Su-27 - one of the best combat aircraft in the world. Part of 1. Birth

33


The myth of Daedalus and Icarus states that the ancient engineer and designer Daedalus created wings for himself and his son Icarus in order to escape from the island of Crete that was hostile to them. Since the wings were sealed with wax, the father asked his son not to rise high, so that the sun would not damage the structure, but Icarus took flight and died, drowning near the island of Samos in the sea, part of which was later called Ikaria.

In China, the man’s dream of flying was realized through a kite back in the 6 century BC. In Greece, over the 400 years BC, Architekt Terentsky built a flying machine, called the Pigeon, which flew up to 200 meters. And in the 9 century AD, he flew on the prototype of a hang-glider Abbas ibn Farnas - a scientist and engineer from Al-Andalusy.

History aeronautics showed the progressive development of the creation of aircraft heavier than air. The best engineers and designers participated in the construction of aircraft.

Outstanding Russian scientist M.V. Lomonosov in 1754 constructed models that not only rose into the air, but were able to carry a small load. A hundred years later, naval sailor A.M. Mozhaisky introduced a fixed-wing aircraft. A special contribution to the development of Russian aviation belong to N.E. Zhukovsky, founder of the science of aerodynamics, and K.E. Tsiolkovsky, who was the first to establish the dependence of aircraft speed on the shape of the wing.

Before the war, the government, realizing the importance of equipping the army with new aviation technology, did not regret for this purpose neither financial resources nor human resources. These efforts led to a significant breakthrough in the production of metal planes. Aviation equipment was designed for various uses: reconnaissance aircraft, fighters, attack aircraft, bombers.

The aircraft designers of all countries, not only the Soviet Union, faced and still have the urgent task of creating aircraft that can fly faster and higher than all, and also have the simplest and most stable control.

The struggle between the two leading powers of the world to gain superiority in airspace began in 1965, with the start of the development of fourth-generation fighter aircraft by American designers. Its first model, when tested during combat operations in Vietnam, showed that this model, armed with medium-range missiles, was significantly less agile when it came to Soviet MiG-type aircraft. Since the main method of aerial confrontation during the Vietnamese-American military conflict was close combat, the less maneuverable American aircraft often lost air battles. Moreover, possessing still considerable weight and awkwardness, it became a convenient target for ground guns. The creation of Soviet MiG-25, capable of developing the highest speed in the world (up to three thousand kilometers per hour) and a significant ceiling height, forced the Americans to start creating a high-speed and super-maneuverable fighter. The aircraft was given the code name F-15. After the first flight of this aircraft in the 1972 year, it was adopted by the army. The F-15 had a high engine thrust and low wing loading, which made it very manoeuvrable.

Soviet military experts appreciated the new American fighter, which surpassed the aircraft in the Soviet Army Air Force. Before the Soviet designers was the task in the shortest possible time to create a fighter that will be able to take the lead from the F-15.

Practically in parallel with the American developers, Soviet designers from the Sukhoi Design Bureau, having received a government order as a result of a competition held among the leading aviation design organizations of that time, began to create a fourth-generation Soviet fighter. The concept of the aircraft provided increased maneuverability of the aircraft, the ability to fly long-distance, the presence of modern weapons, as well as a completely new sighting and navigation equipment. When planning technical and tactical indicators, the ability of a new fighter model to effectively conduct both close combat and long-range combat using missile weapons. The new model received the designation - T10.

Su-27 - one of the best combat aircraft in the world. Part of 1. Birth


In May, the 1977 prototype of the T-10, later named Su-27, first flew into the sky. Piloted by his honored test-pilot VS Ilyushin. He liked the car, but, according to his confession, it required additional refinement. Although the T-10 was a new type of fighter, it had significant drawbacks in weight, weaponry, electronics and aerodynamics. Experts have confirmed that due to the erroneously selected wing configuration, at the angles of attack from 8 to 10 degrees, a loss of stability of the aircraft and a deterioration in controllability were observed. It was necessary to eliminate all the shortcomings identified during the trial operation. To do this, it was necessary to radically change many elements of the aircraft structure, modify the shape of the wing, install additional equipment.

Everything new is created by trial and error. To some extent this concerns such complex technical products as an airplane. Refinement of the Su-27 according to the comments received as a result of the tests allowed the construction of the best fighter in the world. The following material will be devoted to this issue.
Our news channels

Subscribe and stay up to date with the latest news and the most important events of the day.

33 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. +1
    9 February 2012 09: 28
    Chto some short first part ... and I really rolled my lip :)))))
    The struggle between the two leading powers of the world for the conquest of superiority in airspace began in 1965

    Those times ... And before that, the MiG-15 with the Saber in Korea was it nice to have fun, or what? And the MiG-21 - did our designers create it against the pipindrylny ones from the planet Shelezyak?
    Looking forward to the second material!
  2. +2
    9 February 2012 10: 40
    In China, a person’s dream of flying was realized through a kite back in the 6th century BC. And in the 9th century BC, Abbas ibn Farnas, a scientist and engineer from Al-Andalusa, flew on the model of a hang glider. In Greece, 400 years BC, the architect Terentsky built an aircraft called the Dove, which flew up to 200 meters


    And what did not the author start with Archeopteryx ?! laughing
    1. +3
      9 February 2012 10: 45
      Quote: Civil
      And what is not with Archeopteryx, the author did not start

      Archeopteryx is a proud bird, until you kick it, it won't fly
      1. +1
        9 February 2012 23: 45
        However, drying is the most beautiful aircraft in the world and in flight too. About maneuverability is generally a fairy tale. Still, in Russia they know how to make airplanes.
  3. I hate pendosov
    0
    9 February 2012 10: 55
    he is not one of the best, but the best
    1. +5
      9 February 2012 11: 10
      It is probably so, but still the word "best" is written with "h"
    2. axmed05
      +1
      9 February 2012 12: 42
      I hate pendosov - And I hate puppeteers of pendostan
    3. sazhka0
      +1
      9 February 2012 15: 51
      + HUNDRED ... NOT BETTER
  4. FROST
    +2
    9 February 2012 12: 39
    he is not one of the best, but the best

    It is perhaps that and so


    Again sin, with hatred?)
    1. +1
      9 February 2012 12: 49
      ABOUT ! Greetings
      And I was just going to offer you to move to a new branch :)))
      Sorry for such a long silence - affairs halt nemeryannom. And I am glad that you have not forgotten our little discussion :))) I believe that it is better to post my answer to your post here - what do you think?
  5. FROST
    0
    9 February 2012 13: 20
    Hello. Yes, perhaps here, it will be more consistent with the subject of the article.
    1. +2
      9 February 2012 15: 19
      Insanely kosyachit insert images
  6. +1
    9 February 2012 14: 44
    The Su-27 has an inexhaustible supply of modernization and modification. A striking example of the Su-34 .... There are no comments
  7. +5
    9 February 2012 15: 18
    Dear FROST!
    I will try to focus on the sources that you think are correct. I take one more such book "Maneuverable characteristics of the Su-27" (I managed to download it on paralay) and admire the summary graphs of the Su27 against the F-15 and the Su-27 against the F-16 (I didn't really understand how to insert pictures, so sorry if I insert it crookedly)
    According to these data, it turns out that in the range of speeds up to 600 km, the Su-27 has a 30% advantage - and I would call this not a "relative" but an overwhelming advantage.
    Here we have Su-27 and F-15 needles, both came with approximately the same 900 km per hour, at this speed both aircraft are approximately equal in maneuvering characteristics. Suppose they dump into a dogfight. Both will maneuver with the ultimate overloads (to maximize maneuverability and speed) and since there are no aliens, the magnitude of this overload is an axiom for F-15 and Su-27. Both have 2 options - either to fight with energy conservation (i.e., without losing speed, but at the same time limit themselves in maneuver) or to maneuver more sharply, but with loss of speed - respectively, risking to fall below evolutionary speed with all the ensuing consequences.
    At the same time, it is obvious that it is precisely the F-15 that is completely unprofitable to go to a lower speed - there it will be made for maneuverability. Su-27 - exactly the opposite.
    And this suggests that the Su-27 pilot has a choice - maneuvering at the extreme angles (we are not talking about the criticism now, I remember your words about the CDS) and losing speed, the Su-27 gets more than 30% advantage over the F-15, but with a corresponding loss of speed. Those. if, say, Su-27 on 600 km per hour and F-15 on 600 km per hour - then Su-27 has 30% superiority, but if Su-27 on 600 km per hour, and F-15 on 900 km in hour - it is obvious that the superiority in maneuverability of the Su-27 becomes more than 30%.
    At the same time, in the low-range UDD, the speed indicator is still less important than the maneuverability indicator - in our P-73 from 1983 of the year of release, the range of 20 kilometers, while BVD is at a distance of 3,5-4 km - if You have a rocket fired at you; you cannot escape it. That is, the winner is not the one who flies faster, but the one who can quickly move the nose of the plane at the enemy.
    And it turns out that in the BVD, the Su-27 can provide much greater maneuverability (from 30% and higher) compared to the F-15, while the capture sector of the UR P-73, even the first series - 45 hail, while Sayduinder EMNIP - 25 hail (you need to look at the paralae, maybe less) And plus the presence of the helmet-sight. If this is not superiority - well, then I don’t know what superiority is. Yes, I agree that you are writing about the more powerful F-15 avionics - but I don’t see at all how it could help the Needle against the infrared homing head, which stands on P-73. Especially since the infrared signature of the F-15 is greatly enhanced relative to other fighters (“three times more than some other fighters” - this was mentioned by Indian pilots)
    And in the DVB, the advantage will be determined more by the quality of the avionics than by maneuverability and it seems that the advantage is for the American, but ... but this is not so simple either. On the one hand, you are right, I really bought into the “paper” characteristics of our H001, in reality it is worse than AN / APG-63 US F-15. But the fact is that “better” does not mean “good.” The same Indians used such a technique - not including their own radar, they visited F-15 from the mountains, and the radars did not see the needles. Although it should have been supposed to see - Doppler all the same. And the Indians discovered Needles with their OLS and, undetected, came close to them. In general, some detailing of “joint maneuvers” is here http://www.airwar.ru/history/locwar/xussr/su_fight/su_fight.html. Do not dismiss the Indians only on the grounds that they flew the Su-30MK (by the way - the engines still have no controlled thrust vector). Hindus often did not win at the expense of the advantages of the Su-30 over the Su-27. There is also evidence that AN / APG-63 "does not hold" a group of aircraft - i.e. if the 2 fighter is flying nearby, Sparrow will not be able to bring one by one - what the Arabs used, and also has problems recognizing targets against the background of the earth
    For rockets, it seems that our medium-range P-27 was no worse than Sparrow - but one of the modifications to the P-27 still worked on the principle of “fired - forgot” because Had infrared homing, Sparrow was only semi-active. AAMRAAM is meaningless to take - this is a lot later development than Su-27, then it should be compared with RVV-AE
    You asked about the conditions of "joint piloting"
    Do you have reliable data on the conditions of conducting training battles (loading with fuel, heights, speed, level of training of pilots), and in general, were there any battles as such or was it just joint piloting?

    Probably the most detailed description is in the link above. I can also offer http://www.rusarmy.com/forum/topic1841.html - test pilot Garnaev answers questions in the forum, Here is his answer:
    Yes, and I myself participated in such programs many times (both on ours, and on THEIR planes / bases)!
    Of course, only non-specialists can think that such programs are held as in the movie "Top Gun" - in the form of "free" maneuvering, the course and outcome of which depends on a mass of subjective and / or random factors and therefore has almost no serious scientific value. Therefore, of course, the scenarios of mutual maneuvering were negotiated in advance - and the pilots were given the opportunity to realize ALL the limiting capabilities of flight characteristics and the maneuverable characteristics of their machines.
    In-C-E, the data obtained in such a way were painstakingly analyzed ... conclusions were drawn on our own and on their advantages / disadvantages ... and of course, NONE of the professors didn’t treat such a difficult process as a game of football / hockey with goals scored / pucks, hooting, etc ...
    but our advantage was sometimes so obvious that we ourselves tried to avoid subsequent public discussions ... and met with satisfaction the tacit understanding of our "probable friends" ...

    And more
    They do not move to supercritical angles. The CDU on MiG-29 (9-12) and Su-27 aircraft will not allow to go beyond the angles of attack in 24 and 26 degrees. Pilots performing cobras at airshows - in fact pilots, shut off the road stability channel. To combat pilots, the exit to supercritical angles is prohibited.

    One thing - “do not move,” and another thing - “can not move." When one plane is limited in maneuver only to the CDS, and the second one cannot perform such maneuvers in principle, this speaks in favor of the first plane.
    And I have such a question - here on our planes there is a CDS, which in fact does not allow a maritime pilot to do anything stupid. Thus, in theory, attention is released - the pilot does not need to control himself (the automation will not allow anyway) and he can concentrate on air combat. And is there a Needle? I just remember an interview with an English pilot, he writes about the fact that he constantly has to control himself in order not to make a dangerous maneuver ... But I don’t think he flew F-15.

    And here - F-16 and Su-27
    What I do not understand is - according to calculations that were made according to a scheme similar to the Su-27 you cited, has superiority over the F-16, the calculations you cited give the equal maneuverability of the MiG-29 and F-16. And according to a variety of testimonies of people related to the sky, Mig-29 is more maneuverable than Su-27.
    What do you think, what's the point?
    1. FROST
      0
      10 February 2012 00: 42
      And this suggests that the Su-27 pilot has a choice - maneuvering at the extreme angles (we are not talking about the criticism now, I remember your words about the CDS) and losing speed, the Su-27 gets more than 30% advantage over the F-15, but with a corresponding loss of speed. Those. if, say, Su-27 on 600 km per hour and F-15 on 600 km per hour - then Su-27 has 30% superiority, but if Su-27 on 600 km per hour, and F-15 on 900 km in hour - it is obvious that the superiority in maneuverability of the Su-27 becomes more than 30%.


      Firstly, the Su-27 cannot have a purely mathematically 30% advantage over the F-15 at speeds up to 600 km / h at unsteady turns, despite the fact that (read to the right on the scan) the established turns are equal. The key effect is the approximate parity in terms of thrust-weight ratio, because this is a battle of forced turns. However, the best aerodynamic number of the Su-27 still playing its role, gives a certain advantage over the F-15 at low speeds.

      but if the Su-27 at 600 km per hour, and the F-15 at 900 km per hour - it is obvious that the superiority in the maneuverability of the Su-27 becomes more than 30%.


      Not this way.

      Here we have the Su-27 and F-15 needles, both went with about the same 900 km per hour, at this speed both aircraft are approximately equal in maneuverability. Let's say they fall into dogfight.


      It’s just that with the F-15 aerodynamics optimized for speed 600+, with a sharp forced turn at a speed of 900 km / h, its pilot will not allow the speed to drop below 700 km / h, it will make a turn with more overload than the Su-27, which has gone to small speed and will have a maximum angular speed of a turn (for the F-15 it is in the range from 700 to 800 km / h, for the MiG-29, by the way, it is approximately at the level of 750 km / h) or not go into a turn at all, but climb to the vertical. In a word, each pilot will maintain his own speed range, for the fastest angular turn of the nose of his own aircraft, and this again approximates parity.

      At the same time, in Dogfight with short-range SDs, the speed indicator is still less important than the maneuverability indicator - our R-73 from 1983 model has a range of 20 kilometers


      It’s just a range, not a loss. The range of destruction of the P-73 maneuvering target, starts from five kilometers.

      while the BVD is conducted at a distance of 3,5-4 km - if a missile is fired at you, you won’t run away from it.


      At such a distance, it is very likely that you can get away from both the P-73 and the AIM-9 both by overloading (when starting at the PPS) and by maneuvers for rocket power consumption (when starting at the PPS), and there are also heat traps . The most fatal, will be launches in RFP from a distance from 500 to 2000 meters.

      Yes, I agree that you are writing about a more powerful avionics F-15 - but I don’t see at all how it could help the Iglo against the infrared homing head, which stands on the P-73.


      It will help in that it will strive to prevent the conditions for the use of P-73, per se.

      Especially considering the fact that the F-15's IR signature is greatly increased relative to other fighters


      At Su-27 no less.

      The same Indians used this technique - not including their own radar, they entered the F-15 from the mountains, and the needle radars did not see them. Although it seems they should have seen - Doppler all the same.


      It only speaks of the tactical superiority of the actions of the Indian pilots. Yes, and theaters are almost always insured DRLO aircraft.

      There is also evidence that AN / APG-63 does not “hold” a group of aircraft - that is, if 2 fighters fly nearby, Sparrow will not be able to direct one at a time - what sort of like the Arabs used, and also has problems with target recognition on the background of the earth


      We also had similar problems. Which were somewhat sharper in H-001.

      For rockets, it seems that our medium-range P-27 was no worse than Sparrow - but one of the modifications to the P-27 still worked on the principle of “fired - forgot” because Had infrared homing, Sparrow was only semi-active. AAMRAAM is meaningless to take - this is a lot later development than Su-27, then it should be compared with RVV-AE


      Sparrow surpassed both in terms of the destruction of maneuvering targets due to the greater power available, and in terms of the probability of defeat.

      Probably the most detailed description is in the link above. I can also offer http://www.rusarmy.com/forum/topic1841.html - test pilot Garnaev answers questions in the forum, Here is his answer:
      Yes, and I myself participated in such programs many times (both on ours, and on THEIR planes / bases)!
      Of course, only non-specialists can think that such programs are held as in the movie "Top Gun" - in the form of "free" maneuvering, the course and outcome of which depends on a mass of subjective and / or random factors and therefore has almost no serious scientific value. Therefore, of course, the scenarios of mutual maneuvering were negotiated in advance - and the pilots were given the opportunity to realize ALL the limiting capabilities of flight characteristics and the maneuverable characteristics of their machines.
      In-C-E, the data obtained in such a way were painstakingly analyzed ... conclusions were drawn on our own and on their advantages / disadvantages ... and of course, NONE of the professors didn’t treat such a difficult process as a game of football / hockey with goals scored / pucks, hooting, etc ...
      but our advantage was sometimes so obvious that we ourselves tried to avoid subsequent public discussions ... and met with satisfaction the tacit understanding of our "probable friends" ...


      These are again words, not facts. In the west, there are enough published opinions of pilots from their side, saying otherwise.

      One thing - “do not move,” and another thing - “can not move." When one plane is limited in maneuver only to the CDS, and the second one cannot perform such maneuvers in principle, this speaks in favor of the first plane.


      This does not affect the combat effectiveness.

      And I have such a question - here on our planes there is a CDS, which actually prevents the combat pilot from doing stupid things. Thus, in theory, attention is freed up - the pilot does not need to control himself (the automation will not allow it anyway) and he can concentrate on aerial combat. Does the Needle have this?


      There is. His CDS also controls angles of attack and overload. And on the F-15 there is a system of automatic trimming, (which significantly reduces the load on the pilot) on our planes it is not.

      I don’t understand what - according to the calculations that were made according to the scheme similar to the Su-27 you brought, it has superiority over the F-16


      Only under certain conditions BVB.

      And according to a number of testimonies of people related to the sky - MiG-29 is more maneuverable than Su-27.
      What do you think, what's the point?


      Only in some modes and then, in general, in horizontal maneuvers, the advantage over Su. On the verticals, the MiG is somewhat preferable.
      1. +1
        10 February 2012 12: 43
        Quote: FROST
        Firstly, Su-27 cannot have a purely mathematically 30% advantage over F-15 at speeds up to 600 km / h on unsteady turns, given that (read more to the right on the scan) the steady turns are equal.

        Yes, why would? There are no linear dependencies in the same place. This is you, please explain it with numbers in your hands - but for now, sorry, I will not believe.
        Quote: FROST
        The key image affects the approximate parity of the thrust-to-weight ratio, since this is a battle of forced turns.

        Sorry, but you can make a plane in the form of a brick, which will surpass the Su-27 in terms of thrust-to-weight ratio. And what, he will have the best maneuverability? Eagle in fact has a smaller load on the wing with greater thrust-to-weight ratio, and from such positions it should be much more maneuverable than the Su-27 - and so what? I suppose you greatly underestimate the influence of aerodynamic qualities, wing mechanization, and the integrated fuselage (or is it properly called there?) Su-27
        Take the steady turn. It is affected by engine thrust and drag. The drag is strongly connected with both the geometry of the aircraft and its speed, but these are completely non-linear relationships. So, for example, one of the components of drag is inductive resistance proportional to the square of lift, and inversely proportional to the area of ​​the wing, its elongation, the density of the medium and the square of the velocity.
        And the thrust-to-weight ratio of the weight of the aircraft and its engines is related only to the thrust.
        I cite a scan of disposable Su-27 and F-15 overloads (1 drawing) and I will definitely post them - limit overloads (2 drawing) - I’ll not be able to upload the 2 drawing right away (for some reason only gives one picture for the comments, but believe me, they have F -15 and Su-27 are almost the same)
        Quote: FROST
        Just with the F-15 aerodynamics optimized for 600 + speed, with a sharp forced turn from 900 km / h, his pilot will not allow the speed to drop below 700 km / h, will make a turn with more overload than Su-27 who went to low speeds and will have a maximum angular velocity of the turn

        Both fighters begin the battle at 900 km per hour. If the American maneuvers on steady bends, and ours - on forced (i.e., with excess drag) over the maneuverability, the Su-27 will be better by definition, but its speed will fall. If the F-15 also starts to maneuver at the extreme overloads with a loss of speed, then until the speed of both fighters drops to 700 km their maneuverability will be approximately the same. As soon as the aircraft speeds up to 700 km per hour during maneuvering, the Su-27’s maneuvering advantage will start to grow strongly.
        Maintaining "its range" for the F-15 makes some sense only if maneuvering is carried out on established bends - and even then it is unlikely, since it is difficult to imagine that at a speed of 900 km / h the needle's maneuverability is one third higher than at a speed 600 km per hour. in fact there is a 1,5 degree advantage - no more
        Quote: FROST
        It’s just a range, not a loss. The range of destruction of the P-73 maneuvering target, starts from five kilometers.

        Sorry, I do not understand what you are.
        Quote: FROST
        At such a distance, it is very likely that you can get away from both the P-73 and the AIM-9 both by overloading (when starting at the PPS) and by maneuvers for rocket power consumption (when starting at the PPS), and there are also heat traps . The most fatal, will be launches in RFP from a distance from 500 to 2000 meters.

        This is completely unprincipled. It is important that both in maneuverability and in sights and in the sector of firing Su-27 in melee significantly exceeds Eagle. Taken together, these three significant values, if not overwhelming, then very significant superiority
        3,5 - 4 km turned out more like the ultimate distance, because it seems like at this distance the enemy aircraft can still be seen "with one's own eyes" - and during the battle it is clear that the distance will become smaller
        Quote: FROST
        It will help in that it will strive to prevent the conditions for the use of P-73, per se.

        So let's not confuse the gift of God with scrambled eggs. There is bvbi there is DVB. And, in my opinion, in the BVD Su-27 has significant advantages - both in maneuverability, and in the means of aiming and weapon characteristics. And your argument extends to the probability of BWB - that is another question. Because the probability of occurrence of BVB must be determined separately.
        Quote: FROST
        At Su-27 no less.

        Tell the data source, please
        Quote: FROST
        It only speaks of the tactical superiority of the actions of the Indian pilots. Yes, and theaters are almost always insured DRLO aircraft.

        We compare the 2 of the aircraft, and not the 2 of the air combat system and the DRLO at all
        Quote: FROST
        We also had similar problems. Which were somewhat sharper in H-001.

        Right. But having problems with radar, we additionally had OLS, or whatever it was, which quite effectively drove some data at distances in 50 - even in 70 km. That's the question - who is easier to live at medium distances - Su-27, which had a disgusting radar and an excellent OLS or F-15, which had a little less than a radar station, but did not have an OLS
        You here mentioned ARLO. But the joke is that if you take DRLO and F-15 against DRLO and Su-27, then F-15 just forever as outsiders - DRLO will talk about that and about the other plane, but Su-27 will be able to attack and use weapons, Guided only by the OLS, but the F-15 should be cut in the radar on anyone.
        Quote: FROST
        Sparrow surpassed both in terms of the destruction of maneuvering targets due to the greater power available, and in terms of the probability of defeat.

        As for the range, it was determined not by the missile’s range, but by the ability of the aircraft’s radar to give target designation, and this was much less than the tabulated Sparrow range values ​​(and P-27). about the likelihood of defeat - in the highest degree doubtful. I remember the mantra of one comrade in paralai, who argued (so that you do not break it) that the probabilities of defeat are considered the same for our missiles and for the Americans - but Sparrow’s effectiveness in a real situation of imagination did not strike at all. So for the big question.
        Quote: FROST
        These are again words, not facts. In the west, there are enough published opinions of pilots from their side, saying otherwise.

        About Mig-29 - met, about Su-27 - somehow not very. The words of the person who participated in all this is certainly not a strict proof, but the picture of the tactics of the Indians' victories over F-15 and the book I quoted (not Bulat) fit well
        Quote: FROST
        There is. His SDU also controls the corners

        Thanks I'll know
        Quote: FROST
        Only under certain conditions BVB.

        ??? There is only one segment where Su-27 and F-16 are equal - in all others - both BVB and BVD are at least 20% of the loss of F-16. I attached a copy
        Quote: FROST
        Only in some modes and then, in general, in horizontal maneuvers, the advantage over Su. On the verticals, the MiG is somewhat preferable.

        And a big advantage? And where is the equality you declared with Mig-29 with F-16?
        Best regards,
        Andrei
        1. FROST
          0
          11 February 2012 16: 39
          Yes, why would? There are no linear dependencies in the same place. This is you, please explain it with numbers in your hands - but for now, sorry, I will not believe.


          Provide perfomance data on the F-15A, get an accurate math calculation. Until then, all this is mine and your IMHO, as well as the author of the table given by you.

          And a big advantage?


          No, Su has a very slight advantage over the MiG. In general, it is easily leveled by pilots with the proper use of their machines. This is fully confirmed by the numerous training BVB in our army between Su and MiGs, which showed their equal combat effectiveness in close combat against each other and, on average, with draws.

          Sorry, but you can make a plane in the form of a brick, which will surpass the Su-27 in terms of thrust-to-weight ratio. And what, he will have the best maneuverability? Eagle in fact has a smaller load on the wing with greater thrust-to-weight ratio, and from such positions it should be much more maneuverable than the Su-27 - and so what? I suppose you greatly underestimate the influence of aerodynamic qualities, wing mechanization, and the integrated fuselage (or is it properly called there?) Su-27


          This is reflected in the aerodynamic quality of the aircraft, which I have already noted. The Su-27 - 11,6. The MiG, which is approximately equal in combat effectiveness in the BVB, has 10,5, the F-15A has a slightly lower MiG - 10. (but which additionally has more thrust-weight ratio and less wing load)

          Both fighters begin the battle at 900 km per hour. If an American maneuvers on established bends, and ours on forced ones (i.e., with excess drag above traction), then the maneuverability of the Su-27 will be better by definition, but its speed will drop. If the F-15 also begins to maneuver at its maximum overload with a loss of speed, then until the speed of both fighters drops to 700 km, their maneuverability will be approximately the same.


          If Su goes even lower in speed, he will get a short-term advantage in turning the nose when 200-250 km.h is wasted (at maximum overload it takes a few seconds) from the speed of 700 km.h. and will continue to perform a steady turn at speeds of 400-500 km.h with a lower angular speed and energy than F, on a steady bend at speeds around 700 km.h

          As soon as during the maneuvering the speed of the aircraft drops to 700 km per hour, the advantage in the maneuver of the Su-27 will begin to grow rapidly.


          About to grow strongly - again, your IMHO. And it will grow only if they both they will climb at speeds well below 700 km / h

          This is completely unprincipled ... It is important that both in maneuverability and in sights and in the firing sector of the Su-27 in melee significantly exceeds Eagle.


          Advantages of Su in the sighting method and the r-73 shelling sector I have already noted. But it is not so great manifested in real life as you think. Firstly, it has a certain meaning, because with the desire of pilots to launch in the indicated sectors of the ZPS, the advantages of a helmet-mounted system and a larger firing sector are not realized. Secondly, with regard to the firing sector, in the BVB, the F-15 pilot can launch the AIM-9 when the target is captured in the vertical scan of the locator, even before the target is captured by the GOS missile, in this case, when it leaves the launcher, according to the amendments introduced from the locator, the missile It will unfold in advance to the target area, where the latter will already fall into the capture of the GOS. That is, the pilot can attack the target within +55 degrees of the missing nose turn of the aircraft to the target, leveling the lower capture sector of its own AIM-9 seeker.

          So let's not confuse the gift of God with scrambled eggs. There is bvbi there is DVB. And, in my opinion, in the BVD Su-27 has significant advantages - both in maneuverability, and in the means of aiming and weapon characteristics. And your argument extends to the probability of BWB - that is another question. Because the probability of occurrence of BVB must be determined separately.


          This only means that aircraft with advantages in DVB will initially strive for long-range combat and apply appropriate tactics to minimize the assumptions of BVB as such. The probability of all this will depend only on the training and tactical actions of the crews. Also, the F-15 SPO system has the ability to identify the radar and radar of irradiating aircraft, informing the pilot about the nature and type of threat. Also, the F-15 radar station makes it possible to identify the type of captured target beyond the limits of visual visibility. Birch and N-001 do not give such opportunities. Pilot F for tens of kilometers can know exactly who he is opposing and make appropriate decisions. The pilot of the Su-27, will not know who he is opposing, who is irradiating him, whom he is holding in captivity until he sees it with his own eyes.

          Right. But having problems with the radar, we had an additional OLS, or whatever it was, which quite effectively drove at distances of 50 to some data - even 70 km.


          Target class F-15 in PPP detects no more than 10-15 km. Get used to sift out murylki data.

          You mentioned DRLO here. But the joke is that if you take AWACS and F-15s against AWACS and Su-27s, then the F-15s are forever outsiders - AWACs will tell about both the other aircraft, but the Su-27 will be able to attack and use weapons, guided only by the OLS, but the F-15 must be cut radar for any


          On the contrary, the advantage for F, in view of the much greater noise immunity of the radio communication lines between the avacom and F-15, as well as in view of the superiority of the avionics of the Western AEWS. Aiming rockets fired from the F-15, can carry radar DRLO.

          As for the range - it was determined not by the range of the missile, but the ability of the aircraft radar to give target designation, and this was much less than the table values ​​of the Sparrow (and R-27) range.


          The ranges of effective destruction of maneuvering targets are taken into account. They are significantly less than the capabilities of the radar.

          About Mig-29 - met, about Su-27 - somehow not very. The words of the person who participated in all this is certainly not a strict proof, but the picture of the tactics of the Indians' victories over F-15 and the book I quoted (not Bulat) fit well


          For Indians, look for data on subsequent maneuvers at Nellis Air Base. According to many claims, the F-15 very effectively opposed the Su-30.

          but Sparrow’s effectiveness in a real environment of imagination was not at all astonishing. So for the big question.


          At p-27 and even more so.

          Quote: FROST
          At Su-27 no less.

          Tell the data source, please


          I approve on the basis of comparable construction materials of the airframe, their size and greater power of the Su-27 engines, as well as the mutual lack of effective measures to reduce IR visibility in both aircraft. There are other reliable data?
          1. Jupiter
            +2
            11 February 2012 19: 58
            Guys, thanks! It is very interesting to read your discussion !!
          2. +1
            11 February 2012 20: 22
            Quote: FROST
            Provide perfomance data on the F-15A, get an accurate math calculation. Until then, all this is mine and your IMHO, as well as the author of the table given by you.

            Well, of course, there is a grain of truth in your words. But the thing is - the author of the book I cited takes source codes from the technical manual No.1- book 1, and the data of F-15 - according to reports from educational and research organizations of the Air Force and the MAP So this is probably the most reliable information which is available to us. And she, in my opinion, has a sufficiently high degree of reliability to draw conclusions from it. So I’ll make these conclusions on it and I’ll, and until I see literature substantiating the opposite - Su-27 takes precedence :)))))
            Quote: FROST
            No, Soo has a very slight advantage over MiG.

            Those. in your F-16 is not inferior to the F-15 in maneuver? in other words - it turns out that Su, MiG, F-15 and 16 have approximately equal maneuverability? :))))) As far as I know, the Americans themselves never thought so :)))
            Quote: FROST
            This is reflected in the aerodynamic quality of the aircraft, which I have already noted. At Su-27 - 11,6. Approximately equal in combat effectiveness in the BVB MiG - 10,5, in F-15 — a little less than the MiG - 10.

            You know the numbers you give — I'm not sure if they are accurate. What is aerodynamic quality? This is the ratio of lift to drag. So, the lifting force is usually calculated for the wing of the aircraft. While the Su-27 (and the MiG-29) to determine the lifting force should be taken into account and the fuselage.
            You see, the F-15 is designed according to the MiG-25 scheme. I'm not saying that the project was stolen from us, and that the F-15 is just a modernized MiG-25 - by no means. But the Americans, when creating the F-15, took into account the MiG-25 (as well as when creating the Su-27 took into account the F-15) When the F-15 was created, there were 2 proposals - to create an aircraft using an integrated circuit (North American) and a la MiG-25 (McDonell Douglas) We chose McDonell :))) But even if I'm wrong, the difference of 11,6 versus 10 is very large. For reference - the "widowmaker" F-104 had an aerodynamic quality of 9,2. Su-24 - 9,5. And the indicator of the Su-27 - 11,6 - seems to be the best indicator of the 4th generation
            Quote: FROST
            If Su goes even lower in speed, he will get a short-term advantage in turning the nose when 200-250 km.h is wasted (at maximum overload it takes a few seconds) from the speed of 700 km.h. and will continue to perform a steady turn at speeds of 400-500 km.h with a lower angular speed and energy than F, on a steady bend at speeds around 700 km.h

            That is, if you ignore the data I posted
            Quote: FROST
            About to grow strongly - again, your IMHO.

            No, not mine but the author of the book I submitted :)))
            Quote: FROST
            First, it has a definite meaning, because when pilots are trying to launch in the above mentioned sectors of the LPS, the advantages of the helmet system and the larger sector of shelling are not realized

            do not quite understand
            Quote: FROST
            Secondly, with regards to the shelling sector, the F-15 pilot in the BVB can launch an 9 simulator when a target is captured in a vertical scanning mode of a locator, even before a target is hit by a missile launch vehicle, in this case, when a missile is corrected advance to the target area, where the latter is already in the capture of the GOS.

            Dear FROST, and you do not fantasize? Well, maybe in AIM-9X something is implemented in 2000-ies .... By 1983, the Americans taught Sidewinder something not only from the rear, but also from the front hemisphere - before that Sidewinder didn’t know anything . Those. it was pointless to launch a rocket into the forehead — you had to first reach the enemy’s tail, and only then attack. And you say - radio correction
            There was nothing like that in the 80's or in the 90's on the sidewind. There was really only one modification, whose IG GOS was replaced by semi-active - well, it’s hard to think up more idiocy for melee, so more Americans didn’t repeat this.
            Well, or show links. :)))
            Quote: FROST
            It only says that the planes that have advantages in the DVB will initially strive to fight at long distances and apply the appropriate tactics to minimize the assumptions of the BWB per se.

            If the plane, in comparison with its analogue, is better in the BVB and equal in the DVB, this means that the plane is generally better. And who-where-why was striving and got - has no special relation to aircraft. Moreover, the Needles with Sparrow had little chance of evading the BVB. During the Arab conflicts, it was done like this - the F-16s rushed forward, which were supposed to bind the MiG-23 in battle, (and "safely" died even from the P-23) And the Needles "walked in the distance" waiting for when and if come out of the "scissors" F-23 and only then beat
            Quote: FROST
            By the same system SPO F-15 has the ability to identify radar and radar irradiating aircraft, informing the pilot of the nature and type of threat.

            For example, one of the most characteristic air battles of the past war, which took place in the Baghdad region, should be cited. Two F-15C fighters performed aerial patrols in conjunction with the Awax, which is describing eights in Saudi airspace, near the border with Kuwait. Unsuccessfully trying to intercept two air targets on guidance from an AWACS aircraft, which prudently left for Baghdad, where the Americans were afraid to fly because of the threat of being shot down by the air defense of the Iraqi capital, the F-15 refueled in the air over Kuwait, after which they received new information about air targets suitable to the patrolling area from the west. Having approached the enemy at a distance slightly exceeding 100 km, the Americans found targets on the screens of the on-board radars and began to converge. According to the American pilots, the enemy did not suspect that he was being attacked and continued to fly in cruise mode. After capturing the target, the Americans launched AIM-7M Sparrow missiles, which were unsuccessful: the Iraqi planes continued to fly, trying to increase their speed and descend. At this time, the distance between the opponents was several kilometers, American fighters flew with an excess over the Iraqis and one of the pilots, turning his F-15 on his back, was finally able to visually identify the opponents: they turned out to be three MiG-23 and one Mirage F -1C. After that, releasing the air brakes and performing a braking maneuver, the Americans leveled the altitude with the Iraqi fighters, behind them by several kilometers, and re-launched the missiles, which hit the targets. It is interesting to note that in the war in the Persian Gulf not a single Iraqi plane was shot down by a missile launched into the lower hemisphere: even the most modern modifications of the F-15, armed with the Sparrow and Sidewinder missiles, turned out to be unable to hit air targets in a real situation against the background of the earth.
            http://www.airwar.ru/history/locwar/persg/persg/persg.html
            Murzilka need to fight, I agree. But it is not necessary to roll out even more ridiculous murzilki instead.
            Quote: FROST
            Target class F-15 in PPP detects no more than 10-15 km. Get used to sift out murylki data.

            Who said so? Show your non-turkish data :)))
            Most likely, we are talking about the fact that on the COURSE COURSES is found in 15 km (because any IR signature is more interesting to look backwards and not forward). But airplanes do not always meet each other.
            Continued below - comments go too long
  8. sazhka0
    +2
    9 February 2012 15: 37
    The Americans have already said .. that when meeting with SU 27 there is only one way out. Catapult.
    1. +2
      9 February 2012 15: 45
      This is said the British
  9. suharev-52
    0
    9 February 2012 15: 52
    Very nice car. And what is most valuable provides a huge field for modernization. And to improve the performance characteristics there are great opportunities.
  10. I hate pendosov
    0
    9 February 2012 16: 04
    Andrey from Chelyabinsk,
    Andrey from Chelyabinsk,
    I'm writing from the phone say ATP that just do understand what is written
    1. +1
      9 February 2012 16: 12
      Excuse me please ! I did not know :))
  11. dark silver
    -3
    9 February 2012 17: 17
    read nicknames and fall from laughter !!! bully
  12. 755962
    0
    9 February 2012 22: 06
    A hundred years later, naval sailor A.M. Mozhaisky introduced a fixed-wing aircraft.
    Among the many worthy sons of the Vologda region is the name of Rear Admiral A.F. Mozhaisky. "I wanted to be useful to my fatherland" - these are the words he wrote in one of his letters. According to the service records of the Mozhaiskys family dynasty, seven officers of the fleet have been in the service of Russia for over 100 years. For loyalty to the military oath, for courage and heroism, they were awarded many orders and medals. I am proud of my fellow countryman!
  13. 0
    10 February 2012 07: 35
    refinement of the Su-27 according to the comments received as a result of the tests, allowed to construct the best fighter in the world - a good "revision", from the T-10, as a result, only the fanlight and landing gear were transferred to the Su-27 (this is only for the hull) laughing but in general - the car is incredibly successful, and the infection is beautiful!
  14. +1
    11 February 2012 20: 22
    Extension
    Quote: FROST
    On the contrary, the advantage for F, in view of the much greater noise immunity of the radio communication lines between the avacom and F-15, as well as in view of the superiority of the avionics of the Western AEWS. Aiming rockets fired from the F-15, can carry radar DRLO.

    Well, do not even know what to say.
    First of all, NEVER Sparrow could be induced from an AEW plane. Even in theory.
    Secondly, the A-50 radar will somehow even be more powerful than the Sentry. The equipment is worse in terms of data processing - but for communication - we need proof, again.
    Thirdly - I draw your attention again - we compare the X-NUMX of the F-2 and the Su-15. It is not necessary to add to the comparison the advantage / disadvantages of the AEW. - they have nothing to do with the indicated aircraft. If you would like to consider the situation when F-27 / Su-15 work on an external control center - take equal conditions for both aircraft
    The fact that we have a weaker element base does not mean that our avionics are worse. Pretty often we designed the devices in 1,5-2 times heavier than similar American ones - but they worked no worse, or even slightly better.
    Quote: FROST
    At p-27 and even more so.

    Maybe, although I do not think that Sparrow was superior to the P-27. But the thing is - Sparrow did not provide for the defeat of the enemy at medium distances. To recall at least a battle over the Strait of Hormuz -F-14 against Mig-23 - the fourteenth are letting 2 Sparrow, MiGs are making an anti-missile maneuver ... both missiles pass, going into close combat.
    As far as I know, the Syrians achieved a greater percentage of P-23 hits than their opponents Sparrow.
    On the second day of the war, three MiG-23МФ (pilots Hallyak, Said and Merza) attacked the F-16А group operating in the first echelon of the Israeli battle formation. The first to find Israeli istribiteli at a distance of 25 km, Captain Merza. From a distance of nine kilometers he performed the P-23 launch and destroyed the first F-16. A second rocket from seven kilometers in the air, Frost hit another enemy fighter, but when he left the attack, the Syrian plane was shot down by a rocket and the pilot ejected. Thus, 7 June had three historical events - the MiG-23 won the first victory over the enemy fighter in an air battle, and the F-16 and MiG-23 aircraft were shot down for the first time by aviation forces (Israeli media confirmed the destruction of the MiG, however modestly keep silent about their losses). So 8 June, a pair of MiGs-23МФ met again with F-16: Major Howe, finding the target at a distance of 21 km, at a distance of seven kilometers got the nepriyatlie missile R-23, but after that he was shot down by another F-16, which fired at Syrian pilot Sidewinder

    Quote: FROST
    I approve on the basis of comparable construction materials of the airframe, their size and greater power of the Su-27 engines, as well as the mutual lack of effective measures to reduce IR visibility in both aircraft. There are other reliable data?

    And in vain - the IR signature is influenced by many different factors, up to the shape of nozzles, etc. I agree that one statement of one person is a so-so evidence base, but it is not necessary to resolutely reject it "just because". I'll try to find something on this issue
  15. FROST
    0
    12 February 2012 05: 28
    Well, of course, there is a grain of truth in your words. But here's the thing - the author of the book I am quoting takes the sources from the manual for technical operation


    The sources are based on the characteristics of the Su-27, and not F-15. There will be source codes for F-15, then the calculation can be given.

    so that I will draw conclusions on it and will


    Of course, you always have the right to draw conclusions on everything you want. The objectivity of these findings is a separate question.

    Those. in your F-16 is not inferior to the F-15 in a maneuver? in other words, it turns out that the Su, MiG, F-15 and 16 have approximately equal maneuverability? :))))) as far as I know, the Americans themselves never thought so


    Really? Conducted training BVB between falcons and needles always gave approximately equal results with intermediate crews from 1 to 1 to 1 to 1,1 in favor of the needle. I would say that all four cars have comparable BVB capabilities, with a slight advantage of the Su-27 and F-15. By the way, based on the table on the fidelity which you refer to and by which you now intend to draw conclusions, the F-16 has even an advantage over the F-15 during forced maneuvering)

    Well, do not even know what to say.
    First of all, NEVER Sparrow could be induced from an AEW plane. Even in theory.
    Secondly, the A-50 radar will somehow even be more powerful than the Sentry. The equipment is worse in terms of data processing - but for communication - we need proof, again.


    Firstly, I didn’t mean sparrow, I mean the latest modifications of aim-120 with a two-way data channel, but this is of course offtopic (not to bring any evidence regarding the discussion, but simply information on the topic)
    Secondly, the A-50 is inferior to Sentry, and with regard to communications, this is generally just the scourge of the entire Soviet army. And believe me, I do not know about communication by hearsay, but dealt with the repair of our valiant Soviet radio stations personally. But this is again offtopic.
    Thirdly, ok, let's focus on the planes themselves.

    You know the numbers you give — I'm not sure if they are accurate. What is aerodynamic quality? This is the ratio of lift to drag. So, the lifting force is usually calculated for the wing of the aircraft. While the Su-27 (and the MiG-29) to determine the lifting force should be taken into account and the fuselage.


    By numbers - the official data for the Su-27. This refers to the aerodynamic quality of the entire airframe.

    But even if I’m not right, the difference between 11,6 and 10 is very large.


    Not so great, the MiG-29 has a very close 10,4-10,5. As for his maneuverability, I think I heard a lot)
    according to a number of testimonies of people related to the sky - MiG-29 is more maneuverable than Su-27.

    In the MiG-23, for example, the aerodynamic number is even higher - 12,1. But he does not suffer from super-maneuverability.

    That is, if you ignore the data I posted


    No, even the data you uploaded does not contradict this. As I said, just a pilot F will keep a range that is favorable to himself. If Su leaves at low speeds (400-500 km / h) alone, it will have a lower angular speed of turn than Ф at speeds above 700. And the advantage when turning at maximum overloads and a speed drop of 200-300 km / h will be it doesn’t last long and will continue with an unprofitable steady bend at low speed against the F-15, performing a bend at the optimum speed.

    do not quite understand


    It was meant that with the greatest number of the most successful short-range missile launches, which are made mainly in the rear hemisphere of the target from 500-2000 meters, the advantages of a large gsn p-73 capture sector are not realized, since the shelling sector is small.

    Dear FROST, and you do not fantasize? Well, maybe in AIM-9X something is implemented in 2000-ies .... By 1983, the Americans taught Sidewinder something not only from the rear, but also from the front hemisphere - before that Sidewinder didn’t know anything . Those. it was pointless to launch a rocket into the forehead — you had to first reach the enemy’s tail, and only then attack. And you say - radio correction
    There was nothing like that in the 80's or in the 90's on the sidewind. There was really only one modification, whose IG GOS was replaced by semi-active - well, it’s hard to think up more idiocy for melee, so more Americans didn’t repeat this.


    You are familiar with materiel from far away, there are no fantasies here. Do you know radar operating modes? Vertical scanning is one of the modes specifically for BVB, so as not to manually aim at the target mark as in DVB. There is no talk of any radio correction. The radar only makes adjustments to the rocket computer for the corresponding steering turn at the time of launch, through wire connections while the rocket is on the launcher. After leaving the launcher, it loses all communication with the carrier aircraft and, according to the laid-down program, bluntly turns its nose into the indicated sector, where the GOS itself captures the target. This also happens with our r-73, if radar is used in the BVB.

    For example, one of the most characteristic air battles of the past war, which took place in the Baghdad region, should be cited. Two F-15C fighters performed aerial patrols in conjunction with the Awax, which is describing eights in Saudi airspace, near the border with Kuwait. Unsuccessfully trying to intercept two air targets on guidance from an AWACS aircraft, which prudently left for Baghdad, where the Americans were afraid to fly because of the threat of being shot down by the air defense of the Iraqi capital, the F-15 refueled in the air over Kuwait, after which they received new information about air targets suitable to the patrolling area from the west. Having approached the enemy at a distance slightly exceeding 100 km, the Americans found targets on the screens of the on-board radars and began to converge. According to the American pilots, the enemy did not suspect that he was being attacked and continued to fly in cruise mode. After capturing the target, the Americans launched AIM-7M Sparrow missiles, which were unsuccessful: the Iraqi planes continued to fly, trying to increase their speed and descend. At this time, the distance between the opponents was several kilometers, American fighters flew with an excess over the Iraqis and one of the pilots, turning his F-15 on his back, was finally able to visually identify the opponents: they turned out to be three MiG-23 and one Mirage F -1C. After that, releasing the air brakes and performing a braking maneuver, the Americans leveled the altitude with the Iraqi fighters, behind them by several kilometers, and re-launched the missiles, which hit the targets. It is interesting to note that in the war in the Persian Gulf not a single Iraqi plane was shot down by a missile launched into the lower hemisphere: even the most modern modifications of the F-15, armed with the Sparrow and Sidewinder missiles, turned out to be unable to hit air targets in a real situation against the background of the earth.


    A very dubious and sinning story of illogicality and improbability.
    Firstly, if the F-15 were patrolling with Avax, then why would they turn on their radar for detection? Secondly, they could not see them on their radar at distances greater than 100 km. They do not see targets at this distance with the EPR of the mirage and MiG. How could an adversary not suspect that he was being attacked? STR would squeal at all. Why would the F-15 align their height with them and let them go forward if they could calmly attack them with aim-9?

    Who said so? Show your non-turkish data :)))
    Most likely, we are talking about the fact that on the COURSE COURSES is found in 15 km (because any IR signature is more interesting to look backwards and not forward). But airplanes do not always meet each other.


    I after all noted that in PPP - the forward hemisphere. Or on a collision course do you observe the tail part? In the course of clashes of the opposing sides, planes most often converge precisely on colliding and colliding courses over the theater of military operations.

    at medium distances. Recall at least the battle over the Strait of Hormuz-F-14 against Mig-23 - the fourteenth launch 2 Sparrow, Migi make a missile defense ... both missiles by, the transition to close combat.
    As far as I know, the Syrians achieved a greater percentage of P-23 hits than their opponents Sparrow.


    Oh, the Arabs loved to tell a lot of murders. That's just with the evidence and the logic of events they always had problems. In addition, you do not take into account aim-120, because you think that it appeared much later. However, the Su-27 began to enter the army in 1985, and the first aim-120 in 1988.
  16. FROST
    0
    12 February 2012 05: 44
    And in vain - on the IR - signature is influenced by many different factors, up to the shape of the nozzles, etc.


    I am well aware of what affects. In this case, both cars have approximately the same level. And their nozzles are ordinary. Do not fight then for stealth.
    1. FROST
      0
      12 February 2012 14: 01
      TEWS Indicator F-15C
      Interpretation of the situation on the TEWS indicator,
      • From the direction of 12 hours, the aircraft irradiates the radar for detecting targets of the Buk 9S18M air defense system.
      • From the direction of 1 hour, the aircraft is irradiated with a 64N6E detection radar and missile illumination and guidance radar on the 40V6MD S-300 air defense tower.
      • From the direction of 2 hours, the aircraft irradiates the ship’s radar of the Ustrashimiy patrol ship, marked as a new threat.
      • From the direction of 3 hours, the plane irradiates the radar of the A-50 AWACS aircraft.
      • The main threat enclosed in the rhombus label is the MiG-29 aircraft from the direction of 10-11 hours.
      The following conclusion can be drawn from this analysis, the main threat is the MiG-29, which can use weapons at any second, therefore, it is necessary either to provide fire resistance to this aircraft or to perform an evasion maneuver. Fire counteraction can be carried out independently or ordered to fire at the threat of the followers.
      In addition to the MiG-29, a major potential threat is the S-300 complex, which is located for 1 hour relative to the aircraft. When constructing further maneuvers, it is imperative to take into account the probability of entering the missile defense zone launch area.
      When a missile launch is detected, a variable frequency signal is issued to the headphones, a launch warning is repeated every 15 seconds.
      When a missile with ARGS is detected, the label “M” is displayed and the detected threat is given the highest priority.
      Sources of this type can appear only on the inner circle of the indicator and approximately coincide in direction with the carrier.
  17. FROST
    0
    12 February 2012 13: 43
    This is how our Birch looks.

    TEWS Indicator F-15C
    Interpretation of the situation on the TEWS indicator,
    • From the direction of 12 hours, the aircraft irradiates the radar for detecting targets of the Buk 9S18M air defense system.
    • From the direction of 1 hour, the aircraft is irradiated with a 64N6E detection radar and missile illumination and guidance radar on the 40V6MD S-300 air defense tower.
    • From the direction of 2 hours, the aircraft irradiates the ship’s radar of the Ustrashimiy patrol ship, marked as a new threat.
    • From the direction of 3 hours, the plane irradiates the radar of the A-50 AWACS aircraft.
    • The main threat enclosed in the rhombus label is the MiG-29 aircraft from the direction of 10-11 hours.
    The following conclusion can be drawn from this analysis, the main threat is the MiG-29, which can use weapons at any second, therefore, it is necessary either to provide fire resistance to this aircraft or to perform an evasion maneuver. Fire counteraction can be carried out independently or ordered to fire at the threat of the followers.
    In addition to the MiG-29, a major potential threat is the S-300 complex, which is located for 1 hour relative to the aircraft. When constructing further maneuvers, it is imperative to take into account the probability of entering the missile defense zone launch area.
    When a missile launch is detected, a variable frequency signal is issued to the headphones, a launch warning is repeated every 15 seconds.
    When a missile with ARGS is detected, the label “M” is displayed and the detected threat is given the highest priority.
    Sources of this type can appear only on the inner circle of the indicator and approximately coincide in direction with the carrier.
  18. FROST
    0
    12 February 2012 13: 47
    This is how our birch looks.

    TEWS Indicator F-15C
    Interpretation of the situation on the TEWS indicator,
    • From the direction of 12 hours, the aircraft irradiates the radar for detecting targets of the Buk 9S18M air defense system.
    • From the direction of 1 hour, the aircraft is irradiated with a 64N6E detection radar and missile illumination and guidance radar on the 40V6MD S-300 air defense tower.
    • From the direction of 2 hours, the aircraft irradiates the ship’s radar of the Ustrashimiy patrol ship, marked as a new threat.
    • From the direction of 3 hours, the plane irradiates the radar of the A-50 AWACS aircraft.
    • The main threat enclosed in the rhombus label is the MiG-29 aircraft from the direction of 10-11 hours.
    The following conclusion can be drawn from this analysis, the main threat is the MiG-29, which can use weapons at any second, therefore, it is necessary either to provide fire resistance to this aircraft or to perform an evasion maneuver. Fire counteraction can be carried out independently or ordered to fire at the threat of the followers.
    In addition to the MiG-29, a major potential threat is the S-300 complex, which is located for 1 hour relative to the aircraft. When constructing further maneuvers, it is imperative to take into account the probability of entering the missile defense zone launch area.
  19. FROST
    0
    12 February 2012 13: 57
    STR at the time of launch.
    1. FROST
      0
      12 February 2012 14: 03
      This is how birch looks on the Su-27 and MiG-29.
      1. +1
        13 February 2012 15: 25
        Quote: FROST
        It was meant that with the greatest number of the most successful short-range missile launches, which are made mainly in the rear hemisphere of the target from 500-2000 meters, the advantages of a large gsn p-73 capture sector are not realized, since the shelling sector is small.

        Very cool. Those. catch up with the enemy in a bend so that he finds himself in 25 hail from the direction of the nose of the aircraft or in 45 hail - in your monoenergy
        Quote: FROST
        You are familiar with materiel from afar, no fantasy here. Do you know the modes of the radar? Vertical scanning is one of the modes specifically for the BHB, so as not to direct gates at the target mark as in the DVB.

        Oh wise and owning materiel! Should I remind in what angle does the radar?
        The viewing area in which the air target is captured is formed by scanning the space of the onboard radar in the plane of symmetry (in elevation) and lies within a fairly narrow sector (about + 40 ° up and ± 10 ° down, and in azimuth ± 3 °) relative to the longitudinal axis of the aircraft. But it is - complete garbage compared to the time of capture. The time taken to capture a non-maneuvering air target against the background of a free sky takes 2,5 s, however, if the target maneuvers vigorously or is against the ground, then the capture time increases to
        Installed on the Su-27, the NSC has a field of view within which target designation is provided, limited to + 60 ° in azimuth and range from –15 ° to + 60 ° in elevation. At the same time to capture the target, you need to hold it for at least 2 seconds.
        In fact, this is the case. When an enemy aircraft enters the capture sector (the same 30 hail for Sidewinder and 45 hail for P-73), it determines not only the target angle, but also the distance to it (using a radar or laser rangefinder). Then the SD starts at the point where in theory, there should be a plane, taking into account the distance to it. This mechanism is the same for all SD and, of course, does not provide any benefits.
        The launch of Sidewinders in F-15 is a complete miss, since, not having an OLS, they are forced to give info to Sidewinder according to radar data. As a result, on planes against the background of the land, Sidewinler practically cannot be applied at all.
        Quote: FROST
        A very dubious and sinning story of illogicality and improbability.

        Of course ! After all, they allowed themselves to speak ill of the F-15!
        Quote: FROST
        Firstly, if the F-15 conducted avac patrols, then why should they turn on their radar for detection? Second, they could not see them on their radar at distances greater than 100 km.

        Ugums :))) Great knowledge of the basics of air combat! And who will trace the target, AWACS? Or should I tell you how the tracing of targets for the AWACS tip is made? God be with her, with tracing
        APG-63 (F-15C)
        For RCS 0.0001 m2 class target: 9 km +
        For RCS 0.001 m2 class target: 16 km +
        For RCS 0.1 m2 class target: 51 km +
        For RCS 1.0 m2 class target: 90 km +
        For RCS 5.0 m2 class target: 135 km +
        For RCS 10.0 m2 class target: 160 km +
        Quote: FROST
        How could the enemy unaware that he was being attacked? SPO would scream in all.

        So, what is next? Is it urgent for all pilots to eject something?
        Quote: FROST
        Why should F-15 align their height with them and skip ahead if they could easily attack them with aim-9?

        Yes, because your PAM-9 DOES NOT WORK against the background of the earth laughing It's a shame not to know :)))
        Quote: FROST
        I after all noted that in PPP - the forward hemisphere. Or on a collision course do you observe the tail part? In the course of clashes of the opposing sides, planes most often converge precisely on colliding and colliding courses over the theater of military operations.

        This is when the planes discovered each other, then they still begin to converge :)))) But only not so often it happens - detection can be on the side, - in this case, the detection range of the DEPC will be higher than the declared 15 km.
        Quote: FROST
        Oh, the Arabs liked to tell a lot of murzilok.

        Like the Americans
        Quote: FROST
        In addition, you do not take in the calculation of the name-120, because you think that it appeared much later. However, Su-27 began to enter the army in the 1985 year, and the first command-120 already in 1988.

        About Su-27 - okay silently modestly. But in general, the serial release started in 1982 http://www.airwar.ru/enc/fighter/su27.html
        But AMRAAM was put into service in 1991. At the same time, the state tests of our RVV-AE ended. - so, I repeat, it is convenient to take AMRAAM - take RVV AE
    2. +1
      13 February 2012 15: 27
      Quote: FROST
      The sources are based on the characteristics of the Su-27, and not F-15. There will be source codes for F-15, then the calculation can be given.

      To your statement regarding the approximate equality of the F-15 and the Su-27, I can state the same. But unlike you, the author of the book "maneuverable characteristics of the Su-27" agrees with me (at least). Who agrees with you?
      Quote: FROST
      Of course, you always have the right to draw conclusions on everything you want. The objectivity of these findings is a separate question.

      Of course. To summarize, in terms of maneuverability, we come to the following - for my part there is a book "Maneuverability of the Su-27" in which the comparative maneuverability of the F-15 and Su-27 is calculated - and it is in favor of the Su-27. There is a reference to joint maneuvering in Langley and Lipetsk - they are also in favor of the Su-27. There are remarks I have cited from our pilots who participated in these "maneuvers" - again in favor of the Su-27. Also, on my part, there is an understanding that the aircraft of the 25th blast architecture cannot be more maneuverable in comparison with the Su-27 integrated circuit.
      From your side there is
      Su-27 cannot have a purely mathematically 30% advantage over F-15 at speeds up to 600 km / h

      That's all.
      Enjoy your objectivity
      Quote: FROST
      Is it really? Conducted training BVB between falcons and needles always gave approximately equal results with medium-qualification crews from 1 to 1 to 1 to 1,1 in favor of the needle. I would say that all four cars have comparable BVB capabilities, with a slight advantage of the Su-27 and F-15.

      But for some reason, the Indians on their Su-30MK and Su-30MKI for some reason won, at best, the F-15 two fights out of three, well, 3 out of 4 according to some sources - and in the F-16 - it reached 10 out of 10. And by the way, what is the aerodynamic quality of the F-16, can you tell me? I've killed myself against the wall, trying to find him - no. Why such secrets? Is it because (according to rumors) US pilots call the F-16 "Flying darts"?
      Here are very real events
      The F-16 aircraft until some time was considered the American “aerodynamic standard”. But the very first attempts of the F-16 airplanes of the Norwegian Air Force to perform the task of escorting the Su-27 fighter over the Barents Sea turned out to be untenable. F-16 is not able to keep operation with the “twenty-seventh”, flying in cruise mode. Because of its worst (compared to the Su-27) aerodynamics, the American aircraft lacks engine-free thrust, and it falls sharply behind our fighter. The inclusion of the afterburner leads to the F-16 skipping forward, which would allow in a real battle to immediately attack him from the rear hemisphere. As a result, such jerky attempts to keep the line ended with the rapid development of fuel on the F-16 and the failure of the task.

      Now we are looking at the opinion of F-16 and Mig-29 rather unbiased comrade, who flew on both. I give the floor to Tom Orsos, commander of the international Fighter Pilot Training Academy and instructor on the MiG-29, flew to Texas (USA) on the F-16. Orsos is an Australian of Hungarian origin, today he lives in Hungary.
      Under maneuverability should be understood the ability of the aircraft to perform steep turns, acceleration speed and climb rate.
      The ability of the aircraft to perform turns depends on its specific load on the surface. Due to the integrated aerodynamic scheme, the specific load on the surface of the MiG-29 with a normal starting mass is 337 kg / m2, slightly less than that of the F-16. For the F-16, this value is 394 kg / m2, while for the F-16С it reaches the 425 kg / m2. The reversal speed of the MiG-29А aircraft reaches according to the Russian data 22,8 ° / s, while for the F-16 it reaches 21,5 ° / s.
      Therefore, the MiG-29 has a slight advantage over the F-16 in horizontal air combat.
      The rate of acceleration is influenced by the value of specific thrust. Here, the MiG-29А has 90 kg / kN, and the F-16 - 92 kg / kN, i.e. almost the same. MiG can not achieve significant superiority.
      The MiG-29A, which pilots usually call for its maneuverability "Strizhom", has a distinct advantage in the vertical plane. According to Russian data, the MiG-29 is gaining altitude at a speed of 334 m / s, while the lifting speed of the F-16 is 294 m / s. According to other sources, the F-16 reaches an ascent rate of only 215 m / s. It is very difficult to determine which of the characteristics of the aircraft are true, since their manufacturers and operators are very secretive in matters of flight characteristics.
      However, it is precisely known that the F-16 in the vertical plane is not suitable in the sole of the MiG-29. The maneuverability is influenced by the above factors. For all three points, the MiG-29 has the best performance. True, the difference, with the exception of the climb, is not so great and good pilots can even out the difference. To win, a fighter pilot will choose the type of air combat in which his aircraft will have an advantage. Consequently, in a maneuverable battle, the F-16 pilot must strive to fight in the horizontal plane, while the MiG-29 pilot will prefer the fight in the vertical plane. F-16 must have a high speed, on the contrary, the MiG-29 can be held in air combat also in the low speed range. http://airbase.ru/hangar/planes/compare/mig29-f16.htm

      Pay attention to the latter - as I said, unlike the F-16, the Moment is NOT OBLIGED to withstand high speed during a fight. Which means that ... well, I already wrote about it
      Quote: FROST
      By the way, proceeding from the table on the allegiance of which you refer and according to which you now intend to draw conclusions, F-16 even has an advantage over F-15 during forced maneuvering)

      Very small - but a strong loss in maneuvering at steady turns
      Quote: FROST
      By numbers - the official data for the Su-27. This refers to the aerodynamic quality of the entire airframe.

      And I continue to doubt it - because the official method involves the calculation of the wing and not the airframe as a whole. But, I repeat, I don’t have evidence, so we’ll assume that the 11,6 is still the aerodynamic quality of the entire airframe.
      Quote: FROST
      In the MiG-23, for example, the aerodynamic number is even higher - 12,1. But he does not suffer from super-maneuverability.

      Apparently this is due to the variable sweep of the wing - as I understand it, this sweep strongly upsets the aerodynamic quality, although it is not able to understand why.

      Quote: FROST
      . As I said, just the pilot, F, will keep the range advantageous for him. If Su moves out at low speeds (400-500 km / h) alone, he will have a lower angular speed of turn than F at a speed higher than 700.

      on the established turn - half a degree / degree. Acquiring at the same time + 30% to the efficiency for the unsteady turn.
      But in general, I won’t keep myself from quoting a candidate of technical sciences, Major G. Timofeev
      The battle, as a rule, lasts a few minutes, and the outcome is determined by more than 50% by the first 15 — 20 seconds, during which the opponents perform the first combat maneuver.
      If you are sitting in the Su-27 cockpit, and the enemy is in the F-15, and your first maneuver against the enemy is a combat reversal of the type of oblique loop or half loop, then with a high degree of confidence you can radio to the base and order yourself an elegant funeral. But if you performed a forced (unsteady) reversal with 8,5 overload with a small loss of speed, and your vis-a-vis first maneuver is the same, Uncle Sam would be able to look for a replacement for his “eagle” . Only the main thing for you is not to get carried away and not lose too much speed, and then the “Yankees” can still “play” the degrees in the angular position and be the first to reach the “line of fire”.
  20. +1
    13 February 2012 15: 25
    Quote: FROST
    The sources are based on the characteristics of the Su-27, and not F-15. There will be source codes for F-15, then the calculation can be given.

    To your statement regarding the approximate equality of the F-15 and the Su-27, I can state the same. But unlike you, the author of the book "maneuverable characteristics of the Su-27" agrees with me (at least). Who agrees with you?
    Quote: FROST
    Of course, you always have the right to draw conclusions on everything you want. The objectivity of these findings is a separate question.

    Of course. To summarize, in terms of maneuverability, we come to the following - for my part there is a book "Maneuverability of the Su-27" in which the comparative maneuverability of the F-15 and Su-27 is calculated - and it is in favor of the Su-27. There is a reference to joint maneuvering in Langley and Lipetsk - they are also in favor of the Su-27. There are remarks I have cited from our pilots who participated in these "maneuvers" - again in favor of the Su-27. Also, on my part, there is an understanding that the aircraft of the 25th blast architecture cannot be more maneuverable in comparison with the Su-27 integrated circuit.
    From your side there is
    Su-27 cannot have a purely mathematically 30% advantage over F-15 at speeds up to 600 km / h

    That's all.
    Enjoy your objectivity
    Quote: FROST
    Is it really? Conducted training BVB between falcons and needles always gave approximately equal results with medium-qualification crews from 1 to 1 to 1 to 1,1 in favor of the needle. I would say that all four cars have comparable BVB capabilities, with a slight advantage of the Su-27 and F-15.

    But for some reason, the Indians on their Su-30MK and Su-30MKI for some reason won, at best, the F-15 two fights out of three, well, 3 out of 4 according to some sources - and in the F-16 - it reached 10 out of 10. And by the way, what is the aerodynamic quality of the F-16, can you tell me? I've killed myself against the wall, trying to find him - no. Why such secrets? Is it because (according to rumors) US pilots call the F-16 "Flying darts"?
    Here are very real events
    The F-16 aircraft until some time was considered the American “aerodynamic standard”. But the very first attempts of the F-16 airplanes of the Norwegian Air Force to perform the task of escorting the Su-27 fighter over the Barents Sea turned out to be untenable. F-16 is not able to keep operation with the “twenty-seventh”, flying in cruise mode. Because of its worst (compared to the Su-27) aerodynamics, the American aircraft lacks engine-free thrust, and it falls sharply behind our fighter. The inclusion of the afterburner leads to the F-16 skipping forward, which would allow in a real battle to immediately attack him from the rear hemisphere. As a result, such jerky attempts to keep the line ended with the rapid development of fuel on the F-16 and the failure of the task.

    Now we are looking at the opinion of F-16 and Mig-29 rather unbiased comrade, who flew on both. I give the floor to Tom Orsos, commander of the international Fighter Pilot Training Academy and instructor on the MiG-29, flew to Texas (USA) on the F-16. Orsos is an Australian of Hungarian origin, today he lives in Hungary.
    Under maneuverability should be understood the ability of the aircraft to perform steep turns, acceleration speed and climb rate.
    The ability of the aircraft to perform turns depends on its specific load on the surface. Due to the integrated aerodynamic scheme, the specific load on the surface of the MiG-29 with a normal starting mass is 337 kg / m2, slightly less than that of the F-16. For the F-16, this value is 394 kg / m2, while for the F-16С it reaches the 425 kg / m2. The reversal speed of the MiG-29А aircraft reaches according to the Russian data 22,8 ° / s, while for the F-16 it reaches 21,5 ° / s.
    Therefore, the MiG-29 has a slight advantage over the F-16 in horizontal air combat.
    The rate of acceleration is influenced by the value of specific thrust. Here, the MiG-29А has 90 kg / kN, and the F-16 - 92 kg / kN, i.e. almost the same. MiG can not achieve significant superiority.
    The MiG-29A, which pilots usually call for its maneuverability "Strizhom", has a distinct advantage in the vertical plane. According to Russian data, the MiG-29 is gaining altitude at a speed of 334 m / s, while the lifting speed of the F-16 is 294 m / s. According to other sources, the F-16 reaches an ascent rate of only 215 m / s. It is very difficult to determine which of the characteristics of the aircraft are true, since their manufacturers and operators are very secretive in matters of flight characteristics.
    However, it is precisely known that the F-16 in the vertical plane is not suitable in the sole of the MiG-29. The maneuverability is influenced by the above factors. For all three points, the MiG-29 has the best performance. True, the difference, with the exception of the climb, is not so great and good pilots can even out the difference. To win, a fighter pilot will choose the type of air combat in which his aircraft will have an advantage. Consequently, in a maneuverable battle, the F-16 pilot must strive to fight in the horizontal plane, while the MiG-29 pilot will prefer the fight in the vertical plane. F-16 must have a high speed, on the contrary, the MiG-29 can be held in air combat also in the low speed range. http://airbase.ru/hangar/planes/compare/mig29-f16.htm

    Pay attention to the latter - as I said, unlike the F-16, the Moment is NOT OBLIGED to withstand high speed during a fight. Which means that ... well, I already wrote about it
    Quote: FROST
    By the way, proceeding from the table on the allegiance of which you refer and according to which you now intend to draw conclusions, F-16 even has an advantage over F-15 during forced maneuvering)

    Very small - but a strong loss in maneuvering at steady turns
    Quote: FROST
    By numbers - the official data for the Su-27. This refers to the aerodynamic quality of the entire airframe.

    And I continue to doubt it - because the official method involves the calculation of the wing and not the airframe as a whole. But, I repeat, I don’t have evidence, so we’ll assume that the 11,6 is still the aerodynamic quality of the entire airframe.
    Quote: FROST
    In the MiG-23, for example, the aerodynamic number is even higher - 12,1. But he does not suffer from super-maneuverability.

    Apparently this is due to the variable sweep of the wing - as I understand it, this sweep strongly upsets the aerodynamic quality, although it is not able to understand why.

    Quote: FROST
    . As I said, just the pilot, F, will keep the range advantageous for him. If Su moves out at low speeds (400-500 km / h) alone, he will have a lower angular speed of turn than F at a speed higher than 700.

    on the established turn - half a degree / degree. Acquiring at the same time + 30% to the efficiency for the unsteady turn.
    But in general, I won’t keep myself from quoting a candidate of technical sciences, Major G. Timofeev
    The battle, as a rule, lasts a few minutes, and the outcome is determined by more than 50% by the first 15 — 20 seconds, during which the opponents perform the first combat maneuver.
    If you are sitting in the Su-27 cockpit, and the enemy is in the F-15, and your first maneuver against the enemy is a combat reversal of the type of oblique loop or half loop, then with a high degree of confidence you can radio to the base and order yourself an elegant funeral. But if you performed a forced (unsteady) reversal with 8,5 overload with a small loss of speed, and your vis-a-vis first maneuver is the same, Uncle Sam would be able to look for a replacement for his “eagle” . Only the main thing for you is not to get carried away and not lose too much speed, and then the “Yankees” can still “play” the degrees in the angular position and be the first to reach the “line of fire”.


    Quote: FROST
    It was meant that with the greatest number of the most successful short-range missile launches, which are made mainly in the rear hemisphere of the target from 500-2000 meters, the advantages of a large gsn p-73 capture sector are not realized, since the shelling sector is small.

    Very cool. Those. catch up with the enemy in a bend so that he finds himself in 25 hail from the direction of the nose of the aircraft or in 45 hail - in your monoenergy
  21. FROST
    0
    13 February 2012 18: 48
    Should I recall in what perspective the radar works?


    Only in the last post, you had no idea about the work of radar and considered all this a fantasy, and now, apparently grabbing google and drawing information from only one article http://scilib.narod.ru/Avia/Superman/Superman.html, you decided to enlighten me in something?) Well, well.

    The viewing area in which the air target is captured is formed by scanning the space of the onboard radar in the plane of symmetry (in elevation) and lies within a fairly narrow sector (about + 40 ° up and ± 10 ° down, and in azimuth ± 3 °) relative to the longitudinal axis of the aircraft. But it is - complete garbage compared to the time of capture. The time taken to capture a non-maneuvering air target against the background of a free sky takes 2,5 s, however, if the target maneuvers vigorously or is against the ground, then the capture time increases to


    8-12 with?))) It’s utterly stupid. In DVB capture faster) Capture time on average from 1 to 2 seconds. This mode is specially designed to capture maneuvering targets in the BVB, when there is no time and opportunity to direct the gate at the target. The author is not familiar with the materiel. APG-63 scan angle from + 5 to + 55 degrees up and 7,5 degrees in azimuth.

    Installed on the Su-27, the NSC has a field of view within which target designation is provided, limited to + 60 ° in azimuth and range from –15 ° to + 60 ° in elevation. At the same time to capture the target, you need to hold it for at least 2 seconds.


    And it does not issue any pre-emption on the target, making launches less effective than when using radar.

    In fact, this is the case. When an enemy aircraft enters the capture sector (the same 30 hail for Sidewinder and 45 hail for P-73), it determines not only the target angle, but also the distance to it (using a radar or laser rangefinder). Then the SD starts at the point where in theory, there should be a plane, taking into account the distance to it. This mechanism is the same for all SD and, of course, does not provide any benefits.


    And who spoke about the benefits of a sidewinder? This method is embodied both with us and with the Americans. And it is used more often by NSC.

    The F-15 sidewind start-up is a full out, since without an OLS they are forced to give information to the Sidewinder according to the radar.


    Sorry, but again stupid. F-15 can safely launch aim-9 without a radar.

    As a result, Sidewler generally can’t be used on planes against the backdrop of the earth.

    Yes, because your AIM-9 on the background of the earth DO NOT WORK laughing It is a shame not to know :)))


    It’s a shame not to know, they can spank even on an aircraft with engines running on the runway, not even including the radar. And as for the work of the radar on the background of the earth, do not write conclusions on some nonsense, it is not known by whom and how it is written and which does not carry any technical information. APG-63 was specially created for enhanced detection of targets on the background of the earth, so it became a pulse-Doppler mode with quasi-continuous radiation and a fully digital architecture.

    Ugums :))) Excellent knowledge of the basics of air combat! And who will trace the target, AWACS? Or should I tell you how the AWACs target tracking is traced?


    Ugums, what can I say, tassirovka goals will be made only for the use of weapons. That is, from a distance of 20-30 km. Before that, with the presence of AWACS, no one will shine his radar for a hundred km for detection.

    APG-63 (F-15C)
    For RCS 0.0001 m2 class target: 9 km +
    For RCS 0.001 m2 class target: 16 km +
    For RCS 0.1 m2 class target: 51 km +
    For RCS 1.0 m2 class target: 90 km +
    For RCS 5.0 m2 class target: 135 km +
    For RCS 10.0 m2 class target: 160 km +


    In real life, the detection range of the APG-63 target with an EPR of 3m2 is about 90 km.

    So, what is next? Is it urgent for all pilots to eject something?


    What would they do, the third question. Informed they would be. So lie here on the face.

    About Su-27 - okay silently modestly. But in general, the serial release started in 1982 http://www.airwar.ru/enc/fighter/su27.html
    But AMRAAM was put into service in 1991. At the same time, the state tests of our RVV-AE ended. - so, I repeat, it is convenient to take AMRAAM - take RVV AE


    Why confuse soft with warm? Start of production and state tests with the first admission to the unit? According to Wikipedia:
    aim-120a. Basic modification of the rocket. Deliveries of this modification began in 1988, and in September 1991 the missiles reached operational readiness
    1. +1
      13 February 2012 21: 24
      Quote: FROST
      Only in the last post, you had no idea about the work of the radar and thought it was all a fantasy, and now, apparently holding the google and drawing information

      In the past post, I just could not imagine that from the usual procedure of targeting UR you would depict the F-15 feature which improves the Sidewinder's guidance angle for the 25 I have given. Therefore, I decided that there is a vagueness of the wording, and you mean the radio correction
      And what I brought "in response" - yes, it is from this article. As I already wrote, I have not dealt with the topic of the aircraft for a long time, so I am afraid to lie - and I am looking for confirmation of my words in the material that I read sometime earlier. And I don't see anything wrong with that. This is better than reinventing sidewinder shooting at 45 degrees.
      Quote: FROST
      8-12 with?))) It’s utterly stupid. In DVB capture faster) Capture time on average from 1 to 2 seconds. This mode is specially designed to capture maneuvering targets in the BVB, when there is no time and opportunity to direct the gate at the target. The author is not familiar with the materiel. APG-63 scan angle from + 5 to + 55 degrees up and 7,5 degrees in azimuth.

      What I like about you is giving information. Neither links, nor logical explanation ... In the article, the author substantiated 40 hail - the cover of the lantern makes it difficult to observe the target. but everything is simple with you - not right, that's all.
      Quote: FROST
      And it does not issue any pre-emption on the target, making launches less effective than when using radar.

      Then someone said something about the knowledge of the basics? Words such a LASER DALNOMER say anything? Here it is just for the distance from the Su-27 and is responsible.
      When the sight is made at the SCS - yes, the distance is not measured. And if used OEPK - please.
      Quote: FROST
      And who talked about the benefits of sidewinder?

      Already you will refuse the words, and the master? You said it. I quote
      Quote: FROST
      Secondly, with regards to the shelling sector, the F-15 pilot in the BVB can launch an 9 simulator when a target is captured in a vertical scanning mode of a locator, even before a target is hit by a missile launch vehicle, in this case, when a missile corrected from the locator advance to the target area, where the latter is already in the capture of the GOS. That is, the pilot can attack the target within + 55 degrees of the missing movement of the nose of the aircraft to the target, leveling the lower capture sector of its own seeker GD-9.

      Something not to know - not ashamed. It is a shame to persist in their delusions.
      Quote: FROST
      It is a shame not to know, they can be slapped even on an airplane on the runway with engines running, even without turning on the radar. .

      Naturally. Because in this case, the missile and the target are on the same level. IR seeker will capture - and forward. But AT ONE LEVEL it is "a little" different from the background of the earth. So - again by. The problem of aiming in the lower hemisphere is that the radar needle works very badly on targets against the background of the earth. This explains the inglorious loss to the Hindus.
      Quote: FROST
      And with regards to the work of the radar on the background of the earth, do not write conclusions for some nonsense, it is not known by whom and how it was written and which does not carry any technical information

      Yeah :))) Now name AT LEAST ONE case of an aircraft shooting down in the first Iraqi one - when the F-15 (or any other) would "work" the enemy against the background of the earth.
      Quote: FROST
      APG-63 was specially created for increased target detection against the background of the earth, therefore it became a pulse Doppler with a quasi-continuous radiation mode and with a fully digital architecture.

      Get used to the idea that not all the good intentions of Americans are crowned with success :)))
      Quote: FROST
      Ugums, what can I say, tassirovka goals will be made only for the use of weapons. That is, from a distance of 20-30 km. Before that, with the presence of AWACS, no one will shine his radar for a hundred km for detection.

      Yeah. But Anthony Schevey F-15 pilot who participated in this fight writes:
      But our radars spotted them in the 80 miles. For some unknown reason, one of them turned sharply and later landed on the H2, possibly for technical reasons. But three continued their flight, and we saw them on the screens. It was fun. Everything, as on the teachings. Three beautiful tags that go in the standard order, characteristic of the Soviet pilots.
      The distance was reduced to 30 miles.
      http://www.airwar.ru/enc/fighter/f15c.html
      Also lying, bad man? But you got to the core of it, you know better.
      Target tracing is a procedure where the power of the beam is concentrated, i.e. the search angle is narrowed while maintaining the radar power. Therefore, when tracing, it is possible to "find" an enemy aircraft much further than in the usual radar search mode. Used when aiming aircraft with AWACS
      Quote: FROST
      What would they do, the third question. Informed they would be. So lie here on the face.

      Excuse me, but not much for you alone - you have already determined everything for the Iraqi pilots. Well, why did they react violently? Didn't they feel that they were being irradiated by AWACS? Or do you think that the 90 km signal from the Needle Radar will be significantly stronger? And when the attack went - the pilots reacted, so we will not fantasize
      Quote: FROST
      Why confuse soft with warm? Start of production and state tests with the first admission to the unit? According to Wikipedia:

      There must be a single coordinate system. On the adoption of weapons - so on the adoption of weapons. On the installation serial lot - no question, consider AMRAAM from 1998 g. Only then, if you please and transfer the appearance of Su-27 to 1980 g
  22. FROST
    0
    13 February 2012 19: 49
    Of course. To summarize, according to maneuverability, we come to the following - for my part there is a book "Maneuverability of the Su-27" in which the comparative maneuverability of the F-15 and Su-27 is calculated - and it is in favor of the Su-27


    It should provide only data on the capabilities of the Su-27, and not comparisons. Comparisons will initially be incorrect if you compare the desired with the intended one. I have already given an example of how objective calculation is done (as far as possible from open sources) (MiG-29 and F-16)

    There is a reference to joint maneuvering in Langley and Lipetsk - they are also in favor of the Su-27. There are remarks I have cited from our pilots who participated in these "maneuvers" - again in favor of the Su-27.


    I told you that the initial conditions for maneuvers and information about the training of crews are unknown in the first place. And it is not known by whom the retold opinions of the pilots are not a criterion, on different sides of the barricades, different echoes:
    F-15 vs. SU-27?
    Tom Murphy.

    Twice in the last month, a discussion arose on the site about how Sushki had lunch with the Needles in the summer of 1992

    I was very surprised, first of all, that I had never heard of this before. I flew on the Needles in the 94th fighter squadron in Langley, the same one that visited Russia and then accepted the return visit of Russians to the United States.

    With my impeccable ability to miss important events, I, as always, managed to leave the squadron just shortly before all this happened. But I personally knew and flew with 90% of the pilots who were then in the squadron and with all 100% of the pilots participating in these mutual visits.

    Somehow, in the 10 years that have passed, they have never mentioned in our many conversations on this very issue that any training battle took place. I do not think that this could happen (in the sense that they would never mention this.). (DACT - Dissimilar Air Combat Training. That is, exercises with foreign equipment)

    In addition, I am still flying in the Air Force reserve as an F-15 instructor in Langley, which means that I am aware of all the latest F-15 programs and how he shows himself.

    Of course, there should have been some kind of data (secret or unclassified) of such an outstanding event and conclusions drawn if the Needles were so badly beaten. But they are not. Absolutely. Dot. After reading the last thread, I decided to check it out.

    Instead of relying on rumors, I spoke with three pilots with whom I served in Langley. These pilots flew in the back seat in Sushki, drove the Russians on the Needles, flew with Sushki and still fly on the F-15.
    I gave them the 'story' from Air Force's Monthly, as it was quoted, and after their hysterical laughter stopped, they told me the following: the number of air battles between Needles and Sushki in the summer of 1992 was absolutely zero, they simply were not in nature. Training fights between them were not only viewed as unwanted and discouraged, but were absolutely prohibited. Nobody wanted the political problems that could arise if a car lost control and crashed, or worse, a mid-air collision would occur with the intense maneuvering that mock combat involves. Secondly, despite the warm feelings that we have recently felt for the Russians, no one would have allowed any secret information to become known to them, so the F-15s flew with the radar turned off, electronic warfare equipment and other equipment. With all of your weapon systems turned off, combat training becomes meaningless unless you want to replay WWI, WWII, or Korean War battles with only guns. But in this case, give me an A-10, which can turn on the spot and has a big gun.
    What actually happened (and what probably became the basis of this dramatic story) is that in addition to flying in the back seat, the F-15 and Su-27 made a joint flight (being in line, one or two miles from each other and at a distance 2000 to 3000 feet vertically). During 90-degree turns, one plane turns and flies 3000 to 4000 feet from the other, at its 6 o’clock position, and at that moment the second plane begins its turn to stay in line with the first, making a 90-degree turn.
    During one of these U-turns, Sushka, instead of continuing the expected maneuver from her, lingered at 6 hours of her Needle (behind him), at a distance of 3000 feet. After a few seconds, think about what the Dryer pilot was doing, the F-15 pilot, for 20 seconds, tried to shake the Dryer off his tail, but to no avail. What does this prove? In principle, nothing.
    Among the fighters, no one starts the battle, being from the start right behind the enemy at 3000 feet, because in terms of difficulty this is equivalent to hitting a seal with a baton. Instead, the attacker moves to a position of 4 or 8 hours at a distance of 3000 feet before the start of the battle. But even then, in this more complicated situation, the attacker remains in his offensive position 95% of the time (apparently it means - in 95% of cases).
    And those 5% when he loses his position behind, this is the result of gross mistakes made by himself when maneuvering. It should also be emphasized that this was an isolated incident, unplanned, unexpected and done without much desire, and not at all a series of training battles.
    As Paul Harvey says, “this is another piece of the story” directly from the participants in the events, not from a magazine article retold through second, third or fourth hands or an Internet rumor repeating what someone else wrote.

    In the future, if you want to argue about the qualities of these two aircraft, please free us from repeating this non-event (which was not) as evidence, and compare them based on published data on their LTX and weapon systems.



    .
    1. +1
      13 February 2012 21: 47
      Quote: FROST
      It should provide only data on the capabilities of the Su-27, and not a comparison

      Right. But the link to the book - an analogue of "Practical Aerodynamics of the MiG-29" is there. This is not a hard proof, but it's better than nothing. You don't have ANYTHING AT ALL, except "I have examined these planes and ..."
      Quote: FROST
      An example of how an objective calculation is carried out (as far as possible from open sources) I have already cited (MiG-29 and F-16)

      Yes, this is not your objective calculation. And I think for good reason there appears F-16 ji, and not F-16, for example. Yes, and then, and if you say - there is no data on F-15 - so what kind of happiness do you post the comparison of F-15 and instant-29 (in that branch)? Those. interesting you get - when you benefit - comparative materials will fit, when not - you become a supporter of strict evidence :))))
      Quote: FROST
      I told you that the initial conditions for maneuvers and information about the training of crews are unknown in the first place. And it is not known by whom the retold opinions of the pilots are not a criterion, on different sides of the barricades, different echoes:

      And I gave you links to our pilot's answers. And he explained it all there.
      Quote: FROST
      F-15 vs. SU-27?
      Tom Murphy.

      Well, at least something. not a pilot, but one who at least personally knew the pilots :))))
  23. FROST
    0
    13 February 2012 21: 26
    But for some reason, the Indians on their Su-30MK and Su-30MKI for some reason won two out of three fights at best F-15, well 3 out of 4


    It does not speak about anything, as well as infa on the response exercises of Hindus and Americans already in the United States:
    November 5, 2008

    David A. Fulghum and Graham Warwick

    Indian pilots flying the Su-30MKI are very professional, but they are still learning to fly their new planes.

    This opinion was voiced in a video briefing by USAF pilots retired from an unidentified F-15 pilot based on the results of the Red Flag exercises. The video has become available on the YouTube network.

    French pilots flying on new Rafals appear to have conducted electronic reconnaissance of Indian aircraft, according to a USAF pilot wearing Air Force Weapons School patches (a pilot training school for combat training pilots).

    Initially, the French wanted to fly on the old Mirage-2000-5 until it became clear that the Indians would appear on the new Su-30MKI, the pilot said. Then they changed their minds and took Rafali, with more sophisticated electronic equipment.

    On the Red Flag, "90% of the time they followed the Indians while they got shots, they fired quickly and walked away," he said. "They never came to the 'general dump' that took place in any dogfight in aerial combat. He claims that French pilots followed the same procedures in Desert Storm and peacekeeping exercises. When American crews were on operations, the French conducted local sorties, absorbing and watching American electronics like radars work, says the pilot.

    He praised the Indians as real professionals and said that they did not violate the training conditions. However, they "killed several of their own" because they were connected by the Russian information exchange system, which prevented them from seeing the full picture of the air situation. The lack of combat identification of other aircraft has led to confusion.

    But the United States is undoubtedly not ignorant of the Su-30MKI radar either.
    The Su-30's electronically scanned radar is not as accurate as the American AFARs installed on the F-22 and some F-15s. Also "he paints less (a typical expression in relation to the process of scanning radar in the west, Chizh), sees less" and is not so legible.

    Over the Su-30MKI with significantly higher RCS, the F-16s and F-15s won consistently during the first three days of air battles, he continued. However, this was the result of attempting to immediately go into a post-stall, using a vector controlled reversal under attack. The turn created strong resistance and the plane began to lose altitude. “It starts to fall so fast you don't have to go vertically (at first).

    Low-speed tail sliding allowed American aircraft to dive at it and "have one chance to fire," the pilot said. "You go with a gun and blow his brains out" (typical slang for pilots). "The Su-30 is jamming your missile, so ... go with the cannon and blow his brains out."

    American pilots conclude that the Su-30MKI is "not a Raptor," he added. "It was good that we found out." But when Indian pilots actually learn how to fight in their new aircraft - "they'll worry about post-stall maneuvers," he said - US pilots anticipate that they will regularly hit F-16C Block 50 and F-15Cs with conventional radars.

    The final weakness of the Su-30MKI was the vulnerability of the engine from damage by foreign objects, which required minute delays in take-offs, which slowed down the start of missions.


    on the established turn - half a degree / degree. Acquiring at the same time + 30% to the efficiency for the unsteady turn.


    AGAIN! Su-27 will have superiority for an unsteady bend, only if the F-15 will also climb at low speeds. You walk in a circle. I seem to have explained in an accessible way how, with proper piloting, the F-15 pilot will have equal opportunities in the BVB with horizontal maneuvering. Not to mention the fact that the Su-27 is obviously inferior in the verticals.

    for the official technique involves the calculation of the wing and not the glider as a whole


    This is nonsense. Why do you think so?)
    1. +1
      13 February 2012 21: 55
      Quote: FROST
      It does not speak about anything, as well as infa on the response exercises of Hindus and Americans already in the United States:

      Well yes. After the Indians were blown away by the Yankees (and twice), then the Singaporeans ... And after that, a group of American pilots who were specially trained to combat super-maneuverability fighters (such fighters were portrayed by the F-22) were able to choose the tactics with which they made by the Indians. And the Americans themselves said that the success is "purely imaginary" - the Indians will reconsider their tactics, and the brave American guys are likely to have problems again
      Quote: FROST
      ONCE AGAIN! Su-27 will have superiority for the unsteady turn, only if F-15 ALREADY climbs at low speeds.

      Once again we look at the schedule. and pay attention to the difference degrees in steady bends
      1. FROST
        0
        13 February 2012 22: 26
        What is wrong with him? Once again we read what I wrote and we see even from this given graph (not required for the F-15) that the speed of the corner bend on the F-15 at a speed of 700 km / h is about 20 deg / s, and the speed is y. the steady turn of the Su-27 after wasting energy and leaving at a speed of 450-500 km, h is 15-16 deg / s. Q.E.D.
  24. FROST
    0
    13 February 2012 21: 54
    Now we look at the opinion of the F-16 and Mig-29 rather unbiased comrade who flew on both.


    And in his opinion sounded a comparison of combat effectiveness in general? Then here is the opinion of another unbiased comrade of the German commander of the German squadron MiG-29 Lt Col. Johann having 500 hours flying on the MiG-29 and 2000 hours on the F-16. True, in English.
    I've got over 500 hours in the MiG-29 and 2000 hours in the F-16 (I also flew the F-15A / C and the F-5E). The following is an excerpt from a research papaer I wrote while working on a Master's Degree in aerospace engineering. Bottom line: F16 (and F-15) good, MiG-29 bad.

    MiG-29 Fulcrum Versus F-16 Viper

    The baseline MiG-29 for this comparison will be the MiG-29A (except for 200 kg more fuel and an internal jammer, the MiG-29C was not an improvement over the MiG-29A), as this was the most widely deployed version of the aircraft. The baseline F-16 will be the F-16C Block 40. Although there is a more advanced and powerful version of the F-16C, the Block 40 was produced and fielded during the height of Fulcrum production.

    A combat loaded MiG-29A tips the scales at approximately 38, 500 pounds. This figure includes a full load of internal fuel, two AA-10A Alamo missiles, four AA-11 Archer missiles, 150 rounds of 30mm ammunition and a full centerline 1,500 liter external fuel tank. With 18,600 pounds of thrust per engine, this gives the Fulcrum a takeoff thrust-to-weight ratio of 0.97: 1. A similarly loaded air-to-air configured F-16 Block 40 would carry four AIM-120 AMRAAM active radar-guided missiles, two AIM-9M IR-guided missiles, 510 rounds of 20mm ammunition and a 300 gallon external centerline fuel tank. In this configuration, the F-16 weighs 31,640 pounds. With 29,000 pounds of thrust, the F-16 has a takeoff thrust-to-weight ratio of 0.92: 1. The reader should be cautioned that these thrust-to-weight ratios are based on uninstalled thrust. Once an engine is installed in the aircraft, it produces less thrust than it does on a test stand due to the air intake allowing in less air than the engine has available on the test stand.
    The actual installed thrust-to-weight ratios vary based on the source. On average, they are in the 1: 1 regime or better for both aircraft. The centerline fuel tanks can be jettisoned and probably would if the situation dictated with an associated decrease in drag and weight and an increase in performance.

    Speed

    Both aircraft display good performance throughout their flight regimes in the comparison configuration. The MiG-29 enjoys a speed advantage at high altitude with a flight manual limit of Mach 2.3. The F-16's high altitude limit is
    Mach 2.05 but this is more of a limit of inlet design. The MiG-29 has variable geometry inlets to control the shock wave that forms in the inlet and prevent supersonic flow from reaching the engine. The F-16 employs a simple fixed-geometry inlet with a sharp upper lip that extends out beyond the lower portion of the inlet. A shock wave forms on this lip and prevents the flow in the intake from going supersonic. The objective is to keep the air going into the engine subsonic unlike a certain 'subject matter expert' on this website who thinks that the air should be accelerated to even higher speeds than the aircraft is traveling. Supersonic air in the compressor section? That's bad.

    Both aircraft have the same indicated airspeed limit at lower altitudes of
    810 knots. This would require the centerline tanks to be jettisoned. The placard limits for the tanks are 600 knots or Mach 1.6 (Mach 1.5 for the MiG-29) whichever less is. It was the researcher's experience that the MiG-29 would probably not reach this limit unless a dive was initiated. The F-16 Block 40 will easily reach 800 knots on the deck. In fact, power must be reduced to avoid exceeding placard limits. The limit is not thrust, as the F-16 has been test flown on the plus side of 900 knots. The limit for the F-16 is the canopy. Heating due to air friction at such speeds will cause the polycarbonate canopy to get soft and ultimately fail.

    Turning capability

    The MiG-29 and F-16 are both considered 9 G aircraft. Until the centerline tank is empty, the Fulcrum is limited to four Gs and the Viper to seven Gs. The
    MiG-29 is also limited to seven Gs above Mach 0.85 while the F-16, once the centerline tank is empty (or jettisoned) can go to nine Gs regardless of airspeed or Mach number. The MiG-29's seven G limit is due to loads on the vertical stabilizers. MAPO has advertised that the Fulcrum could be stressed to 12 Gs and still not hurt the airframe. This statement is probably wishful and boastful. The German Luftwaffe, which flew its MiG-29s probably more aggressively than any other operator, experienced cracks in the structure at the base of the vertical tails. The F-16 can actually exceed nine Gs without overstressing the airframe. Depending on configuration, momentary overshoots to as much as 10.3 Gs will not cause any concern with aircraft maintainers.

    handling

    Of the four fighters I have flown, the MiG-29 has by far the worst handling qualities. The hydro-mechanical flight control system uses an artificial feel system of springs and pulleys to simulate control force changes with varying airspeeds and altitudes. There is a stability augmentation system that makes the aircraft easier to fly but also makes the aircraft more sluggish to flight control inputs. It is my opinion that the jet is more responsive with the augmentation system disengaged. Unfortunately, this was allowed for demonstration purposes only as this also disengages the angle-of-attack (AoA) limiter. Stick forces are relatively light but the stick requires a lot of movement to get the desired response. This only adds to sluggish feeling of the aircraft. The entire time you are flying, the stick will move randomly about one-half inch on its own with a corresponding movement of the flight control surface. Flying the Fulcrum requires constant attention. If the pilot takes his hand off the throttles, the throttles probably won't stay in the position in which they were left. They'll probably slide back into the 'idle' position.

    The Fulcrum is relatively easy to fly during most phases of flight such as takeoff, climb, cruise and landing. However, due to flight control limitations, the pilot must work hard to get the jet to respond the way he wants. This is especially evident in aggressive maneuvering, flying formation or during attempts to employ the gun. Aerial gunnery requires very precise handling in order to be successful. The MiG-29's handling qualities in no way limit the ability of the pilot to perform his mission, but they do dramatically increase his workload. The F-16's quadruple-redundant digital flight control system, on the other hand, is extremely responsive, precise and smooth throughout the flight regime.

    There is no auto-trim system in the MiG-29 as in the F-16. Trimming the aircraft is practically an unattainable state of grace in the Fulcrum. The trim of the aircraft is very sensitive to changes in airspeed and power and requires constant attention. Changes to aircraft configuration such as raising and lowering the landing gear and flaps cause significant changes in pitch trim that the pilot must be prepared for. As a result, the MiG-29 requires constant attention to fly. The F-16 auto-trims to one G or for whatever G the pilot has manually trimmed the aircraft for.

    The MiG-29 flight control system also has an AoA limiter that limits the allowable AoA to 26 °. As the aircraft reaches the limit, pistons at the base of the stick push the stick forward and reduce the AoA about 5 °. The pilot has to fight the flight controls to hold the jet at 26 °. The limiter can be overridden, however, with about 17 kg more back pressure on the stick. While not entirely unsafe and at times tactically useful, care must be taken not to attempt to roll the aircraft with ailerons when above 26 ° AoA. In this case it is best to control roll with the rudders due to adverse yaw caused by the ailerons at high AoA. The F-16 is electronically limited to 26 ° AoA. While the pilot cannot manually override this limit it is possible to overshoot under certain conditions and risk departure from controlled flight. This is a disadvantage to the F-16 but is a safety margin due its lack of longitudinal stability. Both aircraft have a lift limit of approximately
    35 ° AoA.

    Combat scenario

    The ultimate comparison of two fighter aircraft comes down to a combat duel between them. After the Berlin Wall came down the reunified Germany inherited 24 MiG-29s from the Nationale Volksarmee of East Germany. The lessons of capitalism were not lost on MAPO-MiG (the Fulcrum's manufacturer) who saw this as an opportunity to compare the Fulcrum directly with western types during NATO training exercises. MAPO was quick to boast how the MiG-29 had bested F-15s and F-16s in mock aerial combat. They claimed a combination of the MiG's superior sensors, weapons and low radar cross section allowed the Fulcrum to beat western aircraft. However, much of the early exploitation was done more to ascertain the MiG-29's capabilities versus attempting to determine what the outcome of actual combat would be.
    1. +1
      13 February 2012 22: 08
      Yes, I know him! But here's the thing - I can't consider a German to be unbiased. Australian - completely.
      It is now, when they are in full earnest about whether to buy or not to buy F-35, we can assume the interest of those who prove the advantages of Su-35 before F-35 And ​​then no one in Australia / Hungary was going to buy Mig-29 - and there really is no need to praise either the F-16 or the Mig-29
      And in his opinion sounded a comparison of combat effectiveness in general?

      Mig-29 is better, but an experienced pilot can level this advantage.

      And, yes, I apologize, ochepyatalsya. Phrase

      Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
      On the installation serial lot - no question, consider AMRAAM from 1998 g. Only then, if you please and transfer the appearance of Su-27 to 1980 g

      Of course you should read
      "count AMRAAM from 1988"
  25. +1
    13 February 2012 21: 57
    Quote: FROST
    This is nonsense. Why do you think so?)

    Unprincipled. I agreed to assume that 11,6 is both wings and a glider
  26. FROST
    0
    13 February 2012 22: 06
    The western press was also quick to pick up on the theme. In 1991, Benjamin Lambeth cited an article in Jane's Defense Weekly which stated that the German MiG-29s had beaten F-16s with simulated BVR range shots of more than 60 km. How was this possible when the MiG-29 cannot launch an AA-10A Alamo from outside about 25 km? Was this a case of the fish getting bigger with every telling of the story? The actual BVR capability of the MiG-29 was my biggest disappointment. Was it further exposure to the German Fulcrums in realistic training that showed the jet for what it truly is? It seems that MAPO's free advertising backfired in the end as further orders were limited to the 18 airplanes sold to Malaysia.
    If F-16Cs and MiG-29s face off in aerial combat, both would detect each other on the radar at comparable range. Armed with the AIM-120 AMRAAM, the F-16s would have the first shot opportunity at more than twice the range as the Fulcrums. A single F-16 would be able to discriminately target individual and multiple Fulcrums. The MiG-29's radar will not allow this. If there is more than one F-16 in a formation, a Fulcrum pilot would not know exactly which F-16 the radar had locked and he can engage only one F-16 at a time. A Viper pilot can launch AMRAAMS against multiple MiG-29s on the first pass and support his missiles via data link until the missiles go active. He can break the radar lock and leave or continue to the visual arena and employ short range infrared guided missiles or the gun. The Fulcrum pilot must wait until about 13 nautical miles (24 kilometers) before he can shoot his BVR missile. The Alamo is a semi-active missile that must be supported by the launching aircraft until impact. This brings the Fulcrum pilot closer to the AMRAAM. In fact, just as the the Fulcrum pilot gets in range to fire an Alamo, the AMRAAM is seconds away from impacting his aircraft. The advantage goes to the F-16.
    What if both pilots are committed to engage visually? The F-16 should have the initial advantage as he knows the Fulcrum's exact altitude and has the target designator box in the head-up display (HUD) to aid in visual acquisition. The Fulcrum's engines smoke heavily and are a good aid to gaining sight of the adversary. Another advantage is the F-16's large bubble canopy with 360 ° field-of-view. The Fulcrum pilot's HUD doesn't help much in gaining sight of the F-16. The F-16 is small and has a smokeless engine. The MiG-29 pilot sets low in his cockpit and visibility between the 4 o'clock and 7 o'clock positions is virtually nonexistent.
    Charts that compare actual maneuvering performance of the two aircraft are classified. It was the researcher's experience that the aircraft have comparable initial turning performance. However, the MiG-29 suffers from a higher energy bleed rate than the F-16. This is due to high induced drag on the airframe during high-G maneuvering. F-16 pilots that have flown against the Fulcrum have made similar observations that the F-16 can sustain a high-G turn longer. This results in a turn rate advantage that translates into a positional advantage for the F-16.
    The F-16 is also much easier to fly and is more responsive at slow speed.
    The Fulcrum's maximum roll rate is 160 ° per second. At slow speed this decreases to around 20 ° per second. Coupled with the large amount of stick movement required, the Fulcrum is extremely sluggish at slow speed. Maneuvering to defeat a close-range gun shot is extremely difficult if the airplane won't move. For comparison, the F-16's slow speed roll rate is a little more than 80 ° per second.
    A lot has been written and theorized about the so-called “Cobra Maneuver” that impresses people at airshows. MAPO claimed that no western fighter dare do this same maneuver in public. They also claimed that the Cobra could be used to break the radar lock of an enemy fighter (due to the slow airspeed, there is no Doppler signal for the radar to track) or point the nose of the aircraft to equip weapons. Western fighter pilots were content to let the Russians brag and hope for the opportunity to see a MiG-29 give up all its airspeed. The fact that this maneuver is prohibited in the flight manual only validates the fact that this maneuver was a stunt. Lambeth was the first American to get a flight in the Fulcrum. Even his pilot conceded that the Cobra required a specially prepared aircraft and was prohibited in operational MiG-29 units
    Another maneuver performed by the Fulcrum during its introduction to the West is the so-called “Tail Slide”. The nose of the jet is brought to 90 ° pitch and the airspeed is allowed to decay. Eventually, the Fulcrum begins to “slide” back, tail-first, until the nose drops and the jet begins to fly normally again. The Soviets boasted this maneuver demonstrated how robust the engines were as this would cause western engines to flameout. The first maneuver demonstrated to me during my F-15 training was the Tail Slide. The engines did not flameout.
    The MiG-29 is not without strong points. The pilot can override the angle of attack limiter. This is especially useful in vertical maneuvering or in last ditch attempts to bring weapons to bear or defeat enemy shots. The HMS and AA-11 Archer make the Fulcrum a deadly foe in the visual arena. The AA-11 is far superior to the American AIM-9M. By simply turning his head, the MiG pilot can bring an Archer to bear. The one limitation, however, is that the Fulcrum pilot has no cue as to where the Archer seeker head is actually looking. This makes it impossible to determine if the missile is tracking the target, a flare, or some other hot spot in the background. (Note: the AIM-9X which is already fielded on the F-15C, and to be fielded on the F-16 in 2007, is far superior to the AA-11)
    Fulcrum pilots have enjoyed their most success with the HMS / Archer combination in one versus one training missions. In this sterile environment, where both aircraft start within visual range of each other, the MiG-29 has a great advantage. Not because it is more maneuverable than the F-16. That is most certainly not the case regardless of the claims of the Fulcrum's manufacturer and numerous other misinformed propaganda sources. The weapon / sensor integration with the HMS and Archer makes close-in missile employment extremely easy for the Fulcrum's pilot. My only one versus one fight against a MiG-29 (in something other than another MiG-29) was flown in an F-16 Block 52. This was done against a German MiG-29 at Nellis AFB, Nevada. The F-16 outturned and out-powered the Fulcrum in every situation.
    The Fulcrum's gun system is fairly accurate as long as the target does not attempt to defeat the shot. If the target maneuvers, the gunsight requires large corrections to get back to solution. Coupled with the jet's imprecise handling, this makes close-in maneuvering difficult. This is very important when using the gun. Although the Fulcrum has a 30 mm cannon, the muzzle velocity is no more than the 20 mm rounds coming out of the F-16's gun. The MiG's effective gun range is actually less than that of the F-16 as the 20 mm rounds are more aerodynamic and maintain their velocity longer.
    If the fight lasts very long, the MiG pilot is at a decided disadvantage and must either kill his foe or find a timely opportunity to leave the fight without placing himself on the defensive. The Fulcrum A holds only 300 pounds more internal fuel than the F-16 and its two engines go through it quickly. There are no fuel flow gauges in the cockpit. Using the clock and the fuel gauge, in full afterburner the MiG-29 uses fuel 3.5 to 4 times faster than the Viper. My shortest MiG-29 sortie was 16 minutes from brake release to touchdown.
    It should not be forgotten that fights between fighters do not occur in a vacuum. One-versus-one comparisons are one thing, but start to include other fighters into the fray and situational awareness (SA) plays an even bigger role. The lack of SA-building tools for MiG-29 pilots will become an even bigger factor if they have more aircraft to keep track of. Poor radar and HUD displays, poor cockpit ergonomics and poor handling qualities added to the Fulcrum pilot's workload and degraded his overall SA. It was my experience during one-versus-one scenarios emphasizing dogfighting skills, the results came down to pilot skill.
  27. FROST
    0
    14 February 2012 00: 22
    In the past post, I just could not imagine that from the usual procedure of targeting UR you would depict the F-15 feature which improves the Sidewinder's guidance angle for the 25 I have given. Therefore, I decided that there is a vagueness of the wording, and you mean the radio correction
    And what I brought "in response" - yes, it is from this article. As I already wrote, I have not dealt with the topic of the aircraft for a long time, so I am afraid to lie - and I am looking for confirmation of my words in the material that I read sometime earlier. And I don't see anything wrong with that. This is better than reinventing sidewinder shooting at 45 degrees.

    Already you will refuse the words, and the master? You said it. I quote


    Nobody invented anything. Just corrected you in the opinion that the pilot can only attack the sector limited to the GOS sidewinder. The target will fall into the capture of the radar, at a position of +50 degrees from the nose and the pilot can launch. No inventions, just facts. The fact that this is the advantage of the sidewinder over the p-73, no one wrote. On the contrary, he added that this is also implemented with us.

    When the sight is made according to the NSC - yes, the distance is not measured. And if OEPK is used - please


    It was about the NSC.

    Do words such a LASER RANGE MEANER say anything? Here it is just for the distance at the Su-27 and is responsible.


    He can approximately calculate the distance. And the lead (which was discussed) according to the distance, speed and motion vector of the target, he will not give out.

    Get used to the idea that not all good intentions of Americans are successful

    The problem of pointing to the lower hemisphere is that the radar needle works very badly on targets against the background of the earth. This explains the inglorious loss to the Indians


    Pure water your speculation, and even based on rumors, completely devoid of technical analysis. The intentions of Americans, Russians, Tatars, Koreans, etc. there is absolutely nothing to do with and are not considered. I judge only by technical analysis, given the physics of the process itself. Pulse-Doppler radars with quasi-continuous radiation select moving targets, so they can confidently attack the target against the background of the earth. Those. in fact, they see only what is moving. They simply will not see the earth, mountains, water or an alien flying saucer frozen in place with an EPR of 1000 m2, because they are motionless. MiG-29 and Su-27 radars were made on the same principle and therefore you would be completely blind with their smaller power computer (which plays an important role in the selection against the background of the earth)

    Now name AT LEAST ONE case of an aircraft shooting down in the first Iraqi one - when the F-15 (or any other) would "work" the enemy against the background of the earth.


    Attacked according to the combat situation. Who and how exactly beat whom, not you, not I do not know. It is foolish to draw conclusions on not knowing something and on individual rumors that prove nothing.

    Also lying, bad man? But you got to the core of it, you know better.
    Target tracing is a procedure where the power of the beam is concentrated, i.e. the search angle is narrowed while maintaining the radar power. Therefore, when tracing, it is possible to "find" an enemy aircraft much further than in the usual radar search mode. Used when aiming aircraft with AWACS


    I explain to you the logic of interaction with AWACS. Fighters do not search on their own at all, only AWACS detects and targets. In the first place you do not need to turn on your radar, and so they know where the target is, and secondly it is unacceptable, they will immediately find themselves. The radar is cut in only when they come close to the target, occupying a convenient position for firing, and then, just before the launch, in order to carry out radio correction of missiles. This is a distance of 20-30 km maximum.

    Excuse me, but not much for you alone - you have already determined everything for the Iraqi pilots. Well, why did they react violently? Didn't they feel that they were being irradiated by AWACS? Or do you think that the 90 km signal from the Needle Radar will be significantly stronger? And when the attack went - the pilots reacted, so we will not fantasize


    Isn’t it written there
    the enemy did not suspect that his are attacking


    So really, let's not fantasize.
  28. FROST
    0
    14 February 2012 01: 12
    And then, and if you already say - there is no data on the F-15 - so what happiness are you posting the comparison of the F-15 and Mig-29 (in that thread)? Those. it’s interesting for you - when it’s profitable for you - comparative materials will work, when not - you become a supporter of rigorous evidence


    You are right in the incorrect comparison, at the beginning I gave, like you, a "one-sided" book on the aerodynamics of the MiG-29, in which the real performance characteristics of the F-15A are somewhat underestimated. But even with this in mind, even our author gave such an assessment.

    was able to pick up the tactics with which they made the Indians. And the Americans themselves said that the success is "purely imaginary" - the Indians will reconsider their tactics, and the brave American guys are likely to have problems again


    Have you made sure once again that the outcome of the battle of these machines will still be decided by the actions of the crews?
    This refers to the problems of the American guys on the old F-15 and F-16 with old locators. I think on this subject about the Indian Su-30 MKI (note far from the Su-27) can be considered closed.

    Yes, I know him! But here's the thing - I can't consider a German to be unbiased. Australian - completely.
    It is now, when they are in full earnest about whether to buy or not to buy F-35, we can assume the interest of those who prove the advantages of Su-35 before F-35 And ​​then no one in Australia / Hungary was going to buy Mig-29 - and there really is no need to praise either the F-16 or the Mig-29


    In fact, just the Germans do not care until the Su-35 and F-35, they developed and release their typhoon. But in Australia, frightened by the horror stories about the Russian Su and MiG, they are going to buy the F-35 you mentioned.

    Something not to know - not ashamed. It is a shame to persist in their delusions.


    In truth.

    In the end, what do we have? A bunch of rumors both on the one hand and on the other. Testimonies for both one and the other. From a technical point of view, with proper piloting, we have approximately equally maneuverable in the BVB Su-27 and F-15, with some advantage of the Su-27 at low speeds and a slight advantage of the F-15 on the verticals. Only in addition, the Su-27 has a r-73 with the NSC, which gives a relative fire advantage. The small advantage of the Su-27 in the BVB, which can be offset by the skillful actions of the F-15 pilot, is made up of the amount. In DVB, however, we have a relative advantage of the F-15 due to a more powerful locator, better open source software, the advantages of sparrow, greater information content, greater noise immunity of radio communication lines and data transmission from AWACS. Which in turn can be offset by the skillful actions of the Su-27 pilots in tactical actions and the use of OELS.
    Total. Of course, you can beat yourself in the chest for a long time, lower the west and exalt your own, or you can, guided by common sense and not jealousy, admit that both of these aircraft, designed with the same requirements and tasks, are beautiful and outstanding fighters for their time, with relative equality between themselves, surpassed all the others. And this, too, can and should be proud of.
  29. FROST
    0
    14 February 2012 01: 57
    What is wrong with him? Once again we read what I wrote and we see even from this given graph (not required for the F-15) that the speed of the corner bend on the F-15 at a speed of 700 km / h is about 20 deg / s, and the speed is y. the steady turn of the Su-27 after wasting energy and leaving at a speed of 450-500 km, h is 15-16 deg / s. Q.E.D.


    I meant the angular rate of turn of the established bend. For some reason, the editor swallowed the word "spread" 2 times

    Naturally. Because in this case, the missile and the target are on the same level. IR seeker will capture - and forward. But AT ONE LEVEL it is "a little" different from the background of the earth.


    For information, it was understood that aim-9 can attack not just against the background of the earth, but even on the ground itself (tobish the ground heat-contrasting target) when the carrier aircraft is not standing at the airfield as you thought, but is in the air.
    1. +1
      14 February 2012 11: 11
      I ran through your comments - I mistook it, because, although we do not agree, the level of your erudition is extremely worthy. With the new title, Comrade Sergeant! laughing laughing laughing
  30. +1
    14 February 2012 10: 42
    Dear FROST!
    I also believe that the discussion on the topic "F-15 & Su-27 - who has the longest stabilizer" can be completed. In principle, we established the basic facts (such as the better thrust-to-weight ratio of the F-15 or the superiority of the R-73 over the AIM-9) - our interpretations of the influence of these facts on air combat differ. But since neither you nor I have access to all sorts of secrets and special parts, it is impossible to prove your own, nor to refute the interlocutor. So that a decent discussion does not spill over into Ilfov-Petrovsky "Who are you? !!!" - it's probably time to stop.
    Finally (not at the very beginning of the discussion) I will try to state my vision of the issue, so to speak, as a whole.
    I believe that the United States made the mistake of adopting a conventional rather than an integrated circuit for the F-15, since, other things being equal, in my opinion, an integrated circuit provides better maneuverability and allows for much better super-maneuverability of a combat aircraft. I believe that this decision greatly reduced the modernization potential of the F-15. In my opinion, in the future, attacks will rule the ball in close combat, with access to supercritical corners and fighters with the "super maneuverability" skill will receive a significant advantage. The United States does not set requirements for super-maneuverability before the developers, and I believe this is a mistake.
    At the same time, the creators of the Su-27 could not yet fully realize the super-maneuverability in this aircraft - for a number of reasons, only elements of this kind were implemented. Because of this, I believe that the Su-27’s overall maneuverability is slightly higher than the F-15, but not as high as the design allowed.
    Another great advantage of the Su-27 is the placement of fuel in predominantly domestic fuel tanks and a far greater flight range without a PTB. It is obvious that the presence of fuel tanks during the battle would have the most negative impact on the maneuverability and on the F-15 radar visibility.
    The combination of somewhat better maneuverability with the best sights (OLS + ILS + RLPK) versus RLPK alone and the best P-73 missiles against AIM-9 gave Su-27 a tangible advantage in the BVB - such an advantage could be compensated solely by much higher qualification F-15 pilots.
    In DVB, the planes are approximately equal - the Su-27 has the worst radar, the worst EW, but the Р-27 is not inferior to Sparrow in any way (I focus on the demonstrated combat effectiveness), the datalink F-15 is compensated by the presence of a group control system on the Su-27, allows you to distribute targets (on the screens of indicators) and so on, i.e. performing similar functions. Also, due to good maneuverability, the Su-27 repeatedly dodged semi-active medium-range SD. At the same time, the presence of the OLS to a certain extent made it possible to find ways to resist the best F-15 avionics. In general, I believe that in DVB the planes are equal or there is an extremely insignificant superiority of F-15.
    But I think the DVB itself, to the end of 80's, is very chimerical - the imperfection of the radar station, as well as the high requirements of semi-active seeker, led to the fact that the losses in the DVB would be relatively small (if we recall that even in 1991 g, one shot down almost in polygon Iraqi aircraft accounted for about 3 SD - and the Americans had air supremacy, acted with the support of the ARLO, the professionalism of the pilots exceeded Saddam’s pilots by an order of magnitude, etc.) Therefore, in the case of the Su-27 group battle against F-15, the dryers great chance to reach b izhnego battle without suffering any sort of losses (the same is true, is true for the F-15)
    In the aggregate of the above, AT THE MOMENT OF THE APPEARANCE OF SU-27, I would rate the combat effectiveness of SU-27 as 20-25% superior to F-15. That, in general, does not provide total domination and can be leveled by the level of pilots and the use of appropriate tactics - but still with (on average) a higher level of losses F-15.
    However, the world on the Su-27 did not stop - and very quickly new modifications of the F-15 appeared, which, with the advent of more advanced avionics and missiles with active seeker, gained a significant advantage over the Su-27 in the DVB. Moreover, in the face of F-15E, the Americans were the first in the world to create a heavy universal fighter.
    The Su-15MKI became the answer to the new modifications of the F-30 - having not inferior avionics and missiles with active missiles RVV-AE, the Su-30MKI also received improved RL (up to 50 km in the front hemisphere, over 70 - in the back) for air combat . F-15 remained devoid of this pleasure - its OLS LANTIRN was designed to work on ground targets. Su-30MKI, having received engines with a variable thrust vectoring, received supermaneuverability. Su-30 also became multifunctional.
    In general and in general, the Su-30MKI has truly surpassed his counterpart in aerial combat, but as a strike aircraft he loses F-15Е.
    And here factors that had nothing to do with the aircraft intervened - the collapse of the USSR and the inhibition of the development and creation of new aircraft. Su-30MKI would be a great plane, go to the series in 1992, for which there were all the possibilities.
    As I have already said, this is my IMHO and my point of view and not claiming universal truth (I personally believe in it laughing ).
    And I would like to thank you, dear FROST, for the most interesting and fruitful discussion for me - under your influence I refreshed my knowledge in the subject of combat aviation, and your arguments made me correct my point of view on a number of questions - it turns out I became smarter and thank you for it drinks
  31. FROST
    -2
    14 February 2012 13: 34
    I ran through your comments - I mistook it, because, although we do not agree, the level of your erudition is extremely worthy. With the new title, Comrade Sergeant!


    Thank you, of course, but I must admit that somehow I do not even pay attention to all these pluses, minuses, ranks, votes, etc.

    under your influence, I refreshed my knowledge on the topic of military aviation, and your arguments made me adjust my point of view on a number of issues - it turns out that I became smarter and thank you for that


    It's my pleasure. I am glad that the discussion was fruitful.

"Right Sector" (banned in Russia), "Ukrainian Insurgent Army" (UPA) (banned in Russia), ISIS (banned in Russia), "Jabhat Fatah al-Sham" formerly "Jabhat al-Nusra" (banned in Russia) , Taliban (banned in Russia), Al-Qaeda (banned in Russia), Anti-Corruption Foundation (banned in Russia), Navalny Headquarters (banned in Russia), Facebook (banned in Russia), Instagram (banned in Russia), Meta (banned in Russia), Misanthropic Division (banned in Russia), Azov (banned in Russia), Muslim Brotherhood (banned in Russia), Aum Shinrikyo (banned in Russia), AUE (banned in Russia), UNA-UNSO (banned in Russia), Mejlis of the Crimean Tatar People (banned in Russia), Legion “Freedom of Russia” (armed formation, recognized as terrorist in the Russian Federation and banned)

“Non-profit organizations, unregistered public associations or individuals performing the functions of a foreign agent,” as well as media outlets performing the functions of a foreign agent: “Medusa”; "Voice of America"; "Realities"; "Present time"; "Radio Freedom"; Ponomarev Lev; Ponomarev Ilya; Savitskaya; Markelov; Kamalyagin; Apakhonchich; Makarevich; Dud; Gordon; Zhdanov; Medvedev; Fedorov; Mikhail Kasyanov; "Owl"; "Alliance of Doctors"; "RKK" "Levada Center"; "Memorial"; "Voice"; "Person and law"; "Rain"; "Mediazone"; "Deutsche Welle"; QMS "Caucasian Knot"; "Insider"; "New Newspaper"