It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
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]
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 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.
Make the missiles outmaneuverable in the endgame
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)
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.
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-
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.
If you are emulating Zhuk based planar array systems (a copy of APG-65 technology base lifted almost in-total via espionage)
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.
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...
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.
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