- Dec 27, 2005
- Reaction score
Thread to discuss MiG-29 Avionics. What more can we learn about this aircraft and its systems?
Cross-posted from Mig-23 thread:Perhaps lewradar can post here his comments on the design of this system.
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?Pit said: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.
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).JCage said:Would HOJ mode work on deception jamming or range gate techniques, ie anything other than simpler noise jamming?
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.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.
Why did the Su-25T carry the Gardeniya, if the Su-17 was correct to omit it?overscan said: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.
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).Pit said:Dilbert, are not L-005S based in an altogether much more advanced technology that L-203BI?
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.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 .
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?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.
"...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.Su-25 used old and capable (and combat tested by long time) SPS-141MVG/MVG-E
Interesting... It claims that Gardeniya has terrain-bounce capability, just like Sorbtsiya.Pit said:About DRFM, you can check their page:
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.
Pibu you can not be serious, that a soviet engineer would design something without a practical use. What a joke is that? ;D The Su-25 can maintain a straight forward flight without banking in the whole flight envelope with following asymmetrical loads.PiBu said:"...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.
What a misunderstanding, somehow I felt I was responding to wrong person. I`m sorry PiBu, you wouldn`t say that nonsense.PiBu said: