Register here

Author Topic: MiG-29 Avionics  (Read 42853 times)

Offline PaulMM (Overscan)

  • Secret Projects Forum Founder
  • Administrator
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • *****
  • Posts: 10799
  • Paul Martell-Mead
    • Secret Projects
MiG-29 Avionics
« on: February 16, 2006, 01:36:53 pm »
Thread to discuss MiG-29 Avionics. What more can we learn about this aircraft and its systems?
"They can't see our arses for dust."
 
- Sir Sydney Camm

Offline PaulMM (Overscan)

  • Secret Projects Forum Founder
  • Administrator
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • *****
  • Posts: 10799
  • Paul Martell-Mead
    • Secret Projects
N019 Radar
« Reply #1 on: February 16, 2006, 01:44:25 pm »
To start with, here are three diagrams which lewradar and I believe do not, as thought, refer to the Sapfir-23 series but to the N019/N001.

The first shows the basic twist cassegrain concept, but note that the fixed "parabolic" reflector in front and moving "flat" subreflector at back are not truly parabolic and flat at all, like in earlier radars, but more complex in shape.

The second shows the internal structure of the "parabolic" reflector.

The third shows the structure of the moving subreflector.

Perhaps lewradar can post here his comments on the design of this system.
"They can't see our arses for dust."
 
- Sir Sydney Camm

Offline PaulMM (Overscan)

  • Secret Projects Forum Founder
  • Administrator
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • *****
  • Posts: 10799
  • Paul Martell-Mead
    • Secret Projects
Re: MiG-29 Avionics
« Reply #2 on: February 16, 2006, 03:32:40 pm »
N019 radar, minus the front reflector.
"They can't see our arses for dust."
 
- Sir Sydney Camm

lewradar

  • Guest
Re: MiG-29 Avionics
« Reply #3 on: February 17, 2006, 01:34:17 pm »
Quote
Perhaps lewradar can post here his comments on the design of this system.
Cross-posted from Mig-23 thread:

The subreflector has to change the polarisation of the waves from horizontal to vertical so that they then pass through the horizontal wires unscathed.

The usual means of effecting this involves an array of wires at 45 degrees which reflects half the power of the horizontal signal. The other half passes through the wires a distance of quarter of a wavelength to the metal back surface of the sub-reflector where they are reflected. This extra path difference of half a wavelength  (quarter there plus quarter back) results in the two 180 degree phase difference waves interacting to produce the required vertical polarised signal for transmission. Section 8.9 of the Cassegrain document explains this using vectors.

Thus if (say) 12 GHz and 1.5 GHz  signals are to be so affected the sub reflector has to incorporate quarter wave thicknesses for both. Ris 10 in the document shows how this is effected: the basic thickness is a quarter wave for the 1.5 GHz signal. By incorporating a periodic array of small reflectors embedded in the material of the sub-relector at a depth of quarter wavelength for the 12 GHz signal this fulfills the requirement for both frequencies - both frequencies are changed to vertical polarisation for outward transmission.

[remember that the opposite effect will occur for received vertical pol signals and they will enter the horns as horizontal]

Look at the thickness of the subreflectors for Sapfir-23, -25 and smerch. Compared to these the N-019 sub reflector is much thicker - because of the addition of the IFF.

Twist cassegrain is a difficult concept: Skolnik “Introduction to Radar systems” 2nd Edition explains the basic concept on pages 242-243. He calls it a twist reflector.

-see MiG-23 thread for a quick and dirty scan of the pages ( I won’t clutter the place with duplicate copies)

Offline loco

  • CLEARANCE: Restricted
  • Posts: 7
Re: MiG-29 Avionics
« Reply #4 on: July 20, 2006, 01:36:45 pm »
i'd like to learn about the Gardenya active jammer for the Mig-29, way too many "urban legends" are being said about, (crappy commie stuff etc  ???)
but around you guys, i'm sure, the info will be accurate and objective  8)

thamks a million

Loco.

Offline PaulMM (Overscan)

  • Secret Projects Forum Founder
  • Administrator
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • *****
  • Posts: 10799
  • Paul Martell-Mead
    • Secret Projects
Re: MiG-29 Avionics
« Reply #5 on: July 20, 2006, 11:51:45 pm »
I believe that according to Oleg Samolovich from Sukhoi's memoirs, the Su-17 team lead by Zyrin refused to redesign a version with internal Gardeniya jammer (post Beka'a Valley) on the grounds it was crap and a waste of space.

The Su-27 Flight Manual includes a nice Gardeniya pod manual, which I can post a translation of here after my holiday.
"They can't see our arses for dust."
 
- Sir Sydney Camm

Offline loco

  • CLEARANCE: Restricted
  • Posts: 7
Re: MiG-29 Avionics
« Reply #6 on: July 23, 2006, 08:39:38 am »
thanks Overscan.
now doing some thinkin'
the Bekaa valley... wasn't that during the seventies?, it seems to me that 30 years after, it could have been upgraded to a more reasonable level, because the Peruvian experience in the 1995 war, was to send Su-22's to battle not only with far outdated Sirena-2 RWR but without "any" EW suite, call it Gardenya or anything for that matter, loosing 2 of them with the pilots KIA against an electronically far superior opponent.

in my humble oppinion, Mr. Zyrin's desition was a bit... precipitated (i wasn't there so i can't say for sure  :))

i think there are some facts where Gardenyas were able to defeat a few AMRAAM's in the past decade, please correct me if wrong.

thanks to all

da Loco.



Offline Pit

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Confidential
  • **
  • Posts: 145
Re: MiG-29 Avionics
« Reply #7 on: July 23, 2006, 02:44:06 pm »
Loco, how are you.

Bekaa Valley was in 1982, Gardeniya R&D quickly started after that. Not only Su-17 was slotted for receiving the equipment, there were also MiG-23MLD prototypes and the intention to deploy it on Su-24M.

Every one of them screwed the idea. It was crap, plain and simple, the R&D was so accelerated that it was not an effective piece of eqipment. MiG-31 and Flanker were slatted to receive the much more advanced (years light ahead) L-005S from KNIRTI, and the L-203BI for MiG-29 9.13 only worked from 1989...before it didn't fit the thing well.

I have heard the opinion from many MiG-29 pilots (from thirds persons, althrough trustworthy individuals) that they would love to exchange the crappy Gardeniya for more fuel...

S. Moroz also refers to Gardeniya as basically crap in his Su-24M book.

There are surely upgrades, maybe inlcuding DRFM technology chips into it, but...oh boy you're far better with the newer pods like the MSP-418K...save the space inside the humpback for something more useful.

It seems that due to the extremly fast R&D the resulting TsNIRTI hardware resulted to be pure crap...and you have many examples of useful soviet ECM equipment like the SPS-141MVG-E, that was indeed retained in Su-17M3/4 instead of this Gardeniya thing.

Saludos amigo. 

Offline loco

  • CLEARANCE: Restricted
  • Posts: 7
Re: MiG-29 Avionics
« Reply #8 on: July 25, 2006, 04:28:46 pm »
Salu-2 hermano PIT  8)
i had no idea that the gardenya system was that bad  ???
well if its worthless, better to get the new MSP-418K, i just dont like the idea of waisting a pylon to carry it, but its also clear that the use of "escort jamming" tactics would require only one or two of those jammers to hide a complete attack package...
and sure, using that fresh empty space for fuel, could give the Mig-29 a few miles extra range.

but if somebody decides to actually fix gardenya, wouldnt it be only necesary to improve the receiver and its processors computing power?
ok say... re-design it from scratch (sorry i'm running out of "gray matter"  ;D)

the madman.

Offline Dilbert

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Confidential
  • **
  • Posts: 81
Re: MiG-29 Avionics
« Reply #9 on: August 28, 2006, 03:58:40 pm »
I have heard the opinion from many MiG-29 pilots (from thirds persons, althrough trustworthy individuals) that they would love to exchange the crappy Gardeniya for more fuel...

S. Moroz also refers to Gardeniya as basically crap in his Su-24M book.

I can't find the reference to Gardeniya in Moroz's book.  Perhaps you are referring to Landysh/Fasol/Mimoza of the Su-24MP, and the reason that more of these EW-specialized aircraft weren't produced?

It's interesting to read so many opinions that Gardenia is "crap," without any explanation.  My impression is that rather, ECM in general is becoming "crap," with all the home-on-jam missiles around - witness the relegation of the B-1B, the retirement of the EF-111, the ability of EA-6B to operate against no newer threat than the SA-8...  Simply, any modern radar will have the ability to switch its operating frequency faster than a modern ECM can follow.  The new ECM thus isn't bad, it just isn't operationally any more effective than the old ECM - and thus not worth the cost of upgrading.  The only advantage Sorbtsiya ECM has over Gardeniya is "terrain-bounce" capability, grace of its steerable antenna - and even this is a sketchy technique that only works at low altitude, over reflective terrain, and against which the AIM-120 already has an operational ECCM software to defeat.

Thus it's not the Gardeniya, but rather ECM as a whole, that needs to go in the dustbin, to be replaced by stealth technology.  The only reason ECM is allowed to continue to exist at all is to fight opponents armed with obsolete equipment - i.e., anyone the US is likely to fight - or because the country in question has no stealth technology of its own to field - i.e., everybody else.  In this regard, it makes little sense to pick on Gardeniya in particular.

And since when is a MiG-29 pilot an expert on ECM, of all things?  I haven't even heard of one who knew what "loft" was.   :P
« Last Edit: August 28, 2006, 04:00:39 pm by Dilbert »

Offline JCage

  • CLEARANCE: Confidential
  • *
  • Posts: 39
Re: MiG-29 Avionics
« Reply #10 on: August 31, 2006, 09:54:03 am »
Hi Dilbert,

Would HOJ mode work on deception jamming or range gate techniques, ie anything other than simpler noise jamming?
Also, a MiG-29 Pilot would surely interact with maintenance crew and learn about its operational procedures and what & how effective it was deemed to be. If a pilot says something is crap, then it means that it probably does not work as designed or that its hard to use or its prone to failure/ not serviceable.
Also if ECM is going the way of the dodo, but EA-18Gs are still being introduced, and the newer ECM suites are claimed to work against SA-XX suites. So I guess it does depend on what you have...if you dont have stealth, ECM is the way, but if you have stealth, using ECM is akin to announcing you are in the area. OTOH, if you do employ stealth fighters, you may still need to use ECM to just ensure that some particular old gen, long band radars etc are no longer viable...for they might pose a threat to your silver bullet stealth fighter which is optimized against "newer/ more commonly in use" freq bands.

Offline Dilbert

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Confidential
  • **
  • Posts: 81
Re: MiG-29 Avionics
« Reply #11 on: August 31, 2006, 03:09:27 pm »
Would HOJ mode work on deception jamming or range gate techniques, ie anything other than simpler noise jamming?

It would depend on the type of DECM and HOJ - there are different methods to achieve both.  In general though, the HOJ missile should work unless the DECM is specifically designed to defeat it (e.g. if the enemy captures one of your missiles and reverse-engineers it).

Quote
Also, a MiG-29 Pilot would surely interact with maintenance crew and learn about its operational procedures and what & how effective it was deemed to be. If a pilot says something is crap, then it means that it probably does not work as designed or that its hard to use or its prone to failure/ not serviceable.

US pilots in Vietnam were also dubious about the value of ECM pods, and routinely complained that they would have preferred to carry a few extra bombs instead.  Combat experience proved the worth of the ECM pods in spades, despite those pilot opinions.

Offline PaulMM (Overscan)

  • Secret Projects Forum Founder
  • Administrator
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • *****
  • Posts: 10799
  • Paul Martell-Mead
    • Secret Projects
Re: MiG-29 Avionics
« Reply #12 on: September 01, 2006, 12:08:43 pm »
The uselessness of the early Gardeniya is referred to in Oleg Samolovich's memoirs. He says that, post Beka'a Valley, a decree came in to stick Gardeniya in or on every aircraft. Zyrin, chief designer of the Su-17 series, was the only person brave enough to stand up and decline, on the grounds that it was ineffective. He got into a certain amount of hot water over it, but was rehabilitated when it rsubsequently proved pretty much useless in service.
"They can't see our arses for dust."
 
- Sir Sydney Camm

Offline Dilbert

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Confidential
  • **
  • Posts: 81
Re: MiG-29 Avionics
« Reply #13 on: September 01, 2006, 02:02:42 pm »
The uselessness of the early Gardeniya is referred to in Oleg Samolovich's memoirs. He says that, post Beka'a Valley, a decree came in to stick Gardeniya in or on every aircraft. Zyrin, chief designer of the Su-17 series, was the only person brave enough to stand up and decline, on the grounds that it was ineffective. He got into a certain amount of hot water over it, but was rehabilitated when it rsubsequently proved pretty much useless in service.

Why did the Su-25T carry the Gardeniya, if the Su-17 was correct to omit it?
Why did the Su-25 lack the SEAD capabilities of the Su-17?
What makes the Sorbtsiya carried by the Su-27 more effective than the Gardeniya on the MiG-29?

Sukhoi memoirs always seem "managed" to me - more interested in sticking to a marketing script, than actually answering any meaningful questions.  I can't forget that these are the same people, who now tell us about "plasma stealth..."  and that the F-22 has "0.3 sq.m." RCS...   ::)

Offline Pit

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Confidential
  • **
  • Posts: 145
Re: MiG-29 Avionics
« Reply #14 on: September 01, 2006, 03:56:19 pm »
Dilbert, are not L-005S based in an altogether much more advanced technology that L-203BI?

AFAIK, and I have received some confirmation of this (althorugh from no Russian source but a good source anyway), they use Cross-Polarisation Deception Jamming (Cross-Eye), they can jam even 10 different radar emission (pulse, pulse doppler) at the same time (Gardeniya-1FUE in Su-27SK is limited to 2), contrary to Gardeniya, Sorbtsiya-S was considered not ready for export till 2001...it's cool and it can jam both front and rear hemisphery :D.

It was made to work along the "L-001 Smalta-SK" master ECM Pods, but those were never bought by the VVS :(

Check that Su-25TM uses an improved set (Omul, based on DRFM technology also used by MSP-418K from the Kedr EW Suite), first tested in 1998.

Su-25 used old and capable (and combat tested by long time) SPS-141MVG/MVG-E :)

Offline Dilbert

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Confidential
  • **
  • Posts: 81
Re: MiG-29 Avionics
« Reply #15 on: September 02, 2006, 03:23:29 pm »
Dilbert, are not L-005S based in an altogether much more advanced technology that L-203BI?

The only difference that I'm aware of between Sorbtsiya and Gardeniya is that Sorbtsiya has a steerable-beam antenna (made partly out of balsa wood and styrofoam).

Quote
AFAIK, and I have received some confirmation of this (althorugh from no Russian source but a good source anyway), they use Cross-Polarisation Deception Jamming (Cross-Eye), they can jam even 10 different radar emission (pulse, pulse doppler) at the same time (Gardeniya-1FUE in Su-27SK is limited to 2), contrary to Gardeniya, Sorbtsiya-S was considered not ready for export till 2001...it's cool and it can jam both front and rear hemisphery :D.

If Sorbtsiya was capable of cross-pole or cross-eye, they would be advertising cross-pole or cross-eye, instead of "terrain bounce."  I'm not sure how to interpret the rest - Gardeniya is also a 360-degree system, I don't know what "cool" means, and anyone with cable TV will surely be aware that it's easy to have hundreds of channels, and still nothing but crap on any of them.

Quote
Check that Su-25TM uses an improved set (Omul, based on DRFM technology also used by MSP-418K from the Kedr EW Suite), first tested in 1998.

Does it advertise any actual new capability against the Patriot SAM?  Or, they're just selling the same old stuff, using fashionable new digital circuits instead of analog?

Note that Su-25TM was displayed carrying Kh-31A/P as well, and that turned out to be a fantasy also.

Quote
Su-25 used old and capable (and combat tested by long time) SPS-141MVG/MVG-E :)

"...according to Sukhoi," as usual.  Of course, you'll never see a photo of it, because the engineers decided to wire only the mid-wing Su-25 hardpoint for it, making it practically impossible to take off on a combat mission due to unbalanced weight and drag.

It's just the same old story from the cancelled Mietch radar for the Su-27, or the cancelled L-001 for anither example.  Sukhoi simply doesn't know how to co-operate with electronics companies - they do aerodynamics, and everybody else can go to hell.   ;)

Offline Pit

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Confidential
  • **
  • Posts: 145
Re: MiG-29 Avionics
« Reply #16 on: September 02, 2006, 04:19:48 pm »
Dilbert there is some information on Su-25K's SPS-141MVG-E installation from Eastern Europe:



SPS-141MVG-E panel on Su-25K, photo by MrDetonator.

You can ask him if the thing was ever put on the plane or not.

Combat performance was tested on Iraq.

About DRFM, you can check their page:

www.cnirti.ru

Offline Dilbert

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Confidential
  • **
  • Posts: 81
Re: MiG-29 Avionics
« Reply #17 on: September 03, 2006, 01:51:35 pm »
About DRFM, you can check their page:

www.cnirti.ru

Interesting...  It claims that Gardeniya has terrain-bounce capability, just like Sorbtsiya.   :o

Note that the Su-27K also "bravely" omitted the MiG-29K's compatibility with the AA-12 because, "it was crap" - which they immediately proceeded to mount on every Sukhoi aircraft developed since, right through to include ground-pounders.  The Su-34's array radar was rejected by the Russian Air Force because the Su-27KUB's Zhuk (again, borrowed from the MiG-29K/M) proved so vastly superior.  The examples go on and on...  At this point, I wouldn't trust Sukhoi if they told us that the sky was blue.

Offline Pit

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Confidential
  • **
  • Posts: 145
Re: MiG-29 Avionics
« Reply #18 on: September 03, 2006, 01:59:21 pm »
Hey Dilb, maybe we can move this discussion to other topic?

I'm interested on your remarks on some soviet/russian ECM systems, and also on Su-27IB's new radar (I know B-004 was rejected but not that such decission was take on the basis of Zhuk-MSE R&D works)...

Do you agree?

Offline Vadifon

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Confidential
  • **
  • Posts: 29
Re: MiG-29 Avionics
« Reply #19 on: September 04, 2006, 05:59:37 am »
Возможности "Гардении 1ФУ":
Работа в азимуте +/-60° (в ППС и ЗПС), по углу места +/-30°.
Виды помех:
-высокочастотные шумовые
-низкочастотные доплеровские шумовые
-мерцающие
-программа из нескольких типов помех по заранее известным РЭС (РГС).
Работа станции оказывает негативное влияние на БРЛС и СПО.

Offline PaulMM (Overscan)

  • Secret Projects Forum Founder
  • Administrator
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • *****
  • Posts: 10799
  • Paul Martell-Mead
    • Secret Projects
Re: MiG-29 Avionics
« Reply #20 on: September 04, 2006, 06:48:40 am »
Terrain Bounce was a feature of the SPS-141MVG , so its hardly surprising that its a feature of Gardeniya too.
"They can't see our arses for dust."
 
- Sir Sydney Camm

Offline Dilbert

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Confidential
  • **
  • Posts: 81
Re: MiG-29 Avionics
« Reply #21 on: September 04, 2006, 07:38:26 am »
I would have thought that to specifically advertise terrain bounce would require a steerable directive antenna, which I thought only Sorbtsiya had.  Otherwise, any ECM is capable of terrain bounce - just fly low.

Maybe next, the advertisements will start telling us which aircraft feature a shadow.   ;)

Offline Vadifon

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Confidential
  • **
  • Posts: 29
Re: MiG-29 Avionics
« Reply #22 on: September 04, 2006, 09:05:09 am »
дополнение:
в отличии от "Гардении 1ФУЭ" (Су-27СК), "Гардения 1ФУ (Миг-29) имеет меньшую номенклатуру помех и работает только по одной произвольно выбранной РЭС(ответная помеха).
« Last Edit: September 04, 2006, 09:09:24 am by Vadifon »

Offline loco

  • CLEARANCE: Restricted
  • Posts: 7
Re: MiG-29 Avionics
« Reply #23 on: September 23, 2006, 09:18:24 am »
thanks to all for the info  8)

the next question i have, is about
how does actually the datalink is transmitted between the Mig-29 and the R-77?
for some people the datalink signal is embeded within the radar electro-magnetic pulses (meaning, the actual radar antennae is the one transmitting)
to me, it is transmitted using a separate antennae array, such as the Epaulet (for example) or similar
i've been looking all over the net and found nothing about  :'(
thanks to all

da loco.
« Last Edit: September 23, 2006, 09:20:54 am by loco »

Offline PaulMM (Overscan)

  • Secret Projects Forum Founder
  • Administrator
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • *****
  • Posts: 10799
  • Paul Martell-Mead
    • Secret Projects
Re: MiG-29 Avionics
« Reply #24 on: November 20, 2006, 10:50:50 am »
Pending new material, I'm reposting stuff from my old webpage.

N019 / Rubin / RPLK-29 / S-29 / Sapfir-29
NATO: "Slot Back"
OKB: Phazotron NIIR


N019 radar on bench

Based on the work undertaken by NPO Istok on the experimental Soyuz radar program, Phazotron NIIR were tasked in the mid 70s with producing a modern radar for the MiG-29. Originally intended to have a planar array antenna and digital signal processing, and a range of at least 100km against a fighter target, it soon became clear that this would not be achievable, at least not in a radar that would fit in the MiG-29's nose.


N019EA radar mounted on export MiG-29

Phazotron NIIR reverted to a version of the twist cassegrain antenna used successfully on the Sapfir-23ML, and analogue signal processor technologies similar to their earlier designs, with a NII Argon- designed Ts100 digital computer.


N019 block diagram

The N019 radar weighs around 385kg in total. It is a pulse-doppler radar operating in X band around 3cm wavelength. It uses three basic operating regimes. High PRF radar mode for optimal detection of closing targets, medium PRF mode for optimal detection of receding targets, and an interleaved high/medium PRF mode for all aspect detection. It uses a guard channel for sidelobe suppression. SARH Illumination and main channels use different frequencies within the X band, and are multiplexed in time. Individual aircraft can be preset on the ground to different frequencies to avoid mutual interference during group operations.


N019 Master oscillator

Scanning cycle times are 2.5-5 seconds depending on mode.

Beam width is 3.5º, which determines the minimum separation of two targets in azimuth.

The radar beam is stabilised up to 120º in roll and +40º/-30º in pitch.


N019 Transmitter

N019 is a hybrid analogue/digital design, with an NII Argon Ts100 digital processing unit. The Ts100 processor can achieve 170,000 operations per second, has 8K RAM and 136k ROM, and is built using medium scale integration ICs.


N019 Ts100 processor

It is based on the proprietary POISK architecture developed at NII Argon, which allows adapting of the instruction set to control system functions, by expanding the basic instruction set with microcodes inherent in specific tasks. Compared to machines using the same elements but a generic instruction set (e.g. the ES EVM architecture Argon-15A of the MiG-31) processing capability was enhanced by 1.5 to 2.5 times and the code 3 to 5 times more compact, making Ts100 much cheaper to produce. The Ts100 computer weighs 32 kg.


N019 Microwave receiver

Radar Modes (Description from N-019EB export variant manual)

Radar scan limits in azimuth: ±65º
Radar scan limits in elevation: +56º, -36º

Mode "V" (Vstryehchya) : Encounter

Encounter mode is the main search mode used in interception, as it gives the longest detection ranges and the least false returns.

It uses a High PRF mode which can detect closing targets only in the velocity range of 230 - 2500km/h at altitudes from 30m to 23,000m. The display is calibrated to a maximum range of 150km.

Target can be up to 10,000m above or 6,000m below the host aircraft's own altitude.

A typical 3 sq m RCS fighter target can be detected at 50-70 km and tracked at 40-60 km. If the target is flying below 3,000m reduces the detection range to 40-70 km and tracking range to 30-60km.

Two basic scan patterns are used.



When the system is under direct GCI control via datalink, a 6 bar elevation raster scan is used. This scan covers a sector of 40° in azimuth at ranges up to 30km, 30° at ranges of 30-55 km, and 20° above 55km within the scan limits given above. The distance to target and other useful information is supplied by GCI command, and the direction of the scan is automatically cued by CGI command towards the desired target.



When the system is not under direct GCI control via datalink, a 4 bar raster scan mode is used to acquire a target manually. This mode scans a constant 50° in azimuth, with the pilot controlling the direction of the scan. It is expected that the rough direction to the target will be given by ground control via voice commands.

There is no scan pattern for full azimuth range scanning. The 130º scan area is divided into 3 sectors. Left sector is -65º to -15º, centre sector covers -25º to +25º, right sector from +15º to +65º, giving overlapping coverage of the full 130º scan limits. Individual targets can be resolved providing they are separated in azimuth and 5-6km in range. Range measuring error of a single target can be as high as 8km, which should be recalled when comparing measured target range with that supplied by GCI controller.

Minimum measurable range in this mode is 5km.

Lockon and transition to tracking mode takes 2 to 7 seconds in Encounter mode.

Note that in Encounter mode, a target that changes direction to a tail-on engagement may be be lost even when in tracking mode, if it is no longer closing.

Mode "D" (Dogon): Pursuit



A medium PRF mode usable for both headon and tailchase engagements. In practise it is used only when necessary, as it is prone to displaying false targets from ground clutter especially at low altitudes. Marsh land, marshy forests and flood plains give greatest clutter problems. When multiple false returns are present, the pilot should compare visible targets with the calculated target range supplied by datalink from GCI controller to determine the correct target.

Display is calibrated to a maximum range of 50km.

Detects targets from 30 m to 23,000 m altitude receding at speeds of 210 - 2200 km/h.

Target can be up to 10,000m above or 6,000m below.

Range against a typical 3 sq m RCS fighter target is 25-35km search and 20-35km tracking when host aircraft is flying above 3000m. When flying from 1000m to 3000m altitude, range is reduced to 20-35km search and 18-35km track. When flying at 500-1000m achievable range is just 15-30km search and 13-25km tracking.

When target range is below 20km, scan coverage is 40º in azimuth, 16.5º in elevation.



If target range is above 20km, scan coverage is 30º in azimuth, 13.5º in elevation.




Individual targets can be resolved providing they are separated 3-4km in range in Pursuit mode.

Errors in range measurement can be as high as 8km, but there is no minimum range.

Lockon and transition to tracking mode takes 1-4 seconds in Pursuit mode.

When "Cooperation" mode is selected, the radar is automatically switched to an equivalent mode to pursuit, scanning with the IRST.

Mode "SP" (Svobodnoye Prostranstvo) Free Search

According to Russian pilots this mode was only found on early production Russian MiG-29s. It was a search mode, and was removed on later production batches. It was not present on any export MiG-29s. The name suggests it might have been a non-lookdown mode, but this is speculation.

Mode "AVT" (Aootomaht) Automatic

Automatic mode uses a mixture of High and Medium PRF to give optimal all aspect detection. Each line of the scan is alternated between high and medium PRF, unless range is under 10km when only medium PRF is used.

It generates a display calibrated to a maximum range of 100km. Targets can be theoretically detected at similar ranges to Encounter and Pursuit modes according to targets direction of movement..

In Automatic mode tracking of a target should continue regardless of target direction provided rate of closure/opening is sufficiently high.

It is considered by pilots to be quite problematic, overloading the data computer and generating numerous false returns. It is primarily intended for use when lacking information from the ground station concerning the target's direction.

Track-while-flyby submode is not available in AVT mode. AVT mode provides the same functionality automatically.

"SNP" (Soprovazhdenie Na Prokhode) Track-While-Flyby mode

Track-While-Flyby submode can be set in Encounter or Pursuit modes only.

Track-while-flyby mode allows the simultaneous tracking of up to 10 targets, measuring their angular position, range and rate of closure. The target with the highest rate of closure/range ratio is designated the most dangerous, and automatically marked on the display. The pilot can override the automatic selection if he decides on another target. After switching to track-while-flyby mode it is not clear if the radar continues volume scanning, and it may be that only the (up to 10) tracked targets are followed. Track-while-flyby mode will automatically follow the target marked most dangerous (automatically or by pilot override) in elevation, within the elevation limits of the radar, without pilot intervention.

The TSVM computer calculates missile launch parameters for the most dangerous target. As the range to target approaches the calculated maximum missile launch range, the radar will stop scanning for targets and transition to an 8º by 40º box pattern scan in the direction of the designated target. If the target is located, the radar will transition to single target tracking mode, and all other contacts are discarded. If no target is found within 3 cycles, the radar returns to scanning mode.

Track-while-flyby mode is intended to allow missile launch at maximum range with minimal warning to the target, by switching to true single target tracking mode as late as possible.

Mode "BL BOY" (Bleezhniy Boy) Close Combat



Close Combat mode overrides all other modes. It uses a + 37º/ -13º fixed directly ahead vertical scan that is 6º wide (2 scan lines) with a 2.5 sec scan cycle and provides semiautomatic target acquisition. The closest target present in the scan area will be locked when pressing the lockon button without having to designate it.

Close Combat mode can lockon from 450 m to 10km in range, and track a locked on target down to 250m.

It is not slewable, but fixed straight ahead only. Targets can be tracked in a closure rate range from +300 meters/second to -500 meters/second including co-speed targets.

Lockon and transition to tracking mode takes 1-2 seconds in Close Combat mode.

N019 is the USSR standard model.

N019EA is the version supplied to Warsaw Pact countries. Lacks "SP" mode.

N019EB is an export variant for general export. More downgraded. Less capable TS100.02.06 digital processor. Also lacks "SP" mode.

N019M is an updated version, developed as a response to the compromise of the N-019 radar by a US spy. Tested from 1986, it entered limited production in 1991. Slightly lighter than the N-019 at 350kg. N019 has increased ECM resistance, new software, and a more advanced built-in monitoring system. A new Ts101M computer relieves the processor overload problems of the N019, more than doubling capacity to 400,000 operations per second whilst weighing less, just 19kg, and with doubled MTBF of 1000h compared to the 500h of the Ts100. N019M allows two targets to be engaged by active radar homing missiles simultaneously. Range increased slightly to 80km. Originally intended to be fitted to the existing MiG-29 fleet as an upgrade, about 22 aircraft with N019M are thought to have entered service with the VVS.

N019ME Topaz Export version of Topaz, slightly downgraded. All Indian MiG-29s have been upgraded to this standard.

N019MP is a further modified radar proposed by Phazotron for the MiG-29SMT program. It used a Baguet series processor. The maximum range remained the about the same, but the radar could detect 20 targets simultaneously, track four, and engage two. The radar had also basic air-to-ground functions, like ground mapping mode, acquisition and engagement of sea targets with radar homing missiles, and ground targets with unguided weaponry under any weather conditions, day and night. The NO19MP could generate maps of 15x15, 24x24, 50x50 or 77x77km with a resolution of 15m. Radar imagery could be transmitted via datalink to GCI centres or A-50 AWACS aircraft. Targets visible on the radar map could be designated by the pilot(using a joystick) or ground controller, and used to cue TV-guided missile seekers, whose higher resolution imagery can then be displayed or transmitted to the GCI or A-50 controller as well. Performance against slow flying helicopters was improved as well as resistance to jamming. Uses Doppler beam sharpening techniques. Now superceded by N019M1.

N019M1 This latest radar upgrade proposal from Phazotron retains the antenna and transmitter block assemblies but replaces pretty much all the rest of the radar. It introduces new fully programmable digital processing, giving 30-50% greater range in air-to-air search and track. Improved track-while-scan mode, with the ability to continue volume search for new targets while tracking 10. 4 targets can engaged at once with R-77 missiles. 4 different close combat modes are available. Has raid assessment mode, and target class recognition. Air to surface modes include Real beam, DBS, SAR (5x5m), and moving target detection. Can handoff target data to the Kh-31A/Kh-35A anti-shipping missiles. Allows target handoff to TV guided weapons. Collision alarm system. It is being touted as a low cost upgrade for existing MiG-29 operators.

Phazotron-Ukraine are offering a UM522 low noise reciever to replace the NO19-09 UHF receiver. This low cost drop-in replacement part increases range 10-20%.
« Last Edit: November 20, 2006, 11:11:13 am by overscan »
"They can't see our arses for dust."
 
- Sir Sydney Camm

Offline PiBu

  • CLEARANCE: Restricted
  • Posts: 2
Re: MiG-29 Avionics
« Reply #25 on: December 08, 2006, 12:13:53 am »
dilbert said:
Quote
Su-25 used old and capable (and combat tested by long time) SPS-141MVG/MVG-E 


"...according to Sukhoi," as usual.  Of course, you'll never see a photo of it, because the engineers decided to wire only the mid-wing Su-25 hardpoint for it, making it practically impossible to take off on a combat mission due to unbalanced weight and drag.


Here is the picture of the SPS-141 on Su-25. Note, this was made in usual unit during usual flight day and not at an air show.

« Last Edit: December 08, 2006, 05:23:22 am by overscan »

Offline mrdetonator

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 215
Re: MiG-29 Avionics
« Reply #26 on: December 08, 2006, 04:03:58 am »
"...according to Sukhoi," as usual.  Of course, you'll never see a photo of it, because the engineers decided to wire only the mid-wing Su-25 hardpoint for it, making it practically impossible to take off on a combat mission due to unbalanced weight and drag.
Pibu you can not be serious, that a soviet engineer would design something without a practical use. What a joke is that?  ;D :D ;) The Su-25 can maintain a straight forward flight without banking in the whole flight envelope with following asymmetrical loads.
1. up to 320kg on wing hardpoints 2 or 10
2. up to 380kg on wing hardpoints 3 or 9
3. up to 500kg on wing hardpoints 4 or 8
This has been achieved by using trim tabs located on all control surfaces, especially on the ailerons. The pilot can then easily trim the aircraft to neutral. The SPS-141 weights with cabling only 180kg,  therefore I do not see any problem to take-off, fly and land the aircraft. Placing the SPS-141 to the wing hardpoint no.3  has also some reasons (e.g. ECM antenna radiation patterns). At last the drag is the last factor the su-25 should worry about. The Su-25 is a flying tank and remember tanks don`t rely on aerodynamics. ;)
« Last Edit: December 08, 2006, 04:06:54 am by mrdetonator »

Offline PaulMM (Overscan)

  • Secret Projects Forum Founder
  • Administrator
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • *****
  • Posts: 10799
  • Paul Martell-Mead
    • Secret Projects
Re: MiG-29 Avionics
« Reply #27 on: December 08, 2006, 05:22:38 am »
PiBu was quoting Dilbert I believe. I modified his post to make it clearer.
"They can't see our arses for dust."
 
- Sir Sydney Camm

Offline PiBu

  • CLEARANCE: Restricted
  • Posts: 2
Re: MiG-29 Avionics
« Reply #28 on: December 08, 2006, 07:04:25 am »
PiBu was quoting Dilbert I believe. I modified his post to make it clearer.

You're right, Overscan. Thanks for modifing my post.

Offline mrdetonator

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 215
Re: MiG-29 Avionics
« Reply #29 on: December 08, 2006, 08:19:49 am »
PiBu was quoting Dilbert I believe. I modified his post to make it clearer.

You're right, Overscan. Thanks for modifing my post.
What a misunderstanding, somehow I felt I was responding to wrong person. I`m sorry PiBu, you wouldn`t say that nonsense.
« Last Edit: January 01, 2007, 05:52:44 pm by mrdetonator »

Offline Dilbert

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Confidential
  • **
  • Posts: 81
Re: MiG-29 Avionics
« Reply #30 on: January 01, 2007, 05:48:45 pm »
PiBu - welcome, and thanks for sharing such a rare photo!  Not to go far off-topic, can you briefly comment whether that Su-25 was still able to carry, aim and drop bombs at the same time while it was carrying that pod?  My documentation indicates that it's an exclusive payload.
« Last Edit: January 03, 2007, 05:40:40 am by Dilbert »

Offline shkval

  • CLEARANCE: Confidential
  • *
  • Posts: 21
Re: MiG-29 Avionics
« Reply #31 on: March 09, 2007, 06:56:16 pm »
N019M1 is the last variety of the N019 radar family.But there is few info on this radar,I've never heard that the radar has fitted on any aircraft.I want to know that had any N019M1 been made and used on any aircraft ????Could somebody tell me this?TIA! :)

Offline Miguel Aresta

  • CLEARANCE: Restricted
  • Posts: 2
  • I really should change my personal text
Re: MiG-29 Avionics
« Reply #32 on: June 26, 2014, 06:35:51 am »
Greetings to everyone!I've just signed up in the forum because  I research a lot about aviation topics,I'm especially interested in Soviet aircraft and their avionics,since there's a lot of people here with similar interests it's always good to exchange ideas and make some doubts vanish..
Does anyone have a photo on the "mysterious"  Soyuz radar ? The one from the Soyuz programme headed by NPO Istok ..
Also,is it true that the MiG-29's RLPK-29 has overloading problems in some modes (which?SNP?) ,does it has to do with the Ts-100 ? According to the SUV-29E manual there are other computers involved in the system but the Ts-100 seems to be the radar signal processor indeed.
Does the Su-27 also have these problems? It would be nice to open a topic on the Flanker's avionics
Thanks

Offline LukaszK

  • CLEARANCE: Restricted
  • Posts: 6
  • I really should change my personal text
Re: MiG-29 Avionics
« Reply #33 on: May 14, 2018, 10:01:47 am »
Greetings Everyone!

This page share my long interests in aviation and especially avionics.
It is source of valuable information for me for years.
From this point - I want to thank for that. Especially thanks for Overscann - (starting from his original page for Russian avionics).

But it is first time I post here. I logged here especially to share some file I found some time ago. This is some lectures related to Russian avionics system.
One of them is related to Mig-29 radar (there are also some words related to N-001, but as we all know - there share many components in in many respects are identical).

Lectures are in Ukrainian language. It is similar to Russian, but differs in many respects.

Ok,  here is link to ppt for RLPK-29 (radar of Mig)
https://studfiles.net/preview/5383872/

For whole lectures see https://studfiles.net/nau/145/folder:11012/#5383849
Find module: военка
and there modules :модуль 1, 2, 3

Lot of interesting stuff there like radio, radio links, radio - directional finers (it means ARK-19,22 etc) and similar stuff.
This is of course lectures, but many details avaiable.

Some facts from lectures (that I understood), about radar of Mig-29:

1) It can not be said that this is purely analog design. It is controlled by computer, but also it signal processing include digital processing.

Comment: Is seems natural, as processing of signal with intermediate repetition frequency is very difficult , if even possible in analog manner.
That is why the reason why Hugues win over Westinghouse for radar for F-15 (more sophisticated processing). And also why APG-9, pure analog design can work only in high repetition frequency mode
that has limited applicability over land in rear hemisphere
   
2)  For tracking (SST mode)- there are  completely different  circuits, but finally tracking could be done with great precision (probably) even in high repetition frequency mode

3) Guard channel (called here - compensation channel) - seems to be triggered manually. It was somehow unexpected to me. It uses some resources of  radar (digital filters) - so probably it results in slighty degradation of performance.
4) TWS mode - it seems to not use mono-pulse method for measuring angles of target.
Comment: According to I read (it might be not correct)- TWS in western radars is called as plot tracking with using mono-pulse angle measuring. But I do not find any description of western radar to compare.
It seems that there is no time to make additional two scans (vertical , horizontal) - as object within beam (beam 3.5 degree, scanning rate about 57 degrees / s or about 70 - so only 60ms over target, with radar cycle 10ms. And all processing have to be done in that time (It means 3 scanning for High PRF, and several scanning with different PRF for Med PRF, simple no time for monopulse filtering)
In RLPK TWS in this radar is based on plots, refresh rate is about 3.6 sec (depending on scanning mode) - so generally is not very.
Anyway - as we know in Mig-29 all that information is not exploited very clever - maybe only to find the top priority target and switch automatically to SST
(in Su-27 it is better exploited, at least positions, headings and altitude is encoded in target symbol)

5) command for R-27 are passed in 3 state code  (like binary, but with 3 not 2 state)

And many others...


Offline PaulMM (Overscan)

  • Secret Projects Forum Founder
  • Administrator
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • *****
  • Posts: 10799
  • Paul Martell-Mead
    • Secret Projects
Re: MiG-29 Avionics
« Reply #34 on: May 14, 2018, 01:06:38 pm »
Interesting - will have to post English translations!
"They can't see our arses for dust."
 
- Sir Sydney Camm

Offline LukaszK

  • CLEARANCE: Restricted
  • Posts: 6
  • I really should change my personal text
Re: MiG-29 Avionics
« Reply #35 on: May 14, 2018, 03:04:58 pm »
I will provide translations to English when  I have some free time. Maybe some first slides tomorrow.

Offline PaulMM (Overscan)

  • Secret Projects Forum Founder
  • Administrator
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • *****
  • Posts: 10799
  • Paul Martell-Mead
    • Secret Projects
Re: MiG-29 Avionics
« Reply #36 on: May 14, 2018, 06:02:10 pm »
Google Translate did a pretty good job of autotranslation, just a little fixup required.
"They can't see our arses for dust."
 
- Sir Sydney Camm

Offline LukaszK

  • CLEARANCE: Restricted
  • Posts: 6
  • I really should change my personal text
Re: MiG-29 Avionics
« Reply #37 on: May 15, 2018, 09:44:51 am »
So first important slides..

Slide 4
General characteristics of RLPK  Designation, composition and TTX complex
Destination of  RLPK 27 and RLPK-29
1. Search, Detection, Coarse Coordinate Measurement, and Definition of State Belonging (IFF)
2. Support "on the pass" (SNP) to 10 goals, their ranking on the predicted time of meeting with the goal, the issuance of recommendations for selecting the target for the attack.
(Comment: SNP -> track while scan)
3. Tracking of one target with precisely determining of coordinates, sufficient for: targeting of homing missiles, and their preparation for launch.
4. Calculation of the launch zone, issuing a command to start, illuminating the target. formation and transmission of radio correction commands.
5 Exit the attack.

Composition of the RLPC:
pulsed Doppler radar H-001 or H-019;
Specialized ЦОМОМ (computer) Ц100 with the input-output device Н001-35.

Slide 5

The main units are RLPK-29

H019-01 - Antenna-wave system.
Н019-11 - antenna control and synchronization control unit.
H019-02 - Transmitter
Н001-22М - a set generator. (comment: waveform generator
H019-09 - High Frequency Receiver.
H019-03 - receiver.
H001-25 - information conversion unit.
Н001-35 - I / O block.
Н001-45 - communication block with the CEI. (SEI -it means integrated system of display)
 Н019-05 - ЦЕОМ Ц-100.02.01.
 Н019-60 - antenna-feeder device pylon.
(Comment: probably device to provide signal to R-27R misile)
 Н019-18 - block of transformation of one-time commands.

RLPK interacts with OEPRNK (IR passive targeting -: KOLS), CEI, on-board equipment of command radio transmission lines for guidance (datalink), requesting system of state recognition (IFF), with onboard electronic equipment

Offline LukaszK

  • CLEARANCE: Restricted
  • Posts: 6
  • I really should change my personal text
Re: MiG-29 Avionics
« Reply #38 on: May 15, 2018, 02:19:27 pm »
Well... translating all this will take me some time...
I stuck on tables - as there is no option to
paste them here... Maybe there is possible to translate the document in ppt form and then share somehow?

To put sth in topic... as reference I put block diagram I found some time ago.  It refers to N-001 but at least on the "block level"
both radar seems to be very similar...

Please note that N-001 uses slightly different computer:
C-100-03-03 insted -02-02.


Offline PaulMM (Overscan)

  • Secret Projects Forum Founder
  • Administrator
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • *****
  • Posts: 10799
  • Paul Martell-Mead
    • Secret Projects
Re: MiG-29 Avionics
« Reply #39 on: May 15, 2018, 03:13:36 pm »
I'll do a machine translation and post it here. Save you some time :)
"They can't see our arses for dust."
 
- Sir Sydney Camm

Offline LukaszK

  • CLEARANCE: Restricted
  • Posts: 6
  • I really should change my personal text
Re: MiG-29 Avionics
« Reply #40 on: May 16, 2018, 09:58:36 pm »
If you manage to use Google translate that is definitely better. My experience with translation of the whole document was moderate. But this is for sure faster.


Offline PaulMM (Overscan)

  • Secret Projects Forum Founder
  • Administrator
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • *****
  • Posts: 10799
  • Paul Martell-Mead
    • Secret Projects
Re: MiG-29 Avionics
« Reply #41 on: May 17, 2018, 04:10:25 am »
Here's the work in progress
"They can't see our arses for dust."
 
- Sir Sydney Camm

Offline LukaszK

  • CLEARANCE: Restricted
  • Posts: 6
  • I really should change my personal text
Re: MiG-29 Avionics
« Reply #42 on: May 18, 2018, 06:20:01 am »
Great results Overscan!
One remark according to page I put link, (Maybe it is obvious, If yes - sorry for such low level of remark ;-) )
It is possible to download ppt file . In preview of file on that page - formatting of all diagrams in ppt is not correct.
Personally I download all content of those lectures  B)

Offline stealthflanker

  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 201
Re: MiG-29 Avionics
« Reply #43 on: May 19, 2018, 11:46:42 pm »
Interesting. so the N019 has 6.5 kW instead of 4 kW of peak power. and 960 doppler filters. It also interesting to see the detection and tracking criteria being related to probability (detection is 0.5/50% while tracking is 90%)

Great find LukaszK and nice translation Overscan.

Offline PaulMM (Overscan)

  • Secret Projects Forum Founder
  • Administrator
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • *****
  • Posts: 10799
  • Paul Martell-Mead
    • Secret Projects
Re: MiG-29 Avionics
« Reply #44 on: May 20, 2018, 05:21:31 am »
Yes, I'm using the PPT version. I will upload the PPT version if you want to correct it :)

Having done machine translation before on this very subject, I know some of the trickier terms and can tidy up the translation somewhat.
"They can't see our arses for dust."
 
- Sir Sydney Camm

Offline Zeka_Peka

  • CLEARANCE: Restricted
  • Posts: 2
  • I really should change my personal text
Re: MiG-29 Avionics
« Reply #45 on: October 31, 2018, 06:47:09 pm »
Hi there,

I have some dumb situation to solve.

I come from another forum. We debate the performance of MiG-29 radar. I am generally satisfied with the level of understanding several other members debating this issue display, and yes, we have the manual. Back in my days I had no problem with the manual, yes it demands some knowledge prior to reading, but nothing too demanding.

Currently we are having an exchange with some troll, who claims that MiG-29 radar after launching R-27R performs both scanning (search) of airspace for other targets while guiding R-27R on attacked one. As crazy as it sounds, but picture this - manual never says explicitly that radar lock have to be maintained until missile impact and that while that lock is maintained all other targets disappear (writers believe we already know that). Further manual is rather liberal in using terms such as "lock", tracking, automatic tracking, etc and *very liberal* in using word "regime" (eng. "mod") they describe a wide array of terms from real, selectable mods like "V" or "D" to some sub operations which system performs "behind the scene" i.e. invisible to the pilot and not shown anywhere like "mod" DNP. Add to this a host of people who are unsure what to believe and it is a perfect stage for an ambitious troll to do all kinds of logical and linguistic aerobatics. At one moment he used some data from "overscan's" avionics to support his claims which led me here.

I know the first thing you might say is that we are on poorly moderated forum - no doubts about that. I am sure "our" troll wouldn't last 24h here.

However things are, as they are, so I ask if there's any assistance you are able to provide? If not, a clear statement from Paul (Overscan) that such thing is impossible could also be of some help.

We have mostly used as "ammunition" "HUD" pictures from the manual and also "HUD" shots from some youtube videos. Cretin stated that HUD and HDD (IPV) show different pictures i.e. (while target is locked on HUD, radar searches on HDD  :-X ;D  :o)

Thanks




Offline PaulMM (Overscan)

  • Secret Projects Forum Founder
  • Administrator
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • *****
  • Posts: 10799
  • Paul Martell-Mead
    • Secret Projects
Re: MiG-29 Avionics
« Reply #46 on: November 02, 2018, 05:33:20 am »
It can't be done.

The technical training documents posted on the last page (https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=102.0;attach=598409) clearly distinguish between:

1) Finding, detecting and determining the coordinates of targets, maintenance "on the pass" up to 10 targets with the continuation of air space search.
2) Continuous tracking of one target with accurate measurement of its coordinates without overview of the air space.
3) Discrete-continuous illumination of the attacked target with the formation and transmission of radio correction commands.

When you engage tracking mode, you designate the target (or it is autoselected for you), then the radar stops scanning for targets, and focuses purely on the single target.  The "on-the-pass" mode simply doesn't give enough detail quickly enough to accurately calculate launch parameters or formulate course correction commands for the R-27R missile.

Now, it's possible that the Ts100 processor could continue predict the other, non-tracked targets motion based on the last known direction and speed, but again the accuracy of these measurements in "on-the-pass" mode is quite low so it would probably not be terribly accurate. The only way to 100% disprove this would be testimony of a MiG-29 pilot or a video showing the radar in operation.  I don't think it's likely - I would expect tracking the target gives it quite enough to do for such a relatively crude computer.
« Last Edit: November 02, 2018, 05:37:08 am by PaulMM (Overscan) »
"They can't see our arses for dust."
 
- Sir Sydney Camm

Offline PaulMM (Overscan)

  • Secret Projects Forum Founder
  • Administrator
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • *****
  • Posts: 10799
  • Paul Martell-Mead
    • Secret Projects
Re: MiG-29 Avionics
« Reply #47 on: November 02, 2018, 05:47:30 am »
  • Search, Detection, rough measurement of coordinates and determining the nationality of air targets during the inspection airspace.
  • Support "on the pass" (SNP) to 10 targets, their ranking on the predicted time of meeting with the target, the issuance of recommendations for selecting the target for the attack.
  • Tracking of one attacked target with precise definition of coordinates, aiming for her impression, targeting the heads of missiles and preparing them for launch.
  • Calculation of the launch zone , the issuance of a command to start, illuminating the target, formation and transmission of radio correction commands.
  • Exit the attack.






"They can't see our arses for dust."
 
- Sir Sydney Camm

Offline PaulMM (Overscan)

  • Secret Projects Forum Founder
  • Administrator
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • *****
  • Posts: 10799
  • Paul Martell-Mead
    • Secret Projects
Re: MiG-29 Avionics
« Reply #48 on: November 02, 2018, 05:55:16 am »
Maximum error in target range measurement in SNP  mode: ≤4 km.
Maximum error in measurement of range with tracking in DRB  mode ≤0.2 km
Maximum error in measurement of range in BMB (close combat mode) ≤0.05 km.
Maximum error in measurement of speed when tracked in DRB and BMB  modes ≤ 10 m / s.
Maximum error in determination of direction when tracked in DRB and BMB modes ≤0.25 °
"They can't see our arses for dust."
 
- Sir Sydney Camm

Offline PaulMM (Overscan)

  • Secret Projects Forum Founder
  • Administrator
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • *****
  • Posts: 10799
  • Paul Martell-Mead
    • Secret Projects
Re: MiG-29 Avionics
« Reply #49 on: November 02, 2018, 06:05:45 am »
- an overview of the airspace for the search and identification of air targets, the rough definition of their coordinates and parameters of motion and the establishment of state affiliation with the help of an airplane radar requestor;

- escort of the target chosen for attacking the target in range, direction (monopulse method) and speed with an accuracy that is sufficient for aiming and targeting conjugated systems;

- illumination of the target and the transfer of commands for radar correction to missiles from the CSG.

Additional modes:

- Accompanying the method "on the passage" of several identified goals.

- transition from airspace survey to target tracking with DRB;

- Accelerated search and target identification, targeting target channels in the BMB (VERTICAL mode).
« Last Edit: November 02, 2018, 06:09:05 am by PaulMM (Overscan) »
"They can't see our arses for dust."
 
- Sir Sydney Camm

Offline PaulMM (Overscan)

  • Secret Projects Forum Founder
  • Administrator
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • *****
  • Posts: 10799
  • Paul Martell-Mead
    • Secret Projects
Re: MiG-29 Avionics
« Reply #50 on: November 07, 2018, 12:47:20 am »
Does anyone have a photo on the "mysterious"  Soyuz radar ? The one from the Soyuz programme headed by NPO Istok ..

It appears so.

https://lt.cjdby.net/forum.php?mod=viewthread&tid=2464223&extra=page%3D2%26filter%3Dtypeid%26typeid%3D156

Quote
80 years of the Soviet Union was the best radar, but not the rank and file charges later NIIP meal or two, but Istok СИНТЕЗ series of radar, then When the radar is successfully developed, it can be said that the above two streets are smashed!
 
The radar sample and the photos of the experiment at that time, the general situation of the aircraft modified with Figure-128 is that the Soviet airborne radar development was monopolized by Fazoton and NIIP, similar to the current 14 and the thunder and lightning yard pattern, NPO Istok provided them with microwave devices, but in the mid-1970s, with the support of Shaojin, the father of the Soviet microelectronics industry, Istok cooperated with the Pennant Design Bureau, which developed the missile seeker at that time, to ?Союз – Синтез Name the development of a new type of airborne radar (Shao Jin was very dissatisfied with the Soviet Union 's rigid system at the time, leading to the backwardness of Soviet electronic technology, encouraging innovation, so they dared to engage in this plan ). The radar project started in the mid-1970s, which is the "Myech" airborne radar project in the Su-27 project, because the lag of that project caused Simonov to overthrow the early design and restarted. Decided to encourage innovation and start a new generation of airborne radar. The most classic product they developed successfully was СИНТЕЗ-10, probably in the mid-1970s. In the process of developing this airborne radar, Istok used its own technological advantages to create “multi-beam” transparency in the world. Technology such as traveling wave tube, ultra-low noise small electrostatic discharger and three-dimensional large-angle antenna hydraulic system. In the development of airborne radar, the first result in the Soviet Union was obtained: based on Soviet domestic components. The airborne radar with programmable digital signal processing function was developed. When the airborne radar was tested for flying, the trajectory processing method was used in the "target search" state to verify the calculated value of the target discovery distance. The target area of ​​the square meter is more than 200 kilometers away; the ground is real-time imaged with a synthetic aperture antenna with a resolution of 7 meters.

This radar code is "synthesis", which means the experimental synthetic aperture technology. The radar is designed and tested successfully in the 80s, but the radar itself is advanced in technology. Unfortunately, the radar is too advanced and exceeds the design requirements of the Soviet Air Force.(!? Really, the Soviet Air Force feels too advanced and a little uncomfortable), and more importantly, it touched the breasts of the two old big companies, and it’s not fun (like today’s domestic, halfway to kill a bite, Changhong) Also said that the airborne radar, 14 and the Thunder and Light Institute is not good.) Under the system at that time, it was put on the shelf and was blocked. Later, Istok was no longer involved in airborne radar. Later, Istok went to China to sell products and technology, which revealed this inside story, but at that time, the domestic cooperation with Fazoton did not happen.
 
According to the decision of the government military committee, Istok developed the development of airborne radar. The most sophisticated electronic products were developed and produced in the electronics industry's enterprises – airborne radar for the new generation of fighters.
       The "Синтез-10" airborne radar was successfully tested for the flight test.
       In the process of developing airborne radar, the world first created:
       - multi-note "transparent" traveling wave tube;
       - ultra-low noise small electrostatic discharger;
       - three-dimensional large-angle antenna hydraulic system, scanning speed 300 degrees / sec, acceleration 3000 degrees / second 2.
       In the "Синтез-10" airborne radar development process, the former Soviet Union for the first time and obtained the following results:
       - Component made entirely based on airborne radar developed with a programmable digital signal processing function;
       - the onboard When the radar is tested for flying, the trajectory processing method is adopted in the "target search" state, and the calculated value of the target discovery distance is confirmed. For the target with a reflection area of ​​5 square meters, the distance is more than 200 kilometers;
       - using the synthetic aperture antenna to the ground Real-time imaging was performed with a resolution of 7 meters.
The main combination of airborne synthetic aperture radar:
       - Antenna. The X-band flat slot single-pulse antenna uses a unique salt bath welding process. The antenna has a diameter of 960 mm, a thickness of 50 mm and a weight of 13 kg. The antenna gain is greater than 37.5 dB within 6% bandwidth, and the far side lobe rms value does not exceed -50 dB.
       - Transmitter. The modular multi-mode wideband transmitter uses a high-power multi-injection "transparent" traveling wave tube amplification chain with an output pulse power of 3.5 kW.
       - Signal preprocessor. The programmable signal preprocessor can perform 512-point fast Fourier transform in 340 microseconds with an instantaneous dynamic range of 90 dB and a sidelobe level of minus 60 dB.
       - Radar signal processor. The radar signal processor uses a single board machine with a processing speed of one million times per second.

Due to the high cost and complicated technology, the  Soviet high-level finally chose the old but lower cost N001, N019 as the configuration of su27 and MiG-29, N001 even after 2010, equipped with Russian SU30M2
"They can't see our arses for dust."
 
- Sir Sydney Camm

Offline PaulMM (Overscan)

  • Secret Projects Forum Founder
  • Administrator
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • *****
  • Posts: 10799
  • Paul Martell-Mead
    • Secret Projects
Re: MiG-29 Avionics
« Reply #51 on: November 07, 2018, 12:53:29 am »
Now, the NIIP version of this story is that the USSR simply could not produce reliably the planar array antenna for Myech at that time, which led to the Myech borrowing the N019 antenna as a stop gap. It seems likely that two major factors against Istok's radar would have been cost and difficulty of production.
"They can't see our arses for dust."
 
- Sir Sydney Camm

Offline stealthflanker

  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 201
Re: MiG-29 Avionics
« Reply #52 on: November 07, 2018, 04:57:36 am »
Great Job Paul, for finding the image.

I emailed GRPZ Ryazan, which supposedly manufactured the prototype for the same purpose but to no avail. but finally.  it's available.

again. excellent work. Thanks.

Offline Zeka_Peka

  • CLEARANCE: Restricted
  • Posts: 2
  • I really should change my personal text
Re: MiG-29 Avionics
« Reply #53 on: November 30, 2018, 11:54:49 pm »
Thanks  :)

SNP - the closest English equivalent is "escort while pass" - it gives rough position (up to 4 km error as you have said), but deals with closure dynamics - ie: If you have A-10 flying towards you at 500km/h at the distance of 22km and 5km after it B-1B flying at 1020km/h, system shall conclude B-1B shall "surpass" A-10 and shall recommend B-1B for locking up.

"Now, it's possible that the Ts100 processor could continue predict the other, non-tracked targets motion based on the last known direction and speed"

That's the feature of the Foxhunter, I would love very much if you can re-upload mode photos on its page.

 :)