F-5 influence on Mig-29

[pbehn]

Organisations examine captured equipment for all sorts of reasons, it doesn't mean that what they make later is a copy.

 

[XBe02Drvr]

Organisations examine captured equipment for all sorts of reasons, it doesn't mean that what they make later is a copy.

You mean the presence of source DNA doesn't prove paternity? The plaintiff's lawyers will be sorry to hear that!

 

[The Basket]

Based on a quick search, the Soviet F-5 was based on Vietnamese captures and was about 1975 onwards.

Fulcrum flew in 77 so the time frames don't match.

T-10 maybe. The Su-27 is the correct timeframe for any lessons.

The F-5 was supposed to have been a better dogfighter than a MiG-21. And shock horror the MiG-23 sucked balls as a dogfighter.

The problem is that much of the F-5E info is in the public domain already and so hopefully the Soviets had an excellent idea already of its performance. Maybe in the Soviet system, saying the Flogger had the agility of a barge was Gulag friendly but showing a study clearly demonstrating the F-5 against the MiG-23 as having the agility of a barge was acceptable.

 

[davparlr]

From what I remember, the MiG-21 was a little bit faster and had a slight climb-rate advantage, but the F-5E was easier to fly, rolled quicker, and was able to keep turning longer because of the leading-edge root extension (which was enlarged from the F-5A) and the leading-edge devices it had.

If I remember correctly, the T-38, the trainer aircraft that evolve into the F-5 (which in itself had evolved from a proposed light fighter) would roll at 560 degrees/sec. I am sure that there are many students that had bounced their helmet off the canopy when deflecting the stick too quickly.

The walk out to the T-38 after transitioning from the T-37 Tweet was both exciting and intimidating. The T-38 was exciting because you knew that if you could master the supersonic T-38, you could fly any aircraft in the Air Force inventory. It was intimidating because it took off at twice the speed, climbed 10x as fast at 33,000 ft/min., and scariest of all, flew approach at 178 mph, over 100 mph faster than the T-37. The first indication of the speed of the aircraft was on the first flight, of course. Take off was straight forward. Run the throttles up to mil power and check the gages, if OK, release the brakes and light the afterburners, check nozzle positions swing to full open indicating AB light off, and you are on your way. At your rotate speed pull back on the stick. When your vertical velocity indicator indicates a positive climb rate, raise gear before gear door limiting speed of 250 kts. So, on my first flight I was barreling down the runway, got to rotate speed, check VVI and reached for the gear lever only to see it go up by itself as the instructor raised it due to the fact we were already approaching 250 kts. I thought "wow! This is airplane is fast!". You find out very quickly that it is an honest aircraft, you tell it what to do it will do it as you expected it to do, but it was also demanding. If you didn't keep telling it what to do it would get ahead of you really fast. I doubt there are any pilots that flew the T-38 and didn't enjoy it. After pilot training I ended up in the C-141 a totally different but equally rewarding aircraft. Both were relatively new, the oldest being about 10 years old. The C-141 gave me a lot of flying experiences from flying multi-ADF approaches into Tehran, Iran, to performing an at-minimums circling approach into Keflavik, Iceland. And missions that included flying a 24 hour emergency air evac mission to Africa with and augmented medical crew to bring back one Peace Corp worker with an ulcer, flying the President's car and secret service personnel to Florida, to flying a Joint Chiefs of Staff emergency mission to fly Shrike missiles in support of Israel in the '73 war, and many others, some dull, some exciting and interesting. I got out of the Air Force and went to work at Northrop working mostly on the B-2 Bomber, another exciting, and sometime stressful adventure.

 

[The Basket]

I remember reading about a German pilot who said all the mig 29 was good for was airshow displays.

And that's the point.

All about the electrics.

So maybe copy the radar and forget about the turn radius.

 

[nuuumannn]

Did the F-5 have influence on the MiG-29, no, not design or even concept wise. Remember, the lightweight fighter concept that the MiG-29 was built to came from experience learned from the North Vietnamese use of Soviet fighters in the Vietnam war. That had a more profound influence on Soviet aircraft, other than an individual piece of hardware. In saying that though, with the fall of South Vietnam, examples of F-5s and A-37s made their way to the SU, and eventually to their Warsaw Pact allies - I visited an air museum in an Eastern European country and was initially surprised to see examples of these types nestled within rows of MiGs and Sukhois - and these aircraft were studied, but not for their individual qualities. The biggest thing these types gave the Soviets was that all Soviet military aircraft of the 80s/90s were designed to operate from NATO standard ground equipment. Their electrical systems were replicated in Soviet aircraft, so that almost all aircraft of that era had 28 to 30 volt DC and 114 to 120 V at 400 hz AC electrical systems and NATO standard GPU (ground power unit) receptacles fitted to their aircraft; DC three prong plugs and AC six prong plugs. Standard NATO fuel receptacles were copied too. Another innovation was that the 12.7mm guns that the Soviets fitted to their aircraft could fire US .50 cal rounds.

The reasons for all this were obvious. One more thing, the F-5 didn't lend any design features to the MiG-23, but the F-4 did. Allegedly, the big boxy intakes and their moveable boundary layer splitter plates are copied directly from the American jet, apparently, the number of holes in the splitter are exactly the same on both jets.

NAM 60

F-4F

It's worth noting that, getting back to the original thought above, the F-4's performance in Vietnam had a significantly more profound impact on Soviet thinking, especially since the MiG-21, the typical Soviet fighter of the day (as opposed to interceptor - a very different role requiring a very different solution in Soviet design circles) encountered it in combat and didn't always come off on top. The US took note of these encounters, too - clearly there was still use of a gun aboard a big heavy fighter - but the Soviets saw how this combat experience could shape future fighter design and consequently redrew its fast jet requirements, issuing specifications for an Advanced Frontline Fighter to which the Su-27 was built and an Advanced Lightweight Tactical Fighter to which the MiG-29 was built, paralleling the US requirements for what eventually became the F-15 and F-16, for essentially the same reasons - combat experience in Vietnam.

 

[SaparotRob]

If I remember correctly, the T-38, the trainer aircraft that evolve into the F-5 (which in itself had evolved from a proposed light fighter) would roll at 560 degrees/sec. I am sure that there are many students that had bounced their helmet off the canopy when deflecting the stick too quickly.

The walk out to the T-38 after transitioning from the T-37 Tweet was both exciting and intimidating. The T-38 was exciting because you knew that if you could master the supersonic T-38, you could fly any aircraft in the Air Force inventory. It was intimidating because it took off at twice the speed, climbed 10x as fast at 33,000 ft/min., and scariest of all, flew approach at 178 mph, over 100 mph faster than the T-37. The first indication of the speed of the aircraft was on the first flight, of course. Take off was straight forward. Run the throttles up to mil power and check the gages, if OK, release the brakes and light the afterburners, check nozzle positions swing to full open indicating AB light off, and you are on your way. At your rotate speed pull back on the stick. When your vertical velocity indicator indicates a positive climb rate, raise gear before gear door limiting speed of 250 kts. So, on my first flight I was barreling down the runway, got to rotate speed, check VVI and reached for the gear lever only to see it go up by itself as the instructor raised it due to the fact we were already approaching 250 kts. I thought "wow! This is airplane is fast!". You find out very quickly that it is an honest aircraft, you tell it what to do it will do it as you expected it to do, but it was also demanding. If you didn't keep telling it what to do it would get ahead of you really fast. I doubt there are any pilots that flew the T-38 and didn't enjoy it. After pilot training I ended up in the C-141 a totally different but equally rewarding aircraft. Both were relatively new, the oldest being about 10 years old. The C-141 gave me a lot of flying experiences from flying multi-ADF approaches into Tehran, Iran, to performing an at-minimums circling approach into Keflavik, Iceland. And missions that included flying a 24 hour emergency air evac mission to Africa with and augmented medical crew to bring back one Peace Corp worker with an ulcer, flying the President's car and secret service personnel to Florida, to flying a Joint Chiefs of Staff emergency mission to fly Shrike missiles in support of Israel in the '73 war, and many others, some dull, some exciting and interesting. I got out of the Air Force and went to work at Northrop working mostly on the B-2 Bomber, another exciting, and sometime stressful adventure.

I've read this post a few times and enjoyed each time.
My aviation experience was running around the apartment with an Aroura P-40 while making airplanes noises. What do you mean by an aircraft getting ahead of you?

 

[nuuumannn]

I remember reading about a German pilot who said all the mig 29 was good for was airshow displays.

If you're operating Eurofighter Typhoons and expect to fly against Su-35s, as the Luftwaffe does, or conversely will be up against Rafales, Gripens, F-16s, F-22s or Typhoons, but up against similarly equipped Third World nations with aircraft of the same vintage, the MiG-29 is a great cut price interceptor for poor nations. When the Luftwaffe received its MiG-29s from the defunct DDR, it was equipped with the F-4F, (like the one in the picture I posted above), which, was of similar vintage to the MiG-29s of the Luftstreitkrafte, so it would have been an interesting outcome and not as much of a cake walk as people might imagine.

A nice overview by a USAF fighter jock who flew the type in Germany. A few surprises along the way:

"The Fulcrum is a very simple jet that was designed to fit in the Soviet model of tactical aviation. That means the pilot was an extension of the ground controller. As many have read, innovative tactics and autonomous operations were not approved solutions in the Warsaw Pact countries. The cockpit switchology is not up to western standards and the sensors are not tools used to enhance pilot situation awareness, rather they are only used as tools to aid in the launch of weapons.

The jet is very reliable and fairly simple to maintain. I could service the fuel, oil, hydraulics and pneumatics and had to demonstrate proficiency in these areas before I could take a jet off-station. Its handling qualities are mediocre at best. The flight control system is a little sloppy and not very responsive. This does not mean the jet isn't very maneuverable. It is. I put it between the F-15C and the F-16. The pilot just has to work harder to get the jet to respond the way he wants.

The Fulcrum also has a lot of ponies under the hood. I rack-and-stack it in the same order as above as far as thrust-to-weight. The only real side-by-side performance comparison was with an F-15C. I was carrying a centerline fuel tank and the Eagle had no external stores except for the wing pylons and missile launch rails. The mission was BFM but the MiG-29's centerline tank is limited to 4 g until empty. The performance comparison put me 3000 feet line abreast with the F-15 at 10,000 feet and 300 knots indicated airspeed. At the F-15 pilot's call we each selected full afterburner and I matched his pitch rate until we got to 70° nose high. The first one to reach 100 knots would call terminate and we'd see how it played out. When the F-15 pilot hit 100 knots I still had 170 knots and was well above him.

Another common performance comparison that doesn't require any side-by-side look is over-top-top airspeed – the speed required to complete a loop. The Viper requires about 250 knots to get over the top. I could horse the MiG-29 over the top at 150 knots. While the GE-powered F-16 does have a thrust-to-weight advantage over the MiG-29, the Viper will get to its angle-of-attack limit if it started a loop at such a slow speed and the pilot can't pull the nose through the vertical. Although the Fulcrum has the same angle-of-attack limit as the F-16 (26°), the Fulcrum pilot can override the limiter and get to 45° to 50° angle-of-attack. The only caution when doing this with the MiG is that it loses some directional stability above the angle-of-attack limit.

The Fulcrum only carries a few hundred more pounds of fuel internally than an F-16. That fuel has to feed two fairly thirsty engines. The jet doesn't go very far on a tank of gas. We figured on a combat radius of about 150 nautical miles with a centerline fuel tank. This included a high subsonic cruise out to its area-of-responsibility, about 2 minutes of afterburner and a high subsonic cruise back to base.

When it came to tactically employing the jet there were surprises and disappointments. The radar was actually pretty good and enabled fairly long-range contacts. As already alluded to, the displays were very basic and didn't provide much to enhance the pilot's situational awareness. The radar switchology is also heinous. The Fulcrum's radar-guided BVR weapon, the AA-10A Alamo, has nowhere the same legs as an AMRAAM and is not launch-and-leave like the AMRAAM. Within its kinematic capability, the AA-10A is a very good missile but its maximum employment range was a real disappointment.

One sensor that got a lot of discussion from Intel analysts was the infrared search-and-track system (IRSTS). Most postulated that the MiG-29 could use the passive IRSTS to run a silent intercept and not alert anyone to its presence by transmitting with its radar. The IRSTS turned out to be next to useless and could have been left off the MiG-29 with negligible impact on its combat capability. After a couple of attempts at playing around with the IRSTS I dropped it from my bag of tricks.

Other things that were disappointing about the MiG-29 were the navigation system, which was unreliable, the attitude indicator and the heads-up display.

Overall, the MiG-29 was/is not the 10 foot tall monster that was postulated during the Cold War. It's a good airplane, just not much of a fighter when compared to the West's 4th-generation fighters."

From here: How To Win In A Dogfight: Stories From A Pilot Who Flew F-16s And MiGs (jalopnik.com)

 

[FLYBOYJ]

If you're operating Eurofighter Typhoons and expect to fly against Su-35s, as the Luftwaffe does, or conversely will be up against Rafales, Gripens, F-16s, F-22s or Typhoons, but up against similarly equipped Third World nations with aircraft of the same vintage, the MiG-29 is a great cut price interceptor for poor nations. When the Luftwaffe received its MiG-29s from the defunct DDR, it was equipped with the F-4F, (like the one in the picture I posted above), which, was of similar vintage to the MiG-29s of the Luftstreitkrafte, so it would have been an interesting outcome and not as much of a cake walk as people might imagine.

A nice overview by a USAF fighter jock who flew the type in Germany. A few surprises along the way:

"The Fulcrum is a very simple jet that was designed to fit in the Soviet model of tactical aviation. That means the pilot was an extension of the ground controller. As many have read, innovative tactics and autonomous operations were not approved solutions in the Warsaw Pact countries. The cockpit switchology is not up to western standards and the sensors are not tools used to enhance pilot situation awareness, rather they are only used as tools to aid in the launch of weapons.

The jet is very reliable and fairly simple to maintain. I could service the fuel, oil, hydraulics and pneumatics and had to demonstrate proficiency in these areas before I could take a jet off-station. Its handling qualities are mediocre at best. The flight control system is a little sloppy and not very responsive. This does not mean the jet isn't very maneuverable. It is. I put it between the F-15C and the F-16. The pilot just has to work harder to get the jet to respond the way he wants.

The Fulcrum also has a lot of ponies under the hood. I rack-and-stack it in the same order as above as far as thrust-to-weight. The only real side-by-side performance comparison was with an F-15C. I was carrying a centerline fuel tank and the Eagle had no external stores except for the wing pylons and missile launch rails. The mission was BFM but the MiG-29's centerline tank is limited to 4 g until empty. The performance comparison put me 3000 feet line abreast with the F-15 at 10,000 feet and 300 knots indicated airspeed. At the F-15 pilot's call we each selected full afterburner and I matched his pitch rate until we got to 70° nose high. The first one to reach 100 knots would call terminate and we'd see how it played out. When the F-15 pilot hit 100 knots I still had 170 knots and was well above him.

Another common performance comparison that doesn't require any side-by-side look is over-top-top airspeed – the speed required to complete a loop. The Viper requires about 250 knots to get over the top. I could horse the MiG-29 over the top at 150 knots. While the GE-powered F-16 does have a thrust-to-weight advantage over the MiG-29, the Viper will get to its angle-of-attack limit if it started a loop at such a slow speed and the pilot can't pull the nose through the vertical. Although the Fulcrum has the same angle-of-attack limit as the F-16 (26°), the Fulcrum pilot can override the limiter and get to 45° to 50° angle-of-attack. The only caution when doing this with the MiG is that it loses some directional stability above the angle-of-attack limit.

The Fulcrum only carries a few hundred more pounds of fuel internally than an F-16. That fuel has to feed two fairly thirsty engines. The jet doesn't go very far on a tank of gas. We figured on a combat radius of about 150 nautical miles with a centerline fuel tank. This included a high subsonic cruise out to its area-of-responsibility, about 2 minutes of afterburner and a high subsonic cruise back to base.

When it came to tactically employing the jet there were surprises and disappointments. The radar was actually pretty good and enabled fairly long-range contacts. As already alluded to, the displays were very basic and didn't provide much to enhance the pilot's situational awareness. The radar switchology is also heinous. The Fulcrum's radar-guided BVR weapon, the AA-10A Alamo, has nowhere the same legs as an AMRAAM and is not launch-and-leave like the AMRAAM. Within its kinematic capability, the AA-10A is a very good missile but its maximum employment range was a real disappointment.

One sensor that got a lot of discussion from Intel analysts was the infrared search-and-track system (IRSTS). Most postulated that the MiG-29 could use the passive IRSTS to run a silent intercept and not alert anyone to its presence by transmitting with its radar. The IRSTS turned out to be next to useless and could have been left off the MiG-29 with negligible impact on its combat capability. After a couple of attempts at playing around with the IRSTS I dropped it from my bag of tricks.

Other things that were disappointing about the MiG-29 were the navigation system, which was unreliable, the attitude indicator and the heads-up display.

Overall, the MiG-29 was/is not the 10 foot tall monster that was postulated during the Cold War. It's a good airplane, just not much of a fighter when compared to the West's 4th-generation fighters."

From here: How To Win In A Dogfight: Stories From A Pilot Who Flew F-16s And MiGs (jalopnik.com)

I love what he says about thrust vectoring!

"First, a little thrust vectoring history. The USAF tested a 3D nozzle on the Multi-Axis Thrust Vectored F-16 in the early 1990s. It was found that thrust vectoring was really only useful at speeds below 250 knots (with the F-16; the speed will vary with other jets). Above that speed the jet had enough g available and was maneuverable enough that thrust vectoring didn't add anything. Also, at high speeds, if the nozzles start to swing the jet violently around you're apt to induce unacceptable loads on the airframe. Thrust vectoring, whether 2D or 3D, is a two-edged sword. If you're going to use it, you'd better kill me now. Ever seen videos of the Super Flanker spinning around like a top and doing back flips at an airshow? First off, the jet is slow – not a place to be in a multi-bogey environment. Second, when thrust is steered off-axis the axial component of thrust is decreased. Axial thrust pushes the jet (and wing) through the air at a speed required to maintain lift. Take away forward thrust, take away speed and lift. Go back to the videos. What's happening? The Flanker is dropping like a rock at slow speed (no lift is being produced by the wing). If the Flanker pilot does not kill me now, the other edge of the sword is about to fall. He's automatically building in vertical turning room for me and it's going to take an unacceptable amount of time for him to get enough smash back to take it away due to his low airspeed. If I'm still alive I'm turning him into a strafe rag."

 

[XBe02Drvr]

What do you mean by an aircraft getting ahead of you?

When airspeed and task rate exceed brainspeed, you're "behind the airplane". A common occurrence when stepping up to a faster and more complex bird. An IP's job is to help young (and older) nuggets crank up their brainspeeds to get "ahead of the airplane".
"You fly it, don't let it fly you! Know thy mount. Get proactive rather than reactive."

The three most useless things in the world:
Altitude above you.
Runway behind you.
Five seconds ago.
And the corollary:
Fuel still in the tank truck.

The job of RAG squadron instructor RIOs who flew in the back seats of student-flown jets in ACM training was to help the nugget pilot transition from voice activated autopilot to functioning aircraft commander. The "executive function" of managing the dogfight gradually shifted from backseat coaching to front seat mastery as the nugget's brainspeed caught up to the pace of events.

 

[The Basket]

When the Indians fought the USAF they tried to use the thrust vector with the Su-30. They quickly stopped as they were very slow static target. Yeah they could escape one guy but the wingman had the worlds biggest slowest target.

The Germans couldn't get more advanced R-27 so that was that. They had to use what was in the shed and this left them at a tactical disadvantage.

The flight stick on the Fulcrum is mechanical connected to the flight controls so it judders and shakes and needs more deflection but German pilots said after the initial shock it's no big deal.

I will have to read to see what talks about the helmet sight and the gun and the R-73 as this combo is very much a winning formula

 

[ThomasP]

I have a friend who was a flight instructor and F-16 pilot in the early-1990s. He told me the story of the first time the USAF in Europe engaged the post-USSR German AF Mig-29s in an ACM exercise (IIRC the Mig-29s were the only Russian combat airframe that they kept in service?). The Migs were equipped with the helmet mounted sight and some type of advanced (for the time) IR short range missile (IIRC it was the R-73 but I do not remember for sure). The usual equipment for scoring was carried by both sides, and normal exercise rules were followed. The Germans scored 19 kills before the F-16s managed their first one. The combination of high angle-off launch capability of the missile and the helmet mounted sight was the main reason. My friend told me that the F-16 pilots were so upset that they walked out on the debrief. Apparently they had not been aware/informed of the actual capabilities of the Mig-29 weapon system.

 

[XBe02Drvr]

The usual equipment for scoring was carried by both sides, and normal exercise rules were followed. The Germans scored 19 kills before the F-16s managed their first one. The combination of high angle-off launch capability of the missile and the helmet mounted sight was the main reason.

The question is, can the real-world turning performance of the missile reliably achieve the task the off-axis sight commits it to? IOW, are electronically scored kills reliably representative of real world performance?

 

[ThomasP]

Hey XBe02Drvr,

Unfortunately (fortunately?) AFAIK there have been no serious war-time engagements between Western and Soviet/Russian aircraft of the time with the equipment in question - that would give an indication of the actual capabilities. But, unless the exercise higher-ups deliberately skewed the results, they believed that the results were representative of real life missile/helmet sight performance. I have read at least one study by the US military (written around the same time) that stated the helmet mounted sight and high angle-off launch missile capability was something that needed to be pursued. The advanced IR dogfight missiles that the US and UK(?) were working on prior to/at the time (AIM-95 & SRAAM for example), all had similar high angle-off launch capabilities, and work had been/was being done on helmet mounted sights of similar capability to the Soviet system. I think the fact that today, all(?) the major Western powers have adopted (or are currently adopting) helmet mounted sights and high(er) angle-off launch capable missiles is a good indicator of the combo's effectiveness. Any information to the contrary would be appreciated.

 

[Admiral Beez]

As a lad in the 1970s and early 1980s I think every air war movie I saw used the F-5 as a MiG. The Canadair CF-5 was often painted in "aggressor" paint schemes, some shown here Canada Operations

 

[nuuumannn]

(IIRC the Mig-29s were the only Russian combat airframe that they kept in service?).

They kept Sukhoi Su-22s as well, used them for maritime strike.