MiG-29 Avionics

Thread to discuss MiG-29 Avionics. What more can we learn about this aircraft and its systems?

To start with, here are three diagrams which lewradar and I believe do not, as thought, refer to the Sapfir-23 series but to the N019/N001.

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

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

The third shows the structure of the moving subreflector.

Perhaps lewradar can post here his comments on the design of this system.

N019 radar, minus the front reflector.

Perhaps lewradar can post here his comments on the design of this system.

Click to expand...

Cross-posted from Mig-23 thread:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

i'd like to learn about the Gardenya active jammer for the Mig-29, way too many "urban legends" are being said about, (crappy commie stuff etc ???)
but around you guys, i'm sure, the info will be accurate and objective 8)

thamks a million

Loco.

I believe that according to Oleg Samolovich from Sukhoi's memoirs, the Su-17 team lead by Zyrin refused to redesign a version with internal Gardeniya jammer (post Beka'a Valley) on the grounds it was crap and a waste of space.

The Su-27 Flight Manual includes a nice Gardeniya pod manual, which I can post a translation of here after my holiday.

thanks Overscan.
now doing some thinkin'
the Bekaa valley... wasn't that during the seventies?, it seems to me that 30 years after, it could have been upgraded to a more reasonable level, because the Peruvian experience in the 1995 war, was to send Su-22's to battle not only with far outdated Sirena-2 RWR but without "any" EW suite, call it Gardenya or anything for that matter, loosing 2 of them with the pilots KIA against an electronically far superior opponent.

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

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

thanks to all

da Loco.

Loco, how are you.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Saludos amigo.

Salu-2 hermano PIT 8)
i had no idea that the gardenya system was that bad ???
well if its worthless, better to get the new MSP-418K, i just dont like the idea of waisting a pylon to carry it, but its also clear that the use of "escort jamming" tactics would require only one or two of those jammers to hide a complete attack package...
and sure, using that fresh empty space for fuel, could give the Mig-29 a few miles extra range.

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

the madman.

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.

Click to expand...

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

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

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

And since when is a MiG-29 pilot an expert on ECM, of all things? I haven't even heard of one who knew what "loft" was.

Hi Dilbert,

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

JCage said:

Would HOJ mode work on deception jamming or range gate techniques, ie anything other than simpler noise jamming?

Click to expand...

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).

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.

Click to expand...

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.

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.

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.

Click to expand...

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

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

Dilbert, are not L-005S based in an altogether much more advanced technology that L-203BI?

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

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

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

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

Pit said:

Dilbert, are not L-005S based in an altogether much more advanced technology that L-203BI?

Click to expand...

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).

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 .

Click to expand...

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.

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.

Click to expand...

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

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

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

Click to expand...

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

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

Dilbert there is some information on Su-25K's SPS-141MVG-E installation from Eastern Europe:



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

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

Combat performance was tested on Iraq.

About DRFM, you can check their page:

www.cnirti.ru

Pit said:

About DRFM, you can check their page:

www.cnirti.ru

Click to expand...

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

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

Hey Dilb, maybe we can move this discussion to other topic?

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

Do you agree?

Возможности "Гардении 1ФУ":
Работа в азимуте +/-60° (в ППС и ЗПС), по углу места +/-30°.
Виды помех:
-высокочастотные шумовые
-низкочастотные доплеровские шумовые
-мерцающие
-программа из нескольких типов помех по заранее известным РЭС (РГС).
Работа станции оказывает негативное влияние на БРЛС и СПО.

Terrain Bounce was a feature of the SPS-141MVG , so its hardly surprising that its a feature of Gardeniya too.

I would have thought that to specifically advertise terrain bounce would require a steerable directive antenna, which I thought only Sorbtsiya had. Otherwise, any ECM is capable of terrain bounce - just fly low.

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

дополнение:
в отличии от "Гардении 1ФУЭ" (Су-27СК), "Гардения 1ФУ (Миг-29) имеет меньшую номенклатуру помех и работает только по одной произвольно выбранной РЭС(ответная помеха).

thanks to all for the info 8)

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

da loco.

Pending new material, I'm reposting stuff from my old webpage.

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


N019 radar on bench

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


N019EA radar mounted on export MiG-29

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


N019 block diagram

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


N019 Master oscillator

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

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

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


N019 Transmitter

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


N019 Ts100 processor

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


N019 Microwave receiver

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

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

Mode "V" (Vstryehchya) : Encounter

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

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

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

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

Two basic scan patterns are used.



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



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

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

Minimum measurable range in this mode is 5km.

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

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

Mode "D" (Dogon): Pursuit



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

Display is calibrated to a maximum range of 50km.

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

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

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

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



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




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

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

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

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

Mode "SP" (Svobodnoye Prostranstvo) Free Search

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

Mode "AVT" (Aootomaht) Automatic

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mode "BL BOY" (Bleezhniy Boy) Close Combat



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

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

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

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

N019 is the USSR standard model.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Phazotron-Ukraine are offering a UM522 low noise reciever to replace the NO19-09 UHF receiver. This low cost drop-in replacement part increases range 10-20%.

dilbert said:

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.

Click to expand...

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

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.

Click to expand...

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.
1. up to 320kg on wing hardpoints 2 or 10
2. up to 380kg on wing hardpoints 3 or 9
3. up to 500kg on wing hardpoints 4 or 8
This has been achieved by using trim tabs located on all control surfaces, especially on the ailerons. The pilot can then easily trim the aircraft to neutral. The SPS-141 weights with cabling only 180kg, therefore I do not see any problem to take-off, fly and land the aircraft. Placing the SPS-141 to the wing hardpoint no.3 has also some reasons (e.g. ECM antenna radiation patterns). At last the drag is the last factor the su-25 should worry about. The Su-25 is a flying tank and remember tanks don`t rely on aerodynamics.

PiBu was quoting Dilbert I believe. I modified his post to make it clearer.

overscan said:

PiBu was quoting Dilbert I believe. I modified his post to make it clearer.

Click to expand...

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

PiBu said:

overscan said:

PiBu was quoting Dilbert I believe. I modified his post to make it clearer.

Click to expand...

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

Click to expand...

What a misunderstanding, somehow I felt I was responding to wrong person. I`m sorry PiBu, you wouldn`t say that nonsense.

PiBu - welcome, and thanks for sharing such a rare photo! Not to go far off-topic, can you briefly comment whether that Su-25 was still able to carry, aim and drop bombs at the same time while it was carrying that pod? My documentation indicates that it's an exclusive payload.

N019M1 is the last variety of the N019 radar family.But there is few info on this radar,I've never heard that the radar has fitted on any aircraft.I want to know that had any N019M1 been made and used on any aircraft ????Could somebody tell me this?TIA!

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

Greetings Everyone!

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

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

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

Ok, here is link to ppt for RLPK-29 (radar of Mig)

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

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

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

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

Comment: Is seems natural, as processing of signal with intermediate repetition frequency is very difficult , if even possible in analog manner.
That is why the reason why Hugues win over Westinghouse for radar for F-15 (more sophisticated processing). And also why APG-9, pure analog design can work only in high repetition frequency mode
that has limited applicability over land in rear hemisphere

2) For tracking (SST mode)- there are completely different circuits, but finally tracking could be done with great precision (probably) even in high repetition frequency mode

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

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

And many others...

Interesting - will have to post English translations!

I will provide translations to English when I have some free time. Maybe some first slides tomorrow.

Google Translate did a pretty good job of autotranslation, just a little fixup required.

So first important slides..

Slide 4
General characteristics of RLPK Designation, composition and TTX complex
Destination of RLPK 27 and RLPK-29

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

Composition of the RLPK:
pulsed Doppler radar N-001 or N-019;
Specialized TsОМОМ (computer) Ts100 with the input-output device N001-35.

Slide 5

The main units are RLPK-29

N019-01 - Antenna-wave system.
N019-11 - antenna control and synchronization control unit.
N019-02 - Transmitter
N001-22М - a set generator. (comment: waveform generator
N019-09 - High Frequency Receiver.
N019-03 - receiver.
N001-25 - information conversion unit.
N001-35 - I / O block.
N001-45 - communication block with the CEI. (SEI -it means integrated system of display)
N019-05 - TsЕОМ Ts-100.02.01.
N019-60 - antenna-feeder device pylon.
(Comment: probably device to provide signal to R-27R misile)
N019-18 - block of transformation of one-time commands.

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

Well... translating all this will take me some time...
I stuck on tables - as there is no option to
paste them here... Maybe there is possible to translate the document in ppt form and then share somehow?

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

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

I'll do a machine translation and post it here. Save you some time