MiG-29 Avionics

Thank you I was truly not aware that the MiG-29AS radar had been upgraded to such specification.
I believe it’s reasonable to think the “S” could be for Slovakia.
Yes, but It is only reasonable if one does not take the time to truly understand the history & design of the aircraft as a whole.

As the Ukrainians have correctly reported, the MiG-29s that were handed over by the Russian Federation to clean up debt coming out of the total economic collapse of the Soviet Union. This means the that the MiG-29S were not originally produced as specific export but to the Soviet/Russian Federation standard that was pulled from Russian Air Force inventory. Therefore, S will not represent the country of Slovakia.

The Russian Federation had promised MiG-29S which were the 9-12S & 9-13S. They were the most advanced MiG-29 at the time (just as the Ukrainians correctly point out) & last fighters ever produced by the Soviet Union.

However, Russian Federation Export law will not allow the transfer of the N019M Topaz with full domestic capabilities. The Mig-29 in batch 2 that were approved for Slovakian transfer, which were 9-12S base models would be handed over without the Topaz and instead Rubin until the export approved N019ME can be serial produced and provided.

This is why they were initially referred/reported as Mig-29A by the Slovaks (Topaz is the principal upgrade). However, they were not truly 9-12A either, since they still had all the hallmarks & lesser upgrades of 9-12S such as the additional drop tank capability, as this Polish open-source reports, a dedicated site to cataloguing historical paint schemes of the MiG-29 of both domestic & export use.

"Second batch of MiGs are from Russian air force inventory as debts payment. It's not version 9-12A!"

I agree, those are modifications that belong to product index 9-12S. That also means that these special "9-12A" had come with the SOS-3M-3 limiter giving it an increase from 26° degrees of instantaneous angle of attack to 28° degrees, like that which was also implemented in the 9-13S, as well as the SD, SM, SMT, SMT-2 etc.

1735157249865.png
Note how they also report the MiG-29A in question had come from Russian Air Force inventory as well not from MiG-MAPO.

When the Russian Federation did carry out the upgrade to the Topaz in the early 2000s alongside the Letecké Opravovne Trenčín A.S (Translated: Trenčín Aircraft Repair A.S) the S was added to the designation to signify upgrade completion & reflect the capability to the S standard provided by the renamed MiG RSK of the Russian Federation.

Lastly, to avoid any potential misinterpretation, A.S in the Slovakian company Letecké Opravovne Trenčín A.S, is akciová spoločnosť. Which simply means Joint-stock company.

The MiG 29AS does not laughably mean MiG-29 Joint Stock company.

Almost everywhere online refers only to NATO and cockpit upgrades, and even after your informed me I cannot find any other authoritative sources besides the one you mention mentioning the radar.
NATO integration as a capability is predominately highlighted because it involves the most important topic that remains a top story in the global news cycle as it will determine the entire fate and destiny of the Ukrainian people as we know it: Ukraine's potential membership in the NATO alliance.

You likely just heard of the MiG-29AS existence because you only ever mention in its transfer to Ukraine and the first sources on any search engines are news reports regarding it.

Now the reason the R-27ER & the N019M Topaz are not mentioned these days or in what you are able to find is simple, the capabilities are irrelevant & they are not worth mentioning.

The R-27ER & the N019M Topaz (both products of the Soviet Union) are now operationally obsolete in modern aerial combat & this war has proven it. The R-27ET however, still remains highly combat effective for the foreseeable future. Especially as advancements in passive IR/UV optical sensors continue to improve at an alarming rate. Ukraine has stopped any boasting of their own domestically produced R-27ER and rather highlights it now as the very reason they need the F-16 and the Aim-120. SARH missiles are obsolete. There is no reason to mention them. No amount of R-27R & ER will give Ukraine peer to peer parity with the Russian Federation's advanced passive & active capabilities in the domain of combat aviation.

I am sorry but in your attached pictures I still do not see anything that convinces me the N-019 does not use what could be called a gimbal.
The attached pictures were not intended to convince you of anything. They are provided to show others that the actual Cambridge, Meriam Webster, Collins definitions of the word "gimbal" vs the definition you claim to operate under are not remotely related. That using names as certification, not their real definitions to co-sign for a flawed logic is not acceptable.

from Cambridge to Merriam Webster, to Collins and even howstuffworks.com all show that gimbal is a versatile word to describe something on a pivot. Something that rotates on an axis for any purpose or reason driven by any force.
Without acknowledgment that the very foundation of what you know about these radars may be flawed. You only limit yourself from understanding the aircraft you claim to love & the ability to identify the technologies within. This principle applies to all things btw.

This horse is dead. Please move on from it.
 
Last edited:
That memo is for a specific info dump given in 1980, it doesn't give the complete picture.

The most extensive documentation was on Sapfir-23 and Zaslon because he had the most access to them, but he also compromised the N019, N001 and others.
 
The maximum azimuth is used during STT track. During search, the maximum azimuth is 65 degrees. If you lock someone at edge of gimbal limit in search in left or right direction, you could turn an additional 5 degrees with STT before the lock is dropped
EDIT: spelling error fixed
I’m beginning to realize I was initially correct. The NO-19 radar does do +/-70 degrees in azimuth. The pages from combat employment manual that mention 65 degrees are all for search modes, not track.

I thought it odd that so much technical literature, The PowerPoint that Overscan translated, the weapon complex manual, 3rd party sources all agreed on 70 degree azimuth limits, but let myself trust the combat employment manual over those without realizing the limits for track mode are in a different page.
 

Attachments

  • IMG_9562.jpeg
    IMG_9562.jpeg
    747.4 KB · Views: 10
  • IMG_9561.jpeg
    IMG_9561.jpeg
    271.3 KB · Views: 11
  • IMG_9560.jpeg
    IMG_9560.jpeg
    65.9 KB · Views: 11
  • IMG_9559.jpeg
    IMG_9559.jpeg
    575.8 KB · Views: 13
  • IMG_9558.jpeg
    IMG_9558.jpeg
    357.8 KB · Views: 14
  • IMG_9542.jpeg
    IMG_9542.jpeg
    333.2 KB · Views: 13
I’m beginning to realize I was initially correct. The NO-19 radar does do +/-70 degrees in azimuth. The pages from combat employment manual that mention 65 degrees are all for search modes, not track.

I thought it odd that so much technical literature, The PowerPoint that Overscan translated, the weapon complex manual, 3rd party sources all agreed on 70 degree azimuth limits, but let myself trust the combat employment manual over those without realizing the limits for track mode are in a different page.
Just one question. The second picture IMG_9558 seems to be picture from some Polish language instruction for MIG. Do you have scan of this document? Is it possible to share it ?
 
Just one question. The second picture IMG_9558 seems to be picture from some Polish language instruction for MIG. Do you have scan of this document? Is it possible to share it ?
It is a maintenance document that details expected specifications of different systems and allowable tolerance before needing overhaul. Let me see what I can do, I’ll ask the person who shared it with me.

I also posted a page from it on the last page showing the radar is required to be accurate within 15’ (minutes). I didn’t realize but same information is in weapon complex 9.12B manual
 

Attachments

  • IMG_9620.jpeg
    IMG_9620.jpeg
    523.4 KB · Views: 9
  • IMG_9621.jpeg
    IMG_9621.jpeg
    525.6 KB · Views: 9
Last edited:
I’m beginning to realize I was initially correct. The NO-19 radar does do +/-70 degrees in azimuth. The pages from combat employment manual that mention 65 degrees are all for search modes, not track.

I thought it odd that so much technical literature, The PowerPoint that Overscan translated, the weapon complex manual, 3rd party sources all agreed on 70 degree azimuth limits, but let myself trust the combat employment manual over those without realizing the limits for track mode are in a different page.

Its N019 not NO-19.

I haven't revisited the documents my recollection is +-70° azimuth,+60°/-40° elevation is the physical limit of the antenna, with the lower values (+-65° azimuth, + 56°/-36 ° elevation) are the maximum selectable values.
 
Its N019 not NO-19.

I haven't revisited the documents my recollection is +-70° azimuth,+60°/-40° elevation is the physical limit of the antenna, with the lower values (+-65° azimuth, + 56°/-36 ° elevation) are the maximum selectable values.
Noted, and yes that would seem to be the case. I see -45 degrees thrown around also, but -40 degrees seems to be the correct value for negative elevation in track, and as up said -36 for search mode as needed by delta H and stabilization.
 
I’m beginning to realize I was initially correct. The NO-19 radar does do +/-70 degrees in azimuth.
I want you to be correct, I truly do.

But unfortunately, here you have taken a long-established primary source, the combat employment manual of the Mig-29 (9-12), the first production line of the fighter and placed around it several pages taken from secondary independent commercial publications that have no authority or relation to the designer, manufacturer or the Air Armies of the VVS & the Aerospace Forces of the Russian Federation.


The pages from combat employment manual that mention 65 degrees are all for search modes, not track.

This is false. Just read the material..
The manual states Automatic Tracking is limited to 65 degrees. :)


"7. The angular dimensions of the automatic tracking zone are ±65° in azimuth and from +56° to -36° in tilt (Fig. 7).



“FIG. 7. ANGULAR DIMENSIONS OF THE AUTO-FOLLOWING ZONE"

Screenshot 2025-02-04 033442.png




"FIG. 5. LIMITS OF DISPLACEMENT OF THE VIEWING AREA RELATIVELY TO THE LONGITUDINAL AXIS OF THE ANTENNA"
Screenshot 2025-02-04 024412.png

The radar is severely limited technologically. In particular, extremely poor boresight performance.

So limited in fact, that the radar is incapable of VIEWING, SEARCHING & TRACKING its full azimuth & must the divide 130 degrees into three zones.
Within each viewing zone is a search & track SCAN SECTOR where the mechanical drive system rotates the beam within. The (3) viewing zones are exclusively operated by analog switch on Control Panel PSR-31. They are not engaging automatically & they do not track into the next. The Ts100 has no capability over the analog N019 & N001 azimuth viewing.

"The pilot controls the position of the viewing zone in azimuth and elevation. In azimuth, the zone is discretely shifted to the extreme left or right position using the ZONE switch on the radar control panel, providing viewing of space within +65° relative to the longitudinal axis of the fighter (Fig. 4)."
Screenshot 2025-02-04 053313.png
"FIG. 4. DISPLACEMENT OF THE VIEWING ZONE IN AZIMUTH RELATIVELY TO THE LONGITUDINAL AXIS OF THE AIRCRAFT WHEN CHANGING THE POSITION OF THE "ZONE" SWITCH (display of the azimuth size of the zone on the HUD screen)"

You fail to understand the difference between viewing zones and scan sectors. The center VIEWING ZONE is observed at 70 degrees while search & track has remained at 65 degrees within. The left zone & right zone are 65 degrees, and ALL scan sectors remain 65 degrees. Even the Ukrainian source reflects this.
 
Last edited:
I want you to be correct, I truly do.

But unfortunately, here you have taken a long-established primary source, the combat employment manual of the Mig-29 (9-12), the first production line of the fighter and placed around it several pages taken from secondary independent commercial publications that have no authority or relation to the designer, manufacturer or the Air Armies of the VVS & the Aerospace Forces of the Russian Federation.




This is false. Just read the material..
The manual states Automatic Tracking is limited to 65 degrees. :)


"7. The angular dimensions of the automatic tracking zone are ±65° in azimuth and from +56° to -36° in tilt (Fig. 7).



“FIG. 7. ANGULAR DIMENSIONS OF THE AUTO-FOLLOWING ZONE"

View attachment 758315




"FIG. 5. LIMITS OF DISPLACEMENT OF THE VIEWING AREA RELATIVELY TO THE LONGITUDINAL AXIS OF THE ANTENNA"
View attachment 758298

The radar is severely limited technologically. In particular, extremely poor boresight performance.

So limited in fact, that the radar is incapable of VIEWING, SEARCHING & TRACKING its full azimuth & must the divide 130 degrees into three zones.
Within each viewing zone is a search & track SCAN SECTOR where the mechanical drive system rotates the beam within. The (3) viewing zones are exclusively operated by analog switch on Control Panel PSR-31. They are not engaging automatically & they do not track into the next. The Ts100 has no capability over the analog N019 & N001 azimuth viewing.

"The pilot controls the position of the viewing zone in azimuth and elevation. In azimuth, the zone is discretely shifted to the extreme left or right position using the ZONE switch on the radar control panel, providing viewing of space within +65° relative to the longitudinal axis of the fighter (Fig. 4)."
View attachment 758331
"FIG. 4. DISPLACEMENT OF THE VIEWING ZONE IN AZIMUTH RELATIVELY TO THE LONGITUDINAL AXIS OF THE AIRCRAFT WHEN CHANGING THE POSITION OF THE "ZONE" SWITCH (display of the azimuth size of the zone on the HUD screen)"

You fail to understand the difference between viewing zones and scan sectors. The center VIEWING ZONE is observed at 70 degrees while search & track has remained at 65 degrees within. The left zone & right zone are 65 degrees, and ALL scan sectors remain 65 degrees. Even the Ukrainian source reflects this.
I have little reason to believe that the all the images you have posted are for track. From reading the material, which I have done many times, it seems to only be for search. The one with Figure 7 may say “auto tracking” and “auto following” upon translation, but upon looking at the context and all other sources I think the translation is doing some deceiving. For example tracking a target in TWS, or following the horizon and PSR-31/Delta H commands, which is mentioned many times in the previous section.

Why would the scale of the antenna rhombus on the HUD (specifically mentioned as STT/track mode, and from the same combat employment manual you reference) otherwise be +/-70 degrees? Why would the weapon complex textbook, certainly affiliated with MiG, from the red banner academy of Zhukovsky, give the azimuth limits of +/-70 degrees every chance it gets including both internal radar measurements and information passed to ILS-31? Why would a Polish manual from the Krakow museum explicitly used by maintenance personal say the azimuth limits are required to be +/-70 degrees? If by Ukrainian source you possibly mean the PowerPoint from Kiev National Aviation Academy that Over Scan translated, it also says +/-70 degrees. These are not “secondary commercial sources” as you claim.

Yes it does say the “scan sector” is limited 65 degrees from the nose, and covers a 50 degree arc, in “search” mode however not track. It is not “scanning” in STT. Your images display the search sectors and bars, which do not exist in track/STT, even if I ignore context from the descriptions.

So many other sources repeat it, you say it is “observed” but not measured? I have only spoken of internal measurements of the radar, and information passed to ILS-31.

In addition, I do not know what the radar “being limited” has to do with it being “incapable of tracking along its full azimuth.” I do not believe a radar being able to use its full azimuth as measured both inside the radar and as information sent to the HUD is some black magic that the Soviet Union was incapable of doing in the 80s.

The information I have read and presented seems to affirm this from multiple sources, so I believe it, whatever some may think of its technology. I have also shown two sources of its ability to accurately aim its radar antenna within 15 minutes of an arc, if you think that “innacurate” for a 3.5 degree beam width monopulse antenna it is your opinion and you are welcome to it.
 
Last edited:
I have little reason to believe that the all the images you have posted are for track
I respect that. Always question what honestly does not make sense to you & we both will only get more efficient I make mistakes, I have made them in regard to this very subject. I will provide what I am able in detail to your concerns so which image?

So, the Ukrainian source is proving itself more correct as I go through all what overscan has provided in detail. there are still some unrelated radar inconsistencies (minor) I have not went over.

However, the Ukrainian source says view zone never tracking, as well as every source you provided. All say viewing. Not a single one has said search & tracking. Remember, 70 degrees azimuth tracking is still entirely a theory many hold because secondary sources fail to clarify the differences or know themselves. That is why they are called secondary sources. The primary source & the combat employment manual approved by the VVS clarifies the difference and function of both & does not mention the center view zone azimuth in reference to screen scales. Why would they need two? Because it will only generate confusion and distraction to what matters as it does here.


Why would the scale of the antenna rhombus on the HUD (specifically mentioned as STT/track mode, and from the same combat employment manual you reference) otherwise be +/-70 degrees?

FIG. 20. RADAR CAPTURE. SCREEN SCALES IN AZIMUTH AND ELEVATION:
for a rhombus a = +70°; for a sighting ring a = +459

FIG. 21. TP OVERVIEW. SCREEN SCALES FOR TARGET MARKING:
in azimuth - ±30°; elevation angle - +15°


Because when the radar complex captures a target within its scan sector to the maximum 65 degrees azimuth, the rhombus, a larger scale appears on the HUD & the target is within, the edges of the rhombus are obviously going to stretch beyond the 65 degrees scan sector, therefore the view zone is placed at 70 degrees allowing full viewing of the rhombus and all other screen scales & indicators showing appropriately within the view zone.
antenna rhombus on the HUD

When you use language like "antenna rhombus" it gives off the energy you are attempting to ever so slightly alter what the scale actually represents on HUD to fit a narrative.
By calling it an "antenna rhombus" & had I agreed without a second thought as most people do, you created you own facts & I just gave it legitimacy.
It's actually brilliant if you are intending to deceive. Because yes, the Radar
Capture Screen Scale
does give obvious indication of where the "antenna" might be pointed, it is not what the scale actually represents. The Rhombus will appear circled around a target as to confirm its capture in the radar complex, a "track."

It is excellent choice of words. However, this antenna does not point, at least not all of it. Only the main reflector mechanically tilts and rotates to scan & steer the beam. This type of radar complex is not referred in this way. & why I provided it translation above.

Yes it does say the “scan sector” is limited 65 degrees from the nose, and covers a 50 degree arc, in “search” mode however not track. It is not “scanning” in STT. Your images display the search sectors and bars, which do not exist in track/STT, even if I ignore context from the descriptions.
When a fully mechanically scanned & steered radar conducts any search & track function, it follows a physical track powered by the mechanical drive to both scan & track. They all follow specific mechanical overlapping tracks to scan volume and track a target depending on mode. This design originally developed & fielded in the 60s (very formidable at the time) will obviously lead to a longer time to acquire, latency, poor target discrimination and lack of precision. Especially in dynamic conditions like close quarters & dogfights. Do you ever wonder why the IRST is used for the gun only? Why the R-27R and ER in the Su-27SK is limited to roll rate of no more than 50 degrees to be able to launch? while the IR variations retain full launch performance. Latency of the antenna and the hybrid analog design. Even the AWG-9 had latency, and it was immensely more digitized than the N019 Rubin.

The N019 is a parabolic mirror scan radar, it does not have ability to utilize phase shifts & electronically steer any way instantly with rapid beam agility in multiple patterns and engage in beamforming. The Ukrainian source provides a glimpse in the the N019 process. Screenshot_9-2-2025_91849_.jpeg
 
Last edited:
I will provide what I am able in detail to your concerns so which image?
As mentioned, the one titled “Figure 7” of the combat employment manual.

Because when the radar complex captures a target within its scan sector to the maximum 65 degrees azimuth, the rhombus, a larger scale appears on the HUD & the target is within, the edges of the rhombus are obviously going to stretch beyond the 65 degrees scan sector, therefore the view zone is placed at 70 degrees allowing full viewing of the rhombus and all other screen scales & indicators showing appropriately within the view zone.

This seems to me an assumption on your part, and not an adequate reason for why when we have so many other primary non commercial sources giving better reasons for the HUD rhombus scale to be in +/-70 degrees.

When you use language like "antenna rhombus" it gives off the energy you are attempting to ever so slightly alter what the scale actually represents on HUD to fit a narrative.
By calling it an "antenna rhombus" & had I agreed without a second thought as most people do, you created you own facts & I just gave it legitimacy.
It's actually brilliant if you are intending to deceive. Because yes, the Radar
Capture Screen Scale
does give obvious indication of where the "antenna" might be pointed, it is not what the scale actually represents. The Rhombus will appear circled around a target as to confirm its capture in the radar complex, a "track."

It is excellent choice of words. However, this antenna does not point, at least not all of it. Only the main reflector mechanically tilts and rotates to scan & steer the beam. This type of radar complex is not referred in this way. & why I provided it translation above.

I do not know why you are so concerned with trying to find deception in my words where there are none. I say “antenna rhombus” because that is how it is described, a rhombus placed on the HUD to show the deviation of the antenna. I am not deceiving, only trying to use the terms that make most sense. I don’t know what else you would call it beyond “antenna deviation indicator.”

The Rhombus will appear circled around a target as to confirm its capture in the radar complex, a "track."

I do not know why you would say this part either. In no mode is the rhombus directly circling the target, but only showing the direction and degree the main antenna is pointed. It would only “circle” the target when the MiG-29 directly points at the target with the target in the center crosshairs. As far as I am aware, there is no mode where the MiG-29 9.12/9.13 might directly circle a target unless pointed directly at it. One of the many improvements the Su-27 made in HUD symbology. You can see so here
View: https://youtu.be/kbVQIsUPX1o?si=Ztw_74ZaMDcAr_iK


Do you ever wonder why the IRST is used for the gun only?
Radar can be used for the gun. I do not know why you would think this. It may be very useful for it but the case is far from “only.” Is there some interview or some other thing in your head making you think this? I have not read it in any manual or interview or document I have gone through.


Why the R-27R and ER in the Su-27SK is limited to roll rate of no more than 50 degrees to be able to launch?

As you say, that is a launch limitation. What makes you think it has to do with radar and not just making sure the missile leaves correctly and doesn’t hit the aircraft?

For MiG-29, I do know that The datalink commands rely on accurate Cartesian coordinates, and the roll of the aircraft is updated at 18-20 hz. So roll speed needs to be limited during datalink control so that the Cartesian coordinates of the datalink commands don’t have an outdated roll value. For MiG-29 this was 60 degrees per second, and 30 degrees per second for missiles made before 1986. To quote the MiG-29 manual “В связи с тем что информация по крену при радиокоррекции обновляется с частотой 18—20 Гц, сигналы радиокоррекции правильно выдаются только при угловой скорости вращения истребителя не более 60°/с (при применении ракет выпуска до июля 1986 г. — не более 30°/с). По этой причине не обеспечивается наведение ракеты Р-27ЭР на цель в инерциально-корректируемом режиме при выполнении истребителем противоракетного маневра типа «кадушка».”


Latency of the antenna and the hybrid analog design.

Oh. I don’t see what that has to do with the antenna or radar design at all, just the speed the computers are updated with new gyroscopic roll information, or the physics of an AKU/APU pylon launching a R-27R/ER from Su-27SK without hitting the aircraft. But okay.
 
Last edited:
Nothing you provided states search and track 70 degrees.

Everything you have ever posted states VIEWING 70 degrees.
there are view zones, 3 of them. That is why its called a zone switch.

Nothing you have ever posted agrees with you. VIEWING zone(s) does mean single target track. This is entirely your own personal interpretation and inability to accept what manual says & depicts in picture. You even resort to questioning the validity of the written Cyrillic script of the Russian speaking people.

Nothing matters until you provide a single source, ANY source that says AUTOTRACKING @ 70 degrees for each viewing zone & why.
 
Last edited:
I do not know why you would say this part either. In no mode is the rhombus directly circling the target, but only showing the direction and degree the main antenna is pointed. It would only “circle” the target when the MiG-29 directly points at the target with the target in the center crosshairs. As far as I am aware, there is no mode where the MiG-29 9.12/9.13 might directly circle a target unless pointed directly at it. One of the many improvements the Su-27 made in HUD symbology. You can see so here

Actually, according to my best knowledge, big circle - is something different than in western systems, where - there is somehow like "target box" that depicts where exactly target is.
In Soviet systems - this is more like steering circle, where pilot should put crosshair according to the steering commands.

This ensures proper interception of target. Position of big circle , in horizontal axis depends on deviation of heading of plane from heading optimal , to intercept.
Deviation of circle from in vertical axis - depends of height difference between actual plane height and optimal one. Optimal one - is somehow set to be about 2km above target, or similar somehow arbitrary set condition. This way pilot, if wants to intercept target, he (she) must place crosshairs in the center of steering circle, and follow position of circle.
Once there is time to launch missiles, there is generated command "GORKA" - what can be loosely translated as "hill" command for maneuver in vertical axis , up or down, and fire missile.
There is one exception, when use gun, this circle, marks actual position of target. Encircled them, like probably saw in Su-27 HUD...
There is also mode for shooting (with gun) without visual contact: there are two pointers, one for rough direction, the second for precise.

Why there is such arrangement ? Why there is no "target box" while using missiles , including short range missiles? This is for sure not due to technical limitations, as while using gun, it is possible.
Maybe because similar approach was used in older systems (Mig-23, 25 what then even dates back to even older approaches , with radar based interceptions.. I do not know, probably - this is from some, lets say, limitations of people who design system, who had to be engineers and scientists , not pilots.

One more think, there is also "small circle" . This is used while ground command guidance, and marks directly set pitch and azimuth.
Of course there is also rhombus -its deviations is proportional to direction to target.

And actually I do not know whether scan limits are 70, 67.5 or 65. I thought that maybe the right is somewhere in the middle, like :
mechanical scan limits are 65 deg, but this marks the axis of array. But as beamwitdh is about ~3 degree or 3.6?, radar can see and track slightly wider. With mechanical scan limits let say 65 deg, I think it would be possible to positioning using mono-pulse technique within 67.5. But not 70...
Maybe some solution is:

It is a maintenance document that details expected specifications of different systems and allowable tolerance before needing overhaul. Let me see what I can do, I’ll ask the person who shared it with me.
"details expected specifications of different systems and allowable tolerance"

From document - it is stated 70 deg (+/- 0...-3deg tolerances)...

Within each viewing zone is a search & track SCAN SECTOR where the mechanical drive system rotates the beam within. The (3) viewing zones are exclusively operated by analog switch on Control Panel PSR-31. They are not engaging automatically & they do not track into the next.
Actually viewing zones are operated manually from control panel, but only in manual mode. When scanning zone is controlled from GCI via datalink, there are different: the shapes , bar arrangements, scan speed, depending on aspect and distance to target.
And the center of scan zone is not fixed, but changes, and is provided by GCI. This way target is always in the center of scanning zone.

And I can bet that viewing zones are for scanning only. Once target is locked and tracked, there are no limits other than from radar physical scan limits.
This could be totally ridiculous , for example in fast dynamic close combat fight to change zones manually ...
Just for example - radar and IR can be slaved to HMS without any limits.

I found no evidences that mechanical scanning is arranged into some two layers - fast - with scan limits somehow limited to let say +/- 25 deg and +/- 2 bars , and the whole zone view is somehow, slowly moved.
Latency of the antenna and the hybrid analog design. Even the AWG-9 had latency, and it was immensely more digitized than the N019 Rubin.

The N019 is a parabolic mirror scan radar, it does not have ability to utilize phase shifts & electronically steer any way instantly with rapid beam agility in multiple patterns and engage in beamforming.

All in all, despite many limitation of radar and its technology, exact stabilization ("it is gimbal" or not.. ) etc, radar was robust enough to seamlessly track its target despite own and targets maneuvers,in dynamic , close combat environment, within scan and and angular speed limits... And those parameters (scan and speed limits) were more or less the same as in other design in its times, while scan and tracking zone is even slightly better than in western counterparts of this time. (for example +/- 60 deg on F-15)

And yes, N-019 is "parabolic mirror scan radar", but of course this parabolic mirror is not moving at all, and moving is only flat plate to reflect and direct focused beam - details everywhere in this topic.
Soviets mastered this technique, much better than anyone else: I mean Europeans, with its bulky, heavy desings like in Viggen and Tornado ADF, and to some degree in Mirage 2000 (RDM).
While US did big step further with planar arrays at least decade earlier than anyone else.
 
actually viewing zones are operated manually from control panel, but only in manual mode
I agree, and stated a few times actually and most recent in reference to a "zone switch". In the MiG-29 product indexes of the Soviet Union it is a three-position toggle switch that only the pilot must manipulate.

All in all, despite many limitation of radar and its technology, exact stabilization ("it is gimbal" or not.. ) etc, radar was robust enough to seamlessly track its target despite own and targets maneuvers,in dynamic
How so? Stabilization is not synonymous with latency. The lack of roll rate is due to latency. It is the very nature of any hybrid analog design. not so much its mechanical drives systems that's any precision. Though it does have an effect on precision and mobility & target discrimination compared to temporary Gimbal systems. Its antenna type matters significantly. It is a design that prioritizes & does achieve a highly uniform gain over its entire angular coverage. but comes at the cost of "On-axis" (boresight) performance.

Latency is still noticeable in sensor fusion today in contemporary technology. Like I said it affected the AWG-9.

And yes, N-019 is "parabolic mirror scan radar", but of course this parabolic mirror is not moving at all, and moving is only flat plate to reflect and direct focused beam - details everywhere in this topic.

Yes, and you bring up a point, not only is the "Twist reflector" is responsible for functioning to its very name, It was limited as it is reliant on reflections cast by the paraboloid operated within its domain, it is also responsible the entire mechanical function of the beam at the same time. The radar simply had a very tough life. That is apparent.

I found no evidences that mechanical scanning is arranged into some two layers - fast - with scan limits somehow limited to let say +/- 25 deg and +/- 2 bars , and the whole zone view is somehow, slowly moved.
Not sure what you mean here
 
Last edited:
This is getting tiresome, can we move on?

Yes, the N019 did not have a wide sector scan. It was not really expected to find its own targets without help - it was supposed to be directed by GCI. In GCI mode, the scan sector is automatically set for the pilot. However once it was locked on in STT mode it would track to the antenna limits.
 
Last edited:
You even resort to questioning the validity of the written Cyrillic script of the Russian speaking people.
I don’t believe any people are immune to sometimes explaining things in confusing ways, use words not easily understood or translated, or even word and spelling errors. You can see yourself how many manuals have either typos or show records of corrections for typos and mistakes. It is a matter of having to deal with so much documentation that there will be mistakes, misinterpretations, and things that are clumsily explained.

Nothing you provided states search and track 70 degrees.

Everything you have ever posted states VIEWING 70 degrees.
there are view zones, 3 of them. That is why its called a zone switch.
Nothing matters until you provide a single source, ANY source that says AUTOTRACKING @ 70 degrees for each viewing zone & why.
Because I have been trying to say it might only be 70 degrees for track, not search. Look, I have posted all the sources I have come across. If you would like to bring any sources forward or any evidence go ahead. But I am done. I have done what I can. If you wish to disprove it, the burden of proof is on you to show how this view is wrong. Not for me to continue to provide evidence until one just happens to be “agreeable” to you. If there is nothing new to provide I suggest we follow OverScan’s recommendation to close this unless there is some new piece of evidence that would shed light on this in ways our previous efforts haven’t.

EDIT: @overscan (PaulMM) Also, I meant to quote you but couldn’t after I posted and forgot. The scan zone also moves smoothly in TWS mode when a target is acquired and follows the target, similarly as it does in GCI guidance. But I guess it’s more of a hybrid mode as the scan view selection is still manual before a target appears and is either automatically or manually selected by the TDC.

Actually, according to my best knowledge, big circle - is something different than in western systems, where - there is somehow like "target box" that depicts where exactly target is.
In Soviet systems - this is more like steering circle, where pilot should put crosshair according to the steering commands.

Yes I didn’t really mention the steering circle as it’s outside what we were debating, but yes. It is my understanding it is based on proportional navigation principles and will set up intercept for tail or head on depending on selected radar mode, and that the deviation of it vertically will also change depending on the pilots selection of the delta H knob. Articulating so that it will maintain the selected altitude difference, and have you point at the target’s interception point just before entering the max range of the selected missile. Is that what you have understood also?

It appears to take the place of the Radar antenna rhombus for IRST mode. I assume you have come to similar conclusion?

There is one exception, when use gun, this circle, marks actual position of target. Encircled them, like probably saw in Su-27 HUD...
There is also mode for shooting (with gun) without visual contact: there are two pointers, one for rough direction, the second for precise.

Why there is such arrangement ? Why there is no "target box" while using missiles , including short range missiles? This is for sure not due to technical limitations, as while using gun, it is possible.
I can’t believe I forgot the gun! Thank you. After analyzing the differences between the Su-27 and MiG-29 HUDs, I counted as many as 12 differences! And almost every single one wasn’t just a difference, but an improvement or addition. And as you say, the “target marker” is there in gun mode. The best conclusion I can come up with is that MiG-29 was rushed to service, and many shortcuts needed to be taken. By the time of introduction and maturity of Su-27, they must’ve had both the time, manpower, and money to introduce these things that many would expect in any 4th gen like a target marker in all modes.

I mean seriously, if we ignore the pitch ladder difference the additions and differences I can note are

  1. Target marker with missile or no weapon selection
  2. Notch/closure marker
  3. interception cue in IRST
  4. More GCI intercept cues
  5. Right HUD border scale with HUD area and radar/IRST elevation cue on +/-60 degree scale
  6. Antenna marker coordinates stabilized to true coordinates rather then in reference to artificial horizon silhouette
  7. Locked Target Altitude
  8. Locked Target Speed
  9. R-27 Flight Time
  10. Hemisphere mode selection PPS/AUT/ZPS shown without datalink
  11. Nav mode descent rate
  12. Landing mode AOA scale
  13. Speed in 5 kmh increments rather then 10
  14. Barometric Altitude in 10m increments rather then 100m
  15. Radar altitude increments in 5m instead of 10m above 100m, increments of 1 meter below 100m instead of 10
And so many of these are likely not because of different systems (like the additional intercept cues likely being related to the more sophisticated multiple datalink systems), but could theoretically be possible with 9.12/9.13! All I can think is that for MiG-29 9.12/9.13, they simply must not have had the developmental resources. As you said, there is even the smaller circle for ILS guidance! Just unused in all but one use case!

I heard from someone who used to do maintenance on MiG-23MLA in Cuba, has quite a large collection of documents on it and was modeling it for a simulator up until recently that it’s HUD circle would switch from “steering cue” to actual target marker once within 8 km.

You would think such things could also be updated. After all it shares the C100/C101 processor with Su-27. But it must not have been considered a big enough issues over its lifetime. Very curious.

I suppose, whether in search or close combat modes, one could just flip down the trigger and enter gun mode to get a quick idea without needing to precisely put the nose on it!
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

Please donate to support the forum.

Back
Top Bottom