Register here

Author Topic: MiG-31 Avionics  (Read 45982 times)

Online PaulMM (Overscan)

  • Secret Projects Forum Founder
  • Administrator
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • *****
  • Posts: 10888
  • Paul Martell-Mead
    • Secret Projects
MiG-31 Avionics
« on: March 15, 2006, 12:16:03 pm »
Thread to discuss MiG-31 Avionics.

Here's a pic showing the multicolour HUD... from Koku-Fan, October 1992.
« Last Edit: March 15, 2006, 12:19:02 pm by overscan »
"They can't see our arses for dust."
 
- Sir Sydney Camm

Offline Austin

  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 175
Re: MiG-31 Avionics
« Reply #1 on: March 16, 2006, 10:42:53 am »
I would  like to know the status of Mig-31 in RuAF fleet few questions regarding it are

1 ) How many Mig-31 in various variant exist in RuAF fleet

2 ) What kind of Modernisation did the Mig-31 go through , There were the M and BM program to give it a multi-role capability.

3 ) Is there any plan to replace the Zaslon-M with some other AESA variant or any other , The Zaslon-M in this age is not exactly state-of-the art

Online PaulMM (Overscan)

  • Secret Projects Forum Founder
  • Administrator
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • *****
  • Posts: 10888
  • Paul Martell-Mead
    • Secret Projects
Re: MiG-31 Avionics
« Reply #2 on: April 22, 2006, 08:19:42 am »
8TP/8TK IRST

Developed by a team lead by D M Khorol at Geofizika, starting in 1970.

The 8TP is installed in a retractable cylindrical housing, and uses liquid nitrogen cooling. Testing started in 1977, and was declared operational with the MiG-31 in 1981.

Scan angles of the 8TP are +-60 degrees in azimuth, +6/-13 degrees in elevation. Angular resolution is 15 minutes. Power consumption of the unit is 1.3kW, MTBF 350h, weight 124kg.

Range is about 40km against a rear aspect fighter target in military power, 100-120km against an SR-71 in full afterburner.
« Last Edit: April 23, 2006, 02:12:05 pm by overscan »
"They can't see our arses for dust."
 
- Sir Sydney Camm

Online PaulMM (Overscan)

  • Secret Projects Forum Founder
  • Administrator
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • *****
  • Posts: 10888
  • Paul Martell-Mead
    • Secret Projects
Re: MiG-31 Avionics
« Reply #3 on: April 23, 2006, 02:19:54 pm »
According to Valery Romanenko, who researched for Paul F Crickmore and interviewed ex MiG-31 pilot Mikhail Myagkiy, when flying anti SR-71 missions the IRST was the primary sensor. The radar would be set to combat frequencies but switched off, and the intercept would be flown using the IRST. The onboard computer could calculate range based on triangulation with "other onboard sensors".
"They can't see our arses for dust."
 
- Sir Sydney Camm

Online PaulMM (Overscan)

  • Secret Projects Forum Founder
  • Administrator
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • *****
  • Posts: 10888
  • Paul Martell-Mead
    • Secret Projects
Re: MiG-31 Avionics
« Reply #4 on: May 10, 2006, 01:18:51 pm »
Nice MiG-31 video

http://www.patricksaviation.com/aviation_videos/497/MiG-31

Has some new HUD and radar footage, not the same as the previous videos.
"They can't see our arses for dust."
 
- Sir Sydney Camm

Offline JCage

  • CLEARANCE: Confidential
  • *
  • Posts: 39
Re: MiG-31 Avionics
« Reply #5 on: May 19, 2006, 02:31:45 pm »
The Zaslon is often compared to the AWG-9 in terms of range and features.
Bar the phased array, the published figures seem to indicate that the AWG-9 was in fact superior, both in terms of range, modes, and Situational awareness ( 24 targets in TWS!)

I'll post a few excerpts about the former.

Offline JCage

  • CLEARANCE: Confidential
  • *
  • Posts: 39
Re: MiG-31 Avionics
« Reply #6 on: May 19, 2006, 07:36:39 pm »
PHASED- ARRAY RADARS: FACTS AND ILLUSIONS

AirFleet, 2002

Yuri Bely, Director, NIIP
Vladimir Zagorodny, Chief Designer, chief of a division, NIIP


It was an open secret that for the past quarter of the century the United
States has been working on active phased arrays to equip airborne radars to
be fitted to new-generation aircraft.
Various sources have been providing information on the status quo in this
field regularly enough, mentioning principle scientific and technical snags
hit in developing the primary element of the active phased array - the
transmit/receive module. In the long run, the module was supposed to feature
three main things to be given the nod, namely high electric characteristics,
minimal weight and dimensions and an affordable cost. Also reported were
high development costs and continuous lagging behind the schedule.
Nonetheless, having set many years ago the strategic goal, i.e. developing
an active phased-array radar for their future aircraft, the Americans have
stuck to it.
Some time later, European countries - France, Germany, the UK (the ones that
set up an APAR consortium) and Sweden - joined the race.
Mention should be made that all those concerned knew of the above programmes
full well but no one has expressed any concern until recently.
25 years of hard work of US scientists, designers and production engineers
could not but produce a result. Last year, the emergence of the first active
phased-array radar prototypes for the F-22 and F-35 fifth-generation
aircraft and their flight trials on flying testbeds were reported. The
reports shocked part of the Russian military industrial complex. Just two
years before, 'live' active phased-array radars were the matter of the hazy
future, and here you are - real active phased-array radars - rather than
mock-ups - equip warplanes and 'see' their targets.
A good reason for losing heart though! Today, the motto 'Go APAR!' is all
the rage. However, today, developing a Russian active phased-array radar is
no small beer at all.

It is high time to recall here the thirty-plus-year experience of the NIIP
Research Institute of Instrumentation named after V.V. Tikhomirov in
developing airborne passive phased-array radars (PPAR).
In 1968, the Tikhomirov-NIIP was tasked with developing the Zaslon fire
control system to equip the MiG-31 heavy interceptor. That unique system was
world-first to feature a passive phased array with the multiple-target
track-while-scan capability and the capability to guide long-range missiles
to four targets simultaneously.

In 1981, the Zaslon fire control system-equipped MiG-31 was fielded with the
interceptor fleet of the Air Defence Force. Even today - over 20 years
since - we cannot but recognise the novelty and courage of the technical
solution embodied in it both in terms of hardware and software.

Further upgrade of the system ensured a hefty increase in the lock-on and
engagement ranges totalling over 300 km and upwards of 240 km respectively.
The radar proved capable of tracking 24 targets at a time. "This is our
mini-AWACS," its developers would joke proudly. They were quite entitled to
be proud.


 ???

Naturally, NIIP chief designers wanted to use the passive phased-array radar
in developing future radars for lighter fighters like the Su-27. Alas, the
customer did not share their enthusiasm. The passive PAR's principal
drawbacks were believed to be its rather heavy weight and high cost.
Actually, as early as then those drawbacks decisive. A certain excessive
weight of the radar never scared the Designer General of the Sukhoi design
bureau. "We need a capable, 'smart' and dependable radar. As to the
excessive weight, we can handle this," Mikhail Simonov used to say. With the
passive phased-array radar in full-scale production, its cost was expected
to be affordable, which was later proved by the Zaslon's series production.
While developing airborne radars in the late '70s and early '80s, US and
European designers widely used planar slot arrays driven by three-stage
electric or electro-hydraulic actuators. The bad habit of copycatting the
Americans resulted in slot arrays for the Su-27's and MiG-29's radars
becoming all the rage. As a result, for over 20 years since the Zaslon
fielding (1981), no single aircraft fielded with the Russian Air Force has
carried an airborne electronic scanning radar.

It was only in the early '90s that many realised that 'single-purpose'
mechanically-scanned radars were a deadline with no future, since attacking
several targets in the track-while-scan mode is mostly publicity, a
promotional trick, rather than a reality, and could not be employed in
action in most of the cases.

At the same time, the Tikhomirov-NIIP started designing a drastically novel
passive phased-array radar featuring the so-called 'command-type' control
system ensuring a weight reduction and an electric characteristics
improvement. Despite the institute's dire financial standing, it still
manufactured and adjusted two prototypes of that passive PAR, with one of
them being installed in the Su-35 flying testbed (side number 712) as part
of the Bars radar. During the tests, the Bars' earlier variant, fitted with
a five-kilowatt transmitter, proved to be capable of acquiring Su-27
fighters at a range of over 330 km, tracking several targets while scanning
the airspace, identifying aerial targets, etc. Those achievements were
embodied in the latest version of the Bars airborne radar.

Mention should be made that latest passive PAR improvements have been
embodied in a most comprehensive manner in the Skat-M passive phased array
designed for the Osa radar. The array's flight tests are slated for the
later half of 2002. Thus, today Tikhomirov-NIIP is the only Russian defence
contractor capable of developing, manufacturing and operating electronic
scan radars.

The Ryazan Instrument Plant (Russian acronym - GRPZ) have mastered the
passive phased array production techniques in full. On the face of it, there
have appeared a feasible opportunity to quickly derive a radar for the
fifth-generation aircraft at first from the passive phased array mounted,
for instance, on a two-stage electro-hydraulic actuator. However, recently,
this variant have begun taking aggressive and unsubstantiated flak in
periodicals, dedicated publications and conferences on the part of certain
radar developers. What is most striking is the criticism is dished out by
specialists with no practical experience whatsoever in developing and
testing airborne passive phased-array radars. Their statements that an
active phased-array radar might have been built by as early as late 2002 are
bewildering, to say the least. Unbiased and comprehensive comparative
analysis of the passive and active phased arrays have never been made due to
complete lack of the technical characteristics of such an active phased
array. According to Tikhomirov-NIIP experts developing passive and active
phased arrays, today building an APAR with the use of the existing
componentry will result in such an APAR being too heavy, too expensive and
mediocre in terms of electric parameters.

With Tikhomirov-NIIP's work on active phased arrays being underway, the
company's strategic policy on the matter is very simple and easy to grasp.
It boils down to developing the so-called 'parity' active phased array
rivalling the best passive phased arrays by 2008-2010 through pooling Russia
's whole scientific and technological resources which could be useful in
resolving such a challenging problem.
At the same time, since active phased-array radars are expensive enough,
cash-strapped countries might be offered a passive phased-array radar
providing all advantages of electronic scanning at a far lower cost.
It is worth mentioning here that US and West European designers have yet to
resolve all problems inherent in active phased arrays, with the list of
remaining snags being large enough and deserving a separate article.
Development of a Russian active phased array radar is too complex a problem
for it to be resolved by a 'cavalry charge' - via unsubstantiated statements
and allegations. Different branches of science and industry have to pool
their efforts, with financial, technical and technological resources having
to be pooled as well. Tikhomirov-NIIP realise this full well and are ready
to accomplish the task they face.


---------------------------------------------------

Any ideas of which radar they are referring to when they mention those ranges and track 24?

Is it the Zaslon AM?




Offline JCage

  • CLEARANCE: Confidential
  • *
  • Posts: 39
Re: MiG-31 Avionics
« Reply #7 on: May 19, 2006, 07:45:14 pm »
Airfleet #9, 1999

MIG-31 ZASLON
By A.I. Fedotchenko


The late sixties:
The Cuban missile crisis is already history, however, the Vietnam war keeps
raging on - a major war characterised by the wide use of aviation. The
memories are still fresh of  downing the American U-2 Blackbird
reconnaissance plane travelling at Mach 3 over the Urals mountains - the
heartland of Russia. The Soviet Union had to find an adequate answer to the
threat posed by the US and NATO and, first of all, cover its northern border
from air attacks including cruise missile strikes. The situation caused the
development of a most efficient interceptor.
The thousand-odd kilometre border could not be effectively defended by the
then air defences and MiG-21 fighters. A new interceptor had to have long
legs to push the intercept range off as far as possible. It also had to
develop maximal airspeed and be able to win in aerial combat both against
single and multiple 'bandits'.
Even this brief outline of the situation in the second half of the sixties
indicates the Soviet Union had to design a radically new interceptor
aircraft.
Such an aircraft was designed and fielded in 1981 with the Aviation of the
Air Defence Forces.
The development of the S-155M interceptor aircraft was assigned to the
Mikoyan Aircraft Design Bureau, while the Tikhomirov Instrument-making
Research Institute (then known as Radio Industry Design Bureau) was tasked
with designing its guided weaponry.
In 1968, the programme was given green light by the resolution of the
Council of Ministers and Communist Party's Central Committee of 24 May, 1968
(?397-152).

While Mikoyan had built the MiG-25 with its performances closely matching
those of the prospect interceptor, the Tikhomirov NIIP had no such an edge.
And the task was formidable -the NIIP had to develop its first long-range
radar capable of detecting enemy aircraft against the ground with the
targets flying on the head-on or pursuit courses. None of the then radars
was that capable. To cap it all, the radar had to be able to track the
targets acquired (i.e. to update their coordinates and position regularly)
within the maximal wide coverage area.

The NIIP christened the weapons control suite as Zaslon - Russian for the
'barrier', 'obstacle' - the barrier at the Russian border.

Nearly all technological solutions were innovations. For the very first
time, there was the high-repetition pulse radiation (so-called
quasi-continuous radiation) employed, as was digital signal processing,
integral computer. For the first time, the navigator was provided with both
detection indicator and tactical situation display. For the first time, the
discrete target illumination and missile semiactive guidance through the use
of discrete signals were developed as was the multiple target tracking and
engagement capability. For the first time: well, one could carry on and on
with it but let us dwell on the most important things.

The Zaslon radar pioneered the phased array. To date, there have been no
interceptor across the globe that could boast a phased array. Almost all
combat capability of the new interceptor emerged due to the phased array
radar (PAR).

The radars of the time operated a mechanical drive to scan the aerospace.
When the antenna's ray hit a target, the drive would begin tracking the
target, while the pilot would be completely unable to keep abreast of the
situation and see any other targets.

The track-while-scan technique is only a partial solution to the problem,
since it can provide neither wide coverage areas, nor high precision of the
target coordinates.

The emergence of the PAR solves the problem radically. Reorienting the ray
in any direction within the cone of 120ś - 140ś takes the radar mere 0.001
sec.
The peak of the whole MiG-31/Zaslon FCS programme was the flight test of 15
February, 1978. On that day, the MiG-31 took off to detect, lock on and
track 10 targets simultaneously.

The targets travelled towards the interceptor in two groups at both higher
and lower altitudes than that of the MiG-31. The targets were detected and
locked on at a range of 140-180 km. Tracking was stable. The experiment was
crucial for the interceptor's designers. It became obvious that their work
had come to the fruition. Even though nearly two years of further tests
loomed ahead, they were sure they would succeed. The second landmark
experiment was the interceptor's simultaneous destruction of four led
targets.

As a result, the following MiG-31 characteristics were confirmed:
- programmed aerospace coverage; detection, lock-on and simultaneous
tracking of up to 10 targets within the 50-2,800 m altitude brackets in both
good and adverse weather conditions with the enemy electronic
countermeasures (ECM) (scan area of -/+ 60deg-70 deg;

- detection range for the SR-71 and F-16-like targets against the ground
makes up 200 km and 120 km respectively;

- 4-target simultaneous engagement with guided missiles in parallel with
calculation of launch parameters;

- control of the interceptor while cueing it in on the targets, discrete
target illumination;

- cannon fire;
- passive infrared (IR) target search capability;

- semiautonomous operations of 2-4 MiG-31 teams - a 4-aircraft team could
swap data on the 800-km frontage at a distance of up to 2,000 km from the
ground command post;

- cueing MiG-23s, MiG-25s, MiG-29s and Su-27s in on targets.


Twenty years later. July 1998. Four Su-30s and two MiG-31s took off the
Savasleika AFB (Nizhny Novgorod region) to be joined later by an A-50
airborne early warning and control aircraft and two Il-78 tanker planes. The
formation passed along the following route: Savasleika - Astrakhan - Moscow
region - Novaya Zemlya archipelago - Savasleika. The crews were not ferrying
their aircraft back and forth, rather, they maintained communications among
themselves and with the A-50 airborne command post, as well as accomplished
a variety of missions en route.

They would assume various group formations - a MiG-31 would lead the Su-30
strike aircraft and enable them attack ground targets, then the Sukhois
would protect the MiG-31s from surface-to-air missiles to enable the
interceptors to stalk a faraway aerial target and shoot it out of the sky.


The MiG-31 Zaslon is still in the inventory and "can destroy the aggressor's
strategic bombers even over the North Pole before they approach close enough
to fire their air-launched cruise missiles (ALCM)," says Chief of Russian
Air Force's Main Staff V. Sinitsyn.

For all of us, designers of the MiG-31 Zaslon interceptor, the song rings
true: "There's only 'MiG' between the past and the future:".
It is people who create everything in this world. What great designer teams
and beautiful personalities used to develop the MiG-31 Zaslon interceptor!
Even most prominent of them are too numerous to be mentioned here. However,
the three men whose incredible efforts resulted in the Zaslon should be
named - they are Boris Iosifovich Sapsovich, developer of the phased array
radar design and technology; Victor Konstantinovich Grishin who created the
MiG-31's general configuration - excellent manager and experimentator;
Yevgeny Yakovlevich Savitsky, chairman of the State Flight Testing
Commission.



Offline Pit

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Confidential
  • **
  • Posts: 145
Re: MiG-31 Avionics
« Reply #8 on: May 21, 2006, 01:51:11 pm »
Quote from: JCage
Any ideas of which radar they are referring to when they mention those ranges and track 24?
Is it the Zaslon AM?

They're talking about the old Zaslon-M for MiG-31M.

Offline Pit

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Confidential
  • **
  • Posts: 145
Re: MiG-31 Avionics
« Reply #9 on: May 21, 2006, 01:56:13 pm »
More in-action pics inside the MiG-31:








Offline JCage

  • CLEARANCE: Confidential
  • *
  • Posts: 39
Re: MiG-31 Avionics
« Reply #10 on: May 22, 2006, 04:49:13 am »
Quote from: JCage
Any ideas of which radar they are referring to when they mention those ranges and track 24?
Is it the Zaslon AM?

They're talking about the old Zaslon-M for MiG-31M.

Pit, any more details on the M and when did it enter service? Thats a hefty increase from 10 in TWS to 24!!
From what I had read, the M remained a toothless tiger, ie it never entered service and was restricted to prototypes.

Also, those engagement and lock on ranges seem bizarre and too high?!
The lock on is quoted as higher than the engagement (300 vs greater than 240 km) and against which target? Bomber sized?

Also what are your personal guess-estimates for the Bars-M detection and tracking ranges? Online claims seem a tad low/ conservative dont you think?
« Last Edit: May 22, 2006, 04:55:35 am by JCage »

Online PaulMM (Overscan)

  • Secret Projects Forum Founder
  • Administrator
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • *****
  • Posts: 10888
  • Paul Martell-Mead
    • Secret Projects
Re: MiG-31 Avionics
« Reply #11 on: June 24, 2006, 04:39:03 pm »
Quotes from the Fedosov book:

Quote
is realized the regime [KNI] of the high pulse repetition frequency frequently by that of movement on the order of 200 kHz;

Quote
is introduced the two-threshold detection of target ([valdovskoe] discrimination of the hypo
theses), on the average doubly reducing time of its detection;

Quote
The development of the transmitting devices was produced taking into account the experience, obtained with the creation of complex “Kub”, in which the self-homing head of rocket worked during the continuous emission and the channel of illumination had the low level of noise. In contrast to the channel of the illumination of complex “Kub”, the transmitter [BRLS] had to work in the pulsed operation and in the considerably larger band of the carrier frequencies. The level of noise was required still smaller. Problem consisted in the fact that the harmonics of signal, brought with the pulse repetition frequency, fell into the Doppler range of receiver and was created the effect of decoy.

Quote
Zone of survey (angle of elevation/azimuth), of deg:
5.5 secs        5/45
8.7 secs        20/90
The virtual displacements of the center of the zone of survey, deg  ±35
Zone of tracking - semicone with the apex angle, deg:
in upper hemisphere        140
in lower hemisphere        130
Time of the displacement of ray from this position into any other, ms        ~ 1,3
Dynamic range of receiver, dB        80
Width of the antenna radiation pattern, deg:       2.5
Average power of the transmitter of radar signal, kW        2.5
Power of continuous radiation of the transmitter of illumination, kW        2.0
Coefficient of receiver, dB              5.5
Diameter of antenna, mm            1100
Consumed input power, kW
alternating current 400 Hz, 200v        31
direct current 27v               2
"They can't see our arses for dust."
 
- Sir Sydney Camm

Online PaulMM (Overscan)

  • Secret Projects Forum Founder
  • Administrator
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • *****
  • Posts: 10888
  • Paul Martell-Mead
    • Secret Projects
Re: MiG-31 Avionics
« Reply #12 on: June 24, 2006, 04:48:30 pm »
Regarding the 8TK IRST

Quote
Zone of survey (azimuth/angle of elevation), of deg:
in time 0.25 secs  6/6
in time 0.9 secs  30/13
Zone of tracking, deg:
along azimuth 120
on the angle of elevation 40
"They can't see our arses for dust."
 
- Sir Sydney Camm

Offline Dilbert

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Confidential
  • **
  • Posts: 81
Re: MiG-31 Avionics
« Reply #13 on: June 25, 2006, 07:57:24 am »
That's what I mean.  Radar power of MiG31 = 2.5 kW, radar power of MiG-23 = 70 kW?   :-[

Online PaulMM (Overscan)

  • Secret Projects Forum Founder
  • Administrator
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • *****
  • Posts: 10888
  • Paul Martell-Mead
    • Secret Projects
Re: MiG-31 Avionics
« Reply #14 on: June 25, 2006, 08:41:00 am »
Well, average and peak are quite different things.

Regarding Zaslon compared to N-019 and N-001, the average power of both N-019/N-001 is 1kW compared to 2.5kW for Zaslon.
"They can't see our arses for dust."
 
- Sir Sydney Camm