanning radar, the APQ-164, was on the B-1B. It appeared about two or three years after the MIG-31 radar.

In his recent book, Fulcrum, Alexander Zuyev, a top MIG-29 pilot who defected to the West, documented that an American spy working at a Russian radar design and manufacturing bureau for many years gave away Russian secrets to America. I have not come across one mention of the possibility of Americans copying Russian radar technology even though the circumstances and timing seem to support this.

But I don't believe that your APQ-164 was a copy of ours. People on both sides of the Atlantic work on common problems and come up with similar solutions.

When we first came to America with the MIG-29 in 1990, I kept hearing and reading that we copied the F-14 because Our aircraft looks like the F-14. They also said that we copied the F-18 because the MIG-29 looks like the F-18. Well, it's true that all three aircraft have two fins and two engines.

Fortunately, the F-16 has a single engine and one fin, so I haven't noticed anyone saying that we copied the F-16. But the F-15, F-14, and F-18 have two engines and two fins, so we copied each and all of them. I've read this in dozens of publications. Well, from the front, the MIG-29 resembles the F-14. From the side, an F-15. Its overall takeoff weight is similar to the F/A-18. So what?

People trying to meet approximately the same requirements come to approximately the same solutions. That's physics, which is not colored in red, white, and blue - or red.

Assuming we're incorrect in these beliefs, why do you think Americans accuse the Soviets of stealing technology?

You have achieved so much. Your country is a mighty world power. So you tend to see everything as proof of your own achievements. You express self-pride at the expense of self-criticism. Americans have always underestimated the skills of foreigners - Asians, Europeans, everyone else.
www.codeonemagazine.com...




[edit on 6-7-2007 by cornman1]



posted on Jul, 6 2007 @ 12:24 AM
link   
Wow. You DO know that those radars that you just listed at the top there...they are American, right? Oohh, put on the flame suit...

And about the datalinks, the US uses them in both the F-22 and the F-35, the F-22 has also been called a mini-awacs plus it has threat identification capability and right now the best AESA radar on any aircraft.

You know what? After reading YASKY's post above...I think that I'm done with this thread before I say something that will get me banned


[edit on 6-7-2007 by BlackWidow23]



posted on Jul, 6 2007 @ 12:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by BlackWidow23






[edit on 6-7-2007 by BlackWidow23]





Wow. You DO know that those radars that you just listed at the top there...they are American, right? Oohh, put on the flame suit...


actually , for your info ,i am listing all the PESA radars in the world and showing that zaslon was first PESA radar with electronic scanning to used on a fighter jet.....

don't get mad




And about the datalinks, the US uses them in both the F-22 and the F-35, the F-22 has also been called a mini-awacs plus it has threat identification capability and right now the best AESA radar on any aircraft.


the interview was of 1993 .., and russikies have usin datalinks for long time




best AESA radar on any aircraft.


the claim of best is doubted




You know what? After reading YASKY's post above...I think that I'm done with this thread before I say something that will get me banned


why and how and what????????????????????????

[edit on 6-7-2007 by cornman1]

[edit on 6-7-2007 by cornman1]



posted on Jul, 9 2007 @ 05:21 PM
link   
“If you cannot finagle the tactical model to represent the difficulties of the Russian cockpit ergonomics system, you need to implement technologies which provide the Western player some Pole and ECM edge.”

cornman1 has this one right on the money.

It is important to understand the basic advantages/disadvantages of active homing AAMs, and how they are used.

Active homing is best for area denial, while SARH for making actual kills.

Output of the tiny emitter on active trackers is miniscule when compared to the power of aircraft radar.

Active radar homing becomes active +/- 20km from its target. Until then it is guided internally with mid-course update, so active tracking is not a silver bullet by far.

“Chain saw” SARH approach is a lot more effective then just throwing active trackers in hopes that they connect.

By the way, to this day R-77s “potato mashers” are ridiculed in an attempt to discredit Russian claims that such approach actually reduces drag.

Here’s a question, which new generation of American missiles adopted exactly the same “potato masher” fins?



posted on Nov, 16 2008 @ 01:41 AM
link   
Their both great pieces of technology and comparing them would be comparing a Lion and a tiger and whos stronger.







 
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join