MiG-29 Avionics

[overscan (PaulMM)]

More

 

[overscan (PaulMM)]

And last. These are mostly about navigation systems.

 

[overscan (PaulMM)]

An easy way to translate them is to access online here:

https://studfile.net/nau/145/folder:11012/#5383864

Expand the folders 2012 Module 1, 2012 Module 2 and Module 3 to see them.

 

[Givani048]

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!

i think it's is on russian 9.13 Mig-29s

 

[F-2]

i think it's is on russian 9.13 Mig-29s

N019m is on the later 9.13 Mig-29s
N019m1 is on Mig-29sm and smp

 

[Scorpion82]

Here is an avionics doc on the MiG-29SMT. Have only browsed over it quickly, but seems to include some interesting stuff on the Zhuk and avionics in general

 

[BBCRF]

Here is an avionics doc on the MiG-29SMT. Have only browsed over it quickly, but seems to include some interesting stuff on the Zhuk and avionics in general

not SMT,this UPG

 

[overscan (PaulMM)]

The document itself says its MiG-29 "Supershafaq". Yemen called its MiG-29s Shafaq, so at first sight its an upgrade for Yemen.

 

[F-2]

So correct me if I am misunderstanding, but it seems the range increase is mostly a velocity search type mode. The actual lock on range is pretty similar to N019.

It sorta seems that N019M and the Original N010 and then N019M1 and Zhuk-M(E) have similar overall detection and air to air performance. Zhuk radars are more flexible multimode radars while the N019 are perhaps lower risk?

 

[ZIGGY-2014]

So correct me if I am misunderstanding, but it seems the range increase is mostly a velocity search type mode. The actual lock on range is pretty similar to N019.

It sorta seems that N019M and the Original N010 and then N019M1 and Zhuk-M(E) have similar overall detection and air to air performance. Zhuk radars are more flexible multimode radars while the N019 are perhaps lower risk?

Hi!
Hmmm..I was under the impression the N019 Rubin had a tracking range of at most 60km? Therefore, wouldn't Zhuk-M have about 20km over the N019 Rubin in a head on engagement? I would think that is a substantial increase in tactical capability, no?

In regard to a similar air to air performance as the N019 Rubin & N019M Topaz. I am not quite sure, but I would like to note that the Zhuk-M is a digital design with a planar array, I imagine the Zhuk has very minimal latency, lower side lobes, higher directivity along with high directional beam agility across its axes seamlessly compared to the hybrid, predominately analog mirrored design of the N019 & N019M.

I would bet that the Zhuk-M detects, tracks and prosecutes targets at a far greater speed & efficiency over the N019, N019M as well as the N019M1 to such a degree that any similarity in range performance would be negligible.
Also, as a general rule a radar's performance is largely limited its physical size. These are radars compatible with the Mig-29, It's should not be a surprise if there is some similarity in range performances.

while the N019 are perhaps lower risk?

Not sure I follow, are you perhaps questioning why the N019 is operational & in some cases chosen over the Zhuk?

 

[overscan (PaulMM)]

Translation from https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/attachments/mig-29-smt-pocket_guide-pdf.705444/

Zhuk-M

Main Modes
Air-to-Air Modes

Rangefinder-search mode.

The radar detects air targets flying in free space and against the background of the underlying surface within the coverage zones in azimuth and elevation.

Frequency range – X. Number of letters (litera*) – 16

* "Litera" typically refers to PRF settings on Soviet radars.

Scanning mode characteristics.

The radar provides stabilization of the field of view relative to the horizon during the roll and pitch of the aircraft.

Number of bars 2-4
Maximum scanning angles of the antenna beam
● azimuth ±85º
● elevation +56º / -40º
● roll ±120º

Scanning modes
● small zone ±10º (2 bars)
● medium zone ±30º (4 bars), ±30º (2 bars)
● large zone ±60º (2 bars), ±60º (4 bars).
The minimum target speed for detection and tracking is 150 km/h in free space.

The radar provides the following values of detection range for an F-16 aircraft (σ = 5 sq m)

		Azimuth/range mode	Azimuth/speed mode
1	Front aspect, lookup	> 120 km	130 km
2	Front aspect, lookdown	> 110 km	130 km
3	Rear aspect, lookup	> 50 km
4	Rear aspect, lookdown	> 40 km

 

[ZIGGY-2014]

Here's the work in progress

Yo, Boss quick question in regard to the Soviet standard N019 antenna view parameters. I see that in National Aviation University Zhitomir Military Institute study you shared regarding N001 & N019 is a specification for view zone capability of the RLPK-29 listed below.

View Zone -azimuth ± 70 °-elevation -45°/ +60

My question is does the specification apply to the Soviet standard N019 view zone & its scan angle performance of platforms like the Product 9-12 for example?

I have seen these numbers before, but do not remember where. Does the view zone capability above represent the maximum scan angle or tracking zone in any capacity when it is listed?

Apologies if the answer is in the study, just started reading it now.

Cheers

 

[Aeria Gloria]

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 oddities 5 degrees with STT before the lock is dropped

 

[ZIGGY-2014]

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 oddities 5 degrees with STT before the lock is dropped

Hi, appreciate the reply.

However, what your provided is not correct & does not apply to the N019 Rubin or the N001 Mech. All information provided as well as the study in question is clear in the performance specified..

The maximum tracking zone performance for the N019 Rubin is long established at 65° elevation @ +56°/ -36. This is specified with no room for interpretation (by design) in the Soviet Mig-29 9-12 (initial production) operators manual as well as sources & literature throughout the years. It is also attached in the very post you replied to.

Attached is additional clarification as well as the listed maximum view zone/area performance depending on target range etc. Never does the N019 Rubin exceed 65/70° azimuth & elevation +56°/ -36 under any conditions. Which is obvious when understanding the history & design of the radar.
In in regard to "gimbal" limitations in a single target track.
The N019 Rubin is equipped with a mechanical beam-scanning, offset front feed, polarization-twisting Cassegrain antenna that has no ability to "gimbal" like Western 3rd & 4th Generation parabolic & planar array antenna.
I don't think the N019 even gimbals at all but operates RF rotary joints.

The only moving part is a Main Twist reflector which is scanned. It must rely on a double-ridged feed and a wire grid paraboloid Sub reflector thar is fixed place at the front of the nose. The twist reflector reflects the beam of the paraboloid while it rotates its plane of polarization by 90 degrees. The twisted beam passes through the wire grid paraboloid reflector. The N019 provides a uniform gain but retains terrible boresight/"Gimbal" performance.

If the listed performance by the National Aviation University Zhitomir Military Institute is correct (View Zone -azimuth ± 70 °-elevation -45°/ +60), this means the first Soviet production version of the N019 (Rubin) now has better elevation tracking performance than the slotted array Zhuk-ME @ azimuth ± 85 °-elevation -40°/ +56°. It also has the same positive elevation performance as the electronically scanned surveillance sector & total tracking sector performance of the Ibris-E for the Su-35.

 

[Aeria Gloria]

Hi, appreciate the reply.

However, what your provided is not correct & does not apply to the N019 Rubin or the N001 Mech. All information provided as well as the study in question is clear in the performance specified..

The maximum tracking zone performance for the N019 Rubin is long established at 65° elevation @ +56°/ -36. This is specified with no room for interpretation (by design) in the Soviet Mig-29 9-12 (initial production) operators manual as well as sources & literature throughout the years. It is also attached in the very post you replied to.

Attached is additional clarification as well as the listed maximum view zone/area performance depending on target range etc. Never does the N019 Rubin exceed 65/70° azimuth & elevation +56°/ -36 under any conditions. Which is obvious when understanding the history & design of the radar.
In in regard to "gimbal" limitations in a single target track.
The N019 Rubin is equipped with a mechanical beam-scanning, offset front feed, polarization-twisting Cassegrain antenna that has no ability to "gimbal" like Western 3rd & 4th Generation parabolic & planar array antenna.
I don't think the N019 even gimbals at all but operates RF rotary joints.

The only moving part is a Main Twist reflector which is scanned. It must rely on a double-ridged feed and a wire grid paraboloid Sub reflector thar is fixed place at the front of the nose. The twist reflector reflects the beam of the paraboloid while it rotates its plane of polarization by 90 degrees. The twisted beam passes through the wire grid paraboloid reflector. The N019 provides a uniform gain but retains terrible boresight/"Gimbal" performance.

If the listed performance by the National Aviation University Zhitomir Military Institute is correct (View Zone -azimuth ± 70 °-elevation -45°/ +60), this means the first Soviet production version of the N019 (Rubin) now has better elevation tracking performance than the slotted array Zhuk-ME @ azimuth ± 85 °-elevation -40°/ +56°. It also has the same positive elevation performance as the electronically scanned surveillance sector & total tracking sector performance of the Ibris-E for the Su-35.

What is in correct? You seem to agree and say so yourself that in search mode, the maximum azimuth in search is 65 degrees, and in STT track, the lock can be maintained up to 70 degrees azimuth. The radar does gimbal, however because it is cassegrain it needs only to gimbal half the amount of a planar antenna due to its double reflector design.

Since you have the weapon employment manual it should be clear, whatever the radar is doing inside, from the perspective of the pilot, the farthest you can search a target from the nose is 65 degrees, and 70 degrees once locked on. Multiple images you and others have posted above from the weapon employment manual show this also

You asked earlier if -45 and +60 degrees you saw somewhere is correct for elevation, it is not for N-019/N-019M of 9.12/9.13, however I assume it must be an estimation or misunderstanding. The document you reference, the PowerPoint OverScan has translated is a document made for teaching about radars. In this case, I would trust the weapon employment manual, MiG-29 technical manual, and all other MiG-29 specific documentation that affirms the +56/-37 degree elevation zone.

Have you never seen a textbook with a wealth of information get a fact or two wrong? In this case, the N-019 of 9.12/9.13 is so well documented we have plenty of material to reference that yes, indeed +60/-45 degrees elevation is incorrect for N-019

They are not the only ones to get it wrong, and like many pieces of misinformation, are often unknowingly spread as truth

 

[ZIGGY-2014]

What is in correct? You seem to agree and say so yourself that in search mode, the maximum azimuth in search is 65 degrees, and in STT track, the lock can be maintained up to 70 degrees azimuth

No. I do not agree, I thought I made myself clear.

I will repeat myself again. I have no issue with that.

The maximum tracking zone performance for the N019 Rubin is long established at azimuth 65° @ +56°/ -36 elevation.
This is stated verbatim in the Russian language in the soviet Mig-29 product index 9-12 operations manual. It is repeated several times and depicted in drawing several times as well.

This manual I referred to is in regard to the first serial production line of the MiG-29 that ran for about 4 years before being completely phased out by product index 9-12A & 9-13. Anyone who understands the aircraft's history & design can easily identify this by simply reading the manual.

Since you have the weapon employment manual it should be clear, whatever the radar is doing inside, from the perspective of the pilot, the farthest you can search a target from the nose is 65 degrees, and 70 degrees once locked on. Multiple images you and others have posted above from the weapon employment manual show this also

Yes, that is my entire point, it is clear, its always been clear.

Again, The maximum tracking zone performance for the N019 Rubin is long established at azimuth 65° @ +56°/ -36 elevation.
This is stated verbatim in the Russian language in the soviet Mig-29 product index 9-12 operations manual. It is repeated several times and depicted in drawing several times as well.

There is no technological ability for the N019 Rubin to "maintain" a track to 70. Because its The MAXIMUM TRACKING zone coverage is 65°. the N019 Rubin had zero ability to gimbal & exceed it by design. Assumptions based on what you heard or read other radars can achieve is not a viable belief.

The radar does gimbal, however because it is cassegrain it needs only to gimbal half the amount of a planar antenna due to its double reflector design.

No. It does not gimbal.
If you keep running with this delusion, I am going to end up requesting that you to point to the actual device on the radar you believe is the gimbal. Then I am going to ask you why you think it does.

The only moving part is the main reflector.
It would make absolutely zero sense that it sits on a gimbal if the horn and sub reflector is entirely fixed stationary to the radar & fastened to the aircraft.

The pathetic launch parameters of the R-27ER compared to the ET in the Su-27 operations manuals are evident of a total lack of stabilization or whatever you think is a "gimbal" in the design. That is called a hint, to be precise.

No... It only rotates "halfway" because it is physically incapable of anything more. Not because its boresight performance is efficient to the degree of a planar or slotted array. Not even close, not in the slightest.

You say, due to its reflector design? As if there is anything special about the 1950-60s technology of it? A single, parabolic antenna that has no electronic beam agility, beam forming whatsoever? I do not believe you know much about these radars the more you purposely make broad statements and expect me to accept at face value. Please do not, because I will request you to clarify all of them in detail.

The Cassegrain Twisted design is NOT designed to prioritize boresight capability but rather offer uniform gain and ability quick scan quickly. They are rudimentary designs, less complex, less moving parts, cheap to produce en masse to satisfy SOVIET doctrine.

Because in case you do not remember or know the history, (which is critical to understanding the design approach & perspective of the designer and end user) the Soviet Union at the time was having a bit of a production issue in the electronics industry the decade leading up to the Dissolution. They could not produce the advanced radars they wanted in unit numbers high enough to have a strategic effect in their mind. As communist, the decision to use inferior 3rd generation technologies (radar and sensor fusion) in the Mig-29 and Su-27 was determined purely on doctrinal, philosophical & overall strategic calculation rather than one due to any lack of technological innovation to develop radars of the most advanced technologies.

These are not even the original types of advanced radars the VVS and PVO-V were initially going to get. not in the slightest. But were only accepted into service because it was either take the N019 & N001, or have no radar at all. Additionally, the radars have no tactical requirement or need for wider tracking zone coverage anyway. The radar is optimized for ranged BVR engagements, not close quarters. The R-73 is used via HMS & electro optical pointing station and is already deadly inside of 10 miles.

Due to the latency of the analog N019 & its twisted Cassegrain design, The burden of close close quarters engagements belongs to the OEPs and helmet sight. They can only directly guide IR sensors without any support of the radar. IR missiles are the primary weapon system of close quarters engagements technologically and doctrinally. You look in any operator's manual of Mig-29 and Su-27 that are equipped with this specific type of antenna, IR guided missiles are the sole weapon systems mentioned specifically by name.

The radar is entirely analog. Its entire existence is purely analog. The N019M is not the same radar, that is why it is called Topaz. Phazotron-NIIR does not name each variant, modification and upgrade of a base series by a new name. The Topaz was an entirely new radar for the Mig-29 because the Rubin in 1986 was confirmed to the world as CIA compromised. Shortly after, the radar would also be NATO owned.

You asked earlier if -45 and +60 degrees you saw somewhere is correct

I asked out of politeness, but I always knew it was incorrect.

The National Aviation University Zhitomir Military Institute study on the N001 and N019 is helpful no doubt & appreciated, but it has impeached itself a few times in regard to both radars. I have simply already moved on from it. It is not any authority on the subject more than what you or I have typed here.

The study comes from an institute & nation who operates modified versions of the N019 Rubin that they carried out themselves. It is the only way they were able to operate the R-27ER from their Mig-29 9-12A without the N019M Topaz. Even their own domestic production version of the R-27ERs is incompatible with the N019 Rubin.

I was hopeful my request for clarification would have led to an interesting edifying discussion into the Ukrainian perspective and struggles they overcame to achieve the MiG-29MU1 & MU2. Not lead to me having to explain basic Soviet history and design philosophy that I assumed was already well understood here.

Or just maybe I do not know a thing about what I am talking about. Which can be the case too. Keeping in mind this possibility is critical.

 

[F-2]

I have heard many times N019M was made because Tolkachev but from what I can tell he only provided some hand written notes on the target recognition system. It was SAPFIR and ZASLON that were seriously compromised.

 

[overscan (PaulMM)]

I have heard many times N019M was made because Tolkachev but from what I can tell he only provided some hand written notes on the target recognition system. It was SAPFIR and ZASLON that were seriously compromised.

Where did you glean that from? It doesn't accord with what I've read.

 

[F-2]

Where did you glean that from? It doesn't accord with what I've read.

The Billion Dollar Spy by David E Hoffman.

I could be mistaken in understanding but

795On March 16, he set out on a long surveil-
lance detection run by car, by bus, and then
on foot. Because his cover was that of a State
Department bureaucrat, Morris did not wear
the radio scanner that had helped Rolph
listen to KGB transmissions; it would be aw-
fully hard to explain if he were caught.
Without the radio, he would have to make a
judgment call about surveillance on his own
instincts and observations. Two hours later,
free from surveillance, he reached the
planned site, a streetcar stop. A dozen people
were waiting. Morris was excited; the adren-
aline was rushing through him. He met
Tolkachev after dark and walked to
Tolkachev’s car, parked at a nearby apart-
ment building. Inside the car, Morris felt
tense, but Tolkachev was calm and behaved
as if he had been doing this forever. They
handed each other packages: Morris gave
Tolkachev a note that brought up exfiltra-
tion, outlined how the operation would work,
532/795and included the questionnaire. Tolkachev
handed over to Morris seventeen rolls of film
and a very long ops note, forty-two pages.
The materials included surprising new intel-
ligence about a “target recognition system”
being developed for the MiG-29 fighter.

795Tolkachev had promised to give the CIA an
answer about exfiltration and signaled for
another meeting on April 23. Morris went
and found him at 8:55 p.m. This time, be-
cause a group of children were playing nois-
ily near Tolkachev’s parked car, he drove a
few blocks away and parked in a quiet spot
on a nearby street. Time was short, but
Tolkachev was firm: exfiltration was out of
the question. He gave the envelope with the
exfiltration plan back to Morris. At the same
time, Morris handed back to Tolkachev the
sensitive materials he had provided at the
March meeting on the MiG-29 target recog-
nition system. This was a standard proced-
ure, to return to Tolkachev any original writ-
ten materials once the CIA had seen them.

After the call, Kirpichev summoned the
leading engineer at the institute, who had
worked on the target recognition system for
the No. 19 radar that would go into the
MiG-29 fighter.
As Tolkachev listened, terrified, Kirpichev
described the call. “By the end of the day,” he
said, Balan wanted “a list of persons familiar
546/795with the recognition system or having access
to information about the recognition system
with the RLS No. 19.”

Tolkachev didn’t signal the CIA at the
time, but he wrote a long, detailed account
about what happened, to pass at their next
meeting in the autumn. He wrote that if the
KGB already had his handwritten notes on
the MiG-29 target recognition system, “then
no measures would help me.” But he added,
“If I successfully did away with my materials
in time, then the KGB will not be able to find
documentary evidence of my relationship
with you.” If the KGB was embarking on a
broad search for the source of a leak, there
was nothing in the house or at the dacha that
would be compromising

Tolkachev reported to the CIA that by au-
tumn he had concluded that the KGB was
carrying out a broad investigation, not direc-
ted specifically at him. Yet he felt it was pos-
sible they were still pursuing someone.
Tolkachev said he was in a “waiting position”
and, at least for a while, could not bring the
CIA any more material about the MiG-29
target recognition system. He reported that
workers in the First Department had begun
making unannounced spot checks in his
laboratory to find out if secret documents
were misplaced in any way. At the same
time, all employees were asked to submit
new photographs—a new building pass “is in
the works.”

Tolkachev delivered to the United States a
library of top secret documents about the
design and capability of radars deployed on
Soviet fighters and interceptors, including
the MiG-23 fighter, the MiG-25 high-altitude
interceptor, the MiG-31 interceptor, and the
MiG-29 and Su-27 multi-role fighters. In
particular, Tolkachev compromised several
versions of the SAPFIR radar and the ZASLON
radar. Tolkachev also carted away Soviet
secrets on surface-to-air missiles and the
sensitive Soviet project called SHTORA, or
“window blind,” which was designed to
conceal surface-to-air missiles from the
radars of target aircraft.

That’s all they mention for the Fulcrum radar while they give lots more examples of him providing technical data and flight test data on the Mig-23,25, and 31. The author had access to hundreds of CIA memos from the time. From what it sounded though it was the Fulcrum was some handwritten notes and the Flanker was just that it existed.

Two years ago I tried to do a FOIA on the documents he provided. They dismissed it on grounds that I think were illegal but I didn’t and wasn’t going to sue over it.

 

[Aeria Gloria]

No. I do not agree, I thought I made myself clear.

I will repeat myself again. I have no issue with that.

The maximum tracking zone performance for the N019 Rubin is long established at azimuth 65° @ +56°/ -36 elevation.
This is stated verbatim in the Russian language in the soviet Mig-29 product index 9-12 operations manual. It is repeated several times and depicted in drawing several times as well.

This manual I referred to is in regard to the first serial production line of the MiG-29 that ran for about 4 years before being completely phased out by product index 9-12A & 9-13. Anyone who understands the aircraft's history & design can easily identify this by simply reading the manual.


Yes, that is my entire point, it is clear, its always been clear.

Again, The maximum tracking zone performance for the N019 Rubin is long established at azimuth 65° @ +56°/ -36 elevation.
This is stated verbatim in the Russian language in the soviet Mig-29 product index 9-12 operations manual. It is repeated several times and depicted in drawing several times as well.

There is no technological ability for the N019 Rubin to "maintain" a track to 70. Because its The MAXIMUM TRACKING zone coverage is 65°. the N019 Rubin had zero ability to gimbal & exceed it by design. Assumptions based on what you heard or read other radars can achieve is not a viable belief.


No. It does not gimbal.
If you keep running with this delusion, I am going to end up requesting that you to point to the actual device on the radar you believe is the gimbal. Then I am going to ask you why you think it does.

The only moving part is the main reflector.
It would make absolutely zero sense that it sits on a gimbal if the horn and sub reflector is entirely fixed stationary to the radar & fastened to the aircraft.

The pathetic launch parameters of the R-27ER compared to the ET in the Su-27 operations manuals are evident of a total lack of stabilization or whatever you think is a "gimbal" in the design. That is called a hint, to be precise.

No... It only rotates "halfway" because it is physically incapable of anything more. Not because its boresight performance is efficient to the degree of a planar or slotted array. Not even close, not in the slightest.

You say, due to its reflector design? As if there is anything special about the 1950-60s technology of it? A single, parabolic antenna that has no electronic beam agility, beam forming whatsoever? I do not believe you know much about these radars the more you purposely make broad statements and expect me to accept at face value. Please do not, because I will request you to clarify all of them in detail.

The Cassegrain Twisted design is NOT designed to prioritize boresight capability but rather offer uniform gain and ability quick scan quickly. They are rudimentary designs, less complex, less moving parts, cheap to produce en masse to satisfy SOVIET doctrine.

Because in case you do not remember or know the history, (which is critical to understanding the design approach & perspective of the designer and end user) the Soviet Union at the time was having a bit of a production issue in the electronics industry the decade leading up to the Dissolution. They could not produce the advanced radars they wanted in unit numbers worth using to have a strategic effect in their mind. As communist, the decision to use inferior 3rd generation technologies (radar and sensor fusion) in the Mig-29 and Su-27 was determined purely on doctrinal, philosophical & overall strategic calculation rather than one due to any lack of technological innovation to develop radars of the most advanced technologies.

These are not even the original types of advanced radars the VVS and PVO-V were initially going to get. not in the slightest. But were only accepted into service because it was either take the N019 & N001, or have no radar at all. Additionally, the radars have no tactical requirement or need for wider tracking zone coverage anyway. The radar is optimized for ranged BVR engagements, not close quarters. The R-73 is used via HMS & electro optical pointing station and is already deadly inside of 10 miles.

Due to the latency of the analog N019 & its twisted Cassegrain design, The burden of close burden of close quarters engagements belongs to the OEPs and helmet sight. They can only directly guide IR sensors without any support of the radar. IR missiles are the primary weapon system of close quarters engagements technologically and doctrinally. You look in any operator's manual of Mig-29 and Su-27 that are equipped with this specific type of antenna, IR guided missiles are the sole weapon systems mentioned specifically by name.

The radar is entirely analog. Its entire existence is purely analog. The N019M is not the same radar, that is why it is called Topaz. Phazotron-NIIR does not name each variant, modification and upgrade of a base series by a new name. The Topaz was an entirely new radar for the Mig-29 because the Rubin in 1986 was confirmed to the world as CIA compromised. Shortly after, the radar would also be NATO owned.



I asked out of politeness, but I always knew it was incorrect.

The National Aviation University Zhitomir Military Institute study on the N001 and N019 is helpful no doubt & appreciated, but it has impeached itself a few times in regard to both radars. I have simply already moved on from it. It is not any authority on the subject more than what you or I have typed here.

The study comes from an institute & nation who operates modified versions of the N019 Rubin that they carried out themselves. It is the only way they were able to operate the R-27ER from their Mig-29 9-12A without the N019M Topaz. Even their own domestic production version of the R-27ERs is incompatible with the N019 Rubin.

I was hopeful my request for clarification would have led to an interesting edifying discussion into the Ukrainian perspective and struggles they overcame to achieve the MiG-29MU1 & MU2. Not lead to me having to explain basic Soviet history and design philosophy that I assumed was already well understood here.

Or just maybe I do not know a thing about what I am talking about. Which can be the case too. Keeping in mind this possibility is critical.

You are correct about one thing, I was wrong about the azimuth limit, it is 65 degrees in both search and track. I had misremembered to the amount of 5 degrees. Now, I can absorb new information and admit when I am wrong. Are you capable of admitting when you are wrong?

1. First of all, the gimbal. The reflector, as you admit, does move. It moves on 3 axis, and each axis is its own gimbal. The definition of gimbal is “A gimbal is a pivoted support that permits rotation of an object about an axis.” Am I incorrect? I attached a gif of N-001 showing its 3 axis gimbal held antenna, 3 gimbals to allow stabilization. Do I really need to point out where? Okay, I have highlighted the top bearing of the yaw axis gimbal in red. Perhaps you can point out the other two to show I was wrong that there isn’t just a gimbal, but three. After all, you say you know it so well and that I appear to know little

You throw insults saying I am delusional, am I? After all, you say there is no point where “a pivoted support permits rotation around an axis.”

You then go on this overly long tangent about your opinions of Soviet technological progress and what its predecessors of N-019 were not capable of and very emotionally judging it. Whatever the political climate or technology of its forebears, this is secret projects forum where I believe we discuss things as they truly are, using evidence, trying to stay away from emotions and assumptions to color our knowledge of what something can actually do.

2. You say you know it so well and I don’t, and that no manual recommends using the radar in close combat or R-27R/ER. I do not know what manuals you are reading, you seem to know the weapon employment manual which says otherwise. Not only here are excerpts of the weapon employment manual, but the L-18 manual talking about radar use within visual range and less then 10 km. After all, not only are there radar specific close combat modes, and the radar works with the HMS, the close combat modes vertical scan, OPT, and HMS are limited to 10 km when using radar. The stated minimum range is 250m, and the angular resolution is 15 minutes.

In addition, we have many mentions of using R-27R within 10 km, including its minimum range, and recommended range limits at low altitude from L-18 manual. The weapon employment manual shows many HUD images of “RL” under 10 km in addition.

In description of interaction/cooperation mode, it speaks of using radar for range while IRST tracks in azimuth/elevation until laser acquires, which mind you the laser has 6.5 km range at best and IRST around 12 km track in stated conditions. This sounds very close to WVR to me, and is described how if laser fails or KOLS loses lock for any reason the radar will regain support. In addition it mentions that when using HMS/OPT, the KOLS and radar will scan simultaneously when within scan limits and first to lock becomes primary sensor.

Are they perhaps exaggerating and it does not work as well as it claims? Here is YouTube video using RL STT in WVR at single digit km ranges

View: https://youtu.be/fvFZGkerIj8?si=IgtkS7pzNHzkqj6K


You cannot see the target in the circle? Here is video of Su-27SM, using an upgraded version of extremely similar design, that is still cassegrain and mostly physically identical with the exception of size

View: https://youtu.be/OV-JwD-fYJY?si=vp7ZawJ7xDtOG4Rl


3. You say it is analog entirely and that your “knowledge” of Soviet history proves that it is not digital? Then why is the Ts100 processor of N-019 claimed to be analog-digital hybrid? Even the power point from university that you claim to “appreciate” very much mentions that it has digital components 21 times. If you know it so well and I don’t, I will let you find the places it says digital since you claim to know it so much better than me.

I admit I was wrong about the azimuth limit, but thanks to your correction I know my mistake and learned and won’t make it again. Can you say the same about any of the 3 points above? Or do you claim to know better then the writer of these manuals, PowerPoints, and pilots? You say you love and appreciate history, but these documents are also a representation of history that conflict with your interpretation of a gimbal-less radar that is worthless in WVR and is purely analog that you claim to know so much better then I. I can admit that many people know more than me. Can you?


You want to talk about MiG-29MU1/MU2? You are the only one getting in your own way for that.

Someday I hope we can have a good faith discussion about these things, adhering to reasonable social values of debate. You may seem to hate this radar to the degree of believing falsehoods about it while reveling in your self described deep nuanced knowledge of it, but I very much appreciate it for what it is. Including learning about both its positive and negative attributes, and I love both this radar and MiG-29 as a whole despite its many flaws, and I love discussing and learning about it.

 

[overscan (PaulMM)]

That’s all they mention for the Fulcrum radar while they give lots more examples of him providing technical data and flight test data on the Mig-23,25, and 31. The author had access to hundreds of CIA memos from the time. From what it sounded though it was the Fulcrum was some handwritten notes and the Flanker was just that it existed.

He provided some valuable information on these radars, things like capabilities, frequencies, etc. For Sapfir-23 and Zaslon, he gave much more:

hundreds of pages of blueprints and design specifications of Sapfir-23 and five circuit boards. He gave them plans and drawings of the ZASLON, too.

So the Sapfir-23 and Zaslon were thoroughly compromised, more so than the N019/N001. The information given on the N010/N001 was still damaging, but not to the same extent.

 

[F-2]

He provided some valuable information on these radars, things like capabilities, frequencies, etc. For Sapfir-23 and Zaslon, he gave much more:



So the Sapfir-23 and Zaslon were thoroughly compromised, more so than the N019/N001. The information given on the N010/N001 was still damaging, but not to the same extent.

And it’s worth pointing out N019 was compromised not long after in Gulf war 1

 

[ZIGGY-2014]

You are correct about one thing, I was wrong about the azimuth limit, it is 65 degrees in both search and track. I had misremembered to the amount of 5 degrees. Now, I can absorb new information and admit when I am wrong. Are you capable of admitting when you are wrong?

I appreciate your admission. Admitting error is a trait of the wise.

But to clarify, you did not simply misremember. You went further. You attempted to justify false information by highlighting what you understand about other radars, completely different types of Western design.

Had I not challenged this or had enough knowledge on the subject to detect this error, we (you) would have absorbed nothing & this topic would have remained dead as we know it.

You throw insults saying I am delusional, am I? After all, you say there is no point where “a pivoted support permits rotation around an axis.”

I said if you keep going with this delusion. Indicating that it's not isolated to you who believes such things.

However, I do apologize. Perhaps I was a little frustrated with your failure to remember things. Though I provided several reminders prior & provided Soviet documentation to remind you as well.

The definition of gimbal is “A gimbal is a pivoted support that permits rotation of an object about an axis.” Am I incorrect?

Yes, you are.

Gimbal System​

• Design: A gimbal system uses a compact, precise, two or three-axis positioning mechanism to orient the radar antenna. It typically employs electric servo devices with position and rate feedback.
• Functionality: Gimbals allow the radar antenna to move smoothly in multiple directions (azimuth and elevation) with high accuracy. This system is often used in modern radars for its ability to provide precise and stable positioning.
• Advantages: High accuracy, smooth movement, and the ability to maintain the antenna's orientation even during rapid maneuvers.
• Applications: Commonly used in advanced radar systems, including those on modern fighter aircraft.

Mechanical Drive System​

• Design: A mechanical drive system uses motors and gears to rotate the radar antenna. This system typically involves a fixed parabolic reflector and a moving subreflector or other mechanical components to steer the radar beam.
• Functionality: The mechanical drive system physically moves parts of the radar to adjust the beam's direction. It is often used in older radar systems.
• Advantages: Simpler design and lower cost compared to gimbal systems.
• Disadvantages: Less precise and slower movement compared to gimbal systems, and more prone to wear and tear due to the mechanical components.
• Applications: Used in older radar systems and some cost-sensitive applications.

your interpretation of a gimbal-less radar that is worthless in WVR

Never said it was worthless.

The Soviets simply understood where they stood in regard to the capabilities of the N019 and N001. That investment in other capabilities were called for to close the gap. In which they did.

3. You say it is analog entirely and that your “knowledge” of Soviet history proves that it is not digital? Then why is the Ts100 processor of N-019 claimed to be analog-digital hybrid?

Because it is hybrid analog. The Ts100 processor does not take away a thing from what I said.

Your pride has clearly taken the wheel, & I am losing interest. You were wrong in your first ever reply to my concern. That is all that matters at this point.

I highly appreciate that you admit it. Not many have the strength to do so here or anywhere. But now, it's time to chalk it up as a loss and move on.

Someday I hope we can have a good faith discussion about these things, adhering to reasonable social values of debate. You may seem to hate this radar to the degree of believing falsehoods about it while reveling in your self described deep nuanced knowledge of it, but I very much appreciate it for what it is. Including learning about both its positive and negative attributes, and I love both this radar and MiG-29 as a whole despite its many flaws, and I love discussing and learning about it.

Yes, leave your pride at the door. The most important value of all.

A true fan of design will appreciate what it is, and what it's not. Not compare it to Western radars of completely different antennas or suffer a catastrophic failure to remember basic well-established characteristics about that which they claim to love.

 

[ZIGGY-2014]

He provided some valuable information on these radars, things like capabilities, frequencies, etc. For Sapfir-23 and Zaslon, he gave much more:

I am glad you mentioned it. Frequency.

Some would argue frequencies are of the most tactical & strategic value. They are the most compromising aspect over anything else to fall into enemy hands. The Soviets seem to agree.

The N019M primary design requirement was that it be ECM hardened. Of course, it has other modification, but primary purpose is that it is ECM hardened over the Rubin.

When a radar is ECM (Electronic Countermeasure) hardened, it generally involves modifications to enhance its resistance to jamming and other electronic interference. These modifications can affect various components of the radar system, including the transmitter.

The following are types of modifications/abilities that would classify a radar as being equipped with electronic counter measure. That if implemented in the N019 Rubin, it would no longer be the same radar, but a new altogether. Hence the name, Topaz.

• Frequency Agility: The transmitter may be designed to rapidly change frequencies (frequency hopping) to avoid being jammed on a specific frequency. This makes it harder for enemy ECM systems to lock onto and disrupt the radar signal.
• Power Management: The transmitter might use variable power levels to reduce the effectiveness of jamming. By adjusting the power output, the radar can maintain a strong signal while minimizing the chance of detection and interference.
• Pulse Compression: This technique involves modifying the transmitted pulse to improve resolution and reduce vulnerability to jamming. Pulse compression allows the radar to distinguish between genuine targets and false signals created by ECM.
• Polarization Diversity: The radar transmitter can switch between different polarizations (e.g., horizontal, vertical, circular) to counteract jamming techniques that rely on a specific polarization.
• Advanced Signal Processing: Enhanced signal processing algorithms can be implemented to filter out jamming signals and improve the detection of genuine targets. This often involves sophisticated software and hardware upgrades to the radar system.

 

[overscan (PaulMM)]

• Polarization Diversity: The radar transmitter can switch between different polarizations (e.g., horizontal, vertical, circular) to counteract jamming techniques that rely on a specific polarization.

You can't do that on a twist cassegrain antenna as it relies on specific polarisation to pass through the reflector.

 

[ZIGGY-2014]

You can't do that on a twist cassegrain antenna as it relies on specific polarisation to pass through the reflector.

Good observation & agreed, that is part of the reason I said the above list are types of modifications/abilities that would classify a radar as being equipped with electronic counter measure. Not directly stating it applies to the N019M.

Because the truth is, I am not entirely sure what ECM(s) was implemented into the N019M. Other than it most definitely received modification to the transmitter. that is why the Rubin is incompatible with the R-27ER. This would be something the Russian Federation would want to keep classified being as it operated the radar in several upgraded models of the Mig-29 & most importantly their beloved export clients operate a large undetermined number of them now.

 

[Aeria Gloria]

I appreciate your admission. Admitting error is a trait of the wise.

But to clarify, you did not simply misremember. You went further. You attempted to justify false information by highlighting what you understand about other radars, completely different types of Western design.

Had I not challenged this or had enough knowledge on the subject to detect this error, we (you) would have absorbed nothing & this topic would have remained dead as we know it.


I said if you keep going with this delusion. Indicating that it's not isolated to you who believes such things.

However, I do apologize. Perhaps I was a little frustrated with your failure to remember things. Though I provided several reminders prior & provided Soviet documentation to remind you as well.



Yes, you are.

Gimbal System​

• Design: A gimbal system uses a compact, precise, two or three-axis positioning mechanism to orient the radar antenna. It typically employs electric servo devices with position and rate feedback.
• Functionality: Gimbals allow the radar antenna to move smoothly in multiple directions (azimuth and elevation) with high accuracy. This system is often used in modern radars for its ability to provide precise and stable positioning.
• Advantages: High accuracy, smooth movement, and the ability to maintain the antenna's orientation even during rapid maneuvers.
• Applications: Commonly used in advanced radar systems, including those on modern fighter aircraft.

Mechanical Drive System​

• Design: A mechanical drive system uses motors and gears to rotate the radar antenna. This system typically involves a fixed parabolic reflector and a moving subreflector or other mechanical components to steer the radar beam.
• Functionality: The mechanical drive system physically moves parts of the radar to adjust the beam's direction. It is often used in older radar systems.
• Advantages: Simpler design and lower cost compared to gimbal systems.
• Disadvantages: Less precise and slower movement compared to gimbal systems, and more prone to wear and tear due to the mechanical components.
• Applications: Used in older radar systems and some cost-sensitive applications.

Never said it was worthless.

The Soviets simply understood where they stood in regard to the capabilities of the N019 and N001. That investment in other capabilities were called for to close the gap. In which they did.


Because it is hybrid analog. The Ts100 processor does not take away a thing from what I said.

Your pride has clearly taken the wheel, & I am losing interest. You were wrong in your first ever reply to my concern. That is all that matters at this point.

I highly appreciate that you admit it. Not many have the strength to do so here or anywhere. But now, it's time to chalk it up as a loss and move on.


Yes, leave your pride at the door. The most important value of all.

A true fan of design will appreciate what it is, and what it's not. Not compare it to Western radars of completely different antennas or suffer a catastrophic failure to remember basic well-established characteristics about that which they claim to love.

Justify with information of other radars? At what point did I do this? I read my posts again and I only speak of N-019. I do not express to know any western radar in detail. I posted a chart of multiple radars with the sole purpose of singling out its likely false information about N-019, an intention I’m sure you are aware of and seem to be ignoring for the sake of putting me down.

The fact that it took me two posts before realizing my mistake does not diminish that I admit I was wrong and that we can all move along without you reveling in it and highlighting my misremembering in bold literally 4 times. Yes I might not have realized my mistake so soon if you had not challenged it, that is the whole basis of scholarly debate. Congratulations for correcting me and then turning it into an ad hominem multiple times, feel superior enough?

Misremembering is human, I am sorry if you can’t accept that. Hopefully someday you can. After all you seemed to be under the impression that there was an early production version with higher elevation limits, then the next post you speak as if you always knew the PowerPoint had errors. Shall I call you insults and ridicule your sudden change? No, I will not.

Now to gimbals.

It seems you pull your first description of a gimbal here https://www.nsi-mi.com/-/media/proj...54b6179&hash=1A40F30AC82F1DFEA137643919B9DA8A

A study on radars. However, that is one narrow definition and every else you look, 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. None stipulate that it “can only be” electrically servo driven, and your definition you provided even says “typically employs electric servo.”

In addition, you compare this to a description of “mechanical drive” that I cannot find the source of, but it is not in the paper that your “gimbal definition” is from. It says that the rotation is provided by a motor and gears, and isn’t an electrical servo a type of motor? Which has gears inside it unless it is direct drive?

The definition of gimbal is broad enough to describe anything that pivots on an axis, you know what I meant, and I presume that anyone with more then layman knowledge reading it would know what I meant by the “antenna is on a 3 axis gimbal to allow deflection of the beam.” It seems to be you are being pedantic and splitting hairs over definitions to support your argument for the sake of “being right” and winning. I do not see what you are trying to achieve or prove if not only for own sake, surely not N-019 or MiG-29.

Now, if the antenna gimbal is not rotated by electric drive, the only other source I can imagine is hydraulic. Yet the hydraulic system does not extend past the cockpit. Is there anything out there that shows the antenna of N-019 is in fact not on “a gimbal” per your definition? A definition that is “typically servo driven” or mechanically driven “motor with gears?” What actually drives it? What would you call it to be as exact as you like in your ideal words and world?

Now onto radar use WVR. You say you never said it was worthless WVR?

Perhaps you didn’t use that exact word, but you did say “Due to the latency of the analog N019 & its twisted Cassegrain design, The burden of close burden of close quarters engagements belongs to the OEPs and helmet sight. They can only directly guide IR sensors without any support of the radar. IR missiles are the primary weapon system of close quarters engagements technologically and doctrinally. You look in any operator's manual of Mig-29 and Su-27 that are equipped with this specific type of antenna, IR guided missiles are the sole weapon systems mentioned specifically by name.”

This really sounds very close if not exactly you saying “it is worthless WVR and the Soviets only expected and designed the KOLS, HMS, and heat seeking missile to be used in close quarters and no manual you will find disagrees.” Debating whether this is you saying it is worthless in WVR or not is merely splitting hairs for the sake of your feelings of superiority.

I proved with dozens of examples from multiple documents speaking about the many ways the radar and radar guided missiles could be used in close quarters, and even video.

Now onto you saying that the Ts100 being hybrid analog-digital doesn’t take away from anything you said, you said “The radar is entirely analog. Its entire existence is purely analog.”

This is clearly not true, as the processor and even other components are partly digital. The Ts100 is on the original series N-019, It does not apply to N-019M with Ts101/102 which is also analog-digital. You cannot deny it has digital components and saying it is entirely analog is false.

You say my pride has clearly taken the wheel, yet you seem to be unable to admit you were ever even vaguely wrong. It seems to me that this statement from you about me might be projection on your part.

You say about admitting being wrong, “Not many have the strength to do so here or anywhere. But now, it's time to chalk it up as a loss and move on. Yes, leave your pride at the door. The most important value of all.“

Can you do any of this? Admit that you may have been incorrect, leave your pride at the door, chalk up to a loss and move on?

You say you are getting tired, you are completely free to stop I am not forcing you to debate. I do love the MiG-29, and I would not want anyone to be misled by your comments and opinions and feelings, and I enjoy learning about it even more as I debate including learning from when I am wrong. And yes people do misremember about things they love especially when they include hundreds of words and are constantly learning. If you profess that I am a bad person simply for being human and admitting my mistake, and I should be a robot with perfect memory if I truly love it, I do not understand how you can ever have happiness or satisfaction in this world or any academic pursuit such as the learning of military technology for that matter.

You seem to change the subject matter of our debate as you are given evidence that does not agree with your words, you cling to semantics which seem to have no basis in any dictionary in order to seemingly always feel that you are winning and superior.

You say admitting error is a trait of the wise, perhaps you can do the same and show that you are also wise.

I love learning about this radar and plane and talking about it, so I sincerely hope we can continue to talk about it without veering off into tangents or changing subject or editing your own words to support your ego.

Thank you

EDIT: As I understand some of your words better after sitting with them, I have removed redundant parts

I also do not understand what you mean by N-019 being incompatible with R-27ER, as it’s the same seeker with the same electronics only differing by motor. A Pilot interview saying a German aircraft with simulator pylon plugs would also show correct range for ER additionally shed doubt on the matter. There are many reasons beyond incompatibility that an Air Force may decide against arming a MiG-29 with R-27ER such as not having acquired it, Foriegn relations, supply, or other platforms such as Su-27 utilizing its range better.

View: https://youtu.be/9uKCnIdXKPQ?t=3128&si=XOqoSicSGq9T2hGv

 

[ZIGGY-2014]

I do not express to know any western radar in detail.

Then why mention planar arrays?

It seems you pull your first description of a gimbal here https://www.nsi-mi.com/-/media/proj...54b6179&hash=1A40F30AC82F1DFEA137643919B9DA8A

I did not, but ok. What of it?

I believe its mentioned to be operated by a mechanical drive somewhere here in the forum by others as well. If true, did we come to this conclusion based on this link you just shared?

Please take a hard look at the functionality of both systems. Do not just look for the information to confirm your biases. Most importantly do not make me the object of your obsession this weekend. I assure you; I am not worth it.

You edit your previous posts after your most recent to reflect better on yourself,

My personal pet peeve is bad punctuation and bad sentence structure. I simply go back to correct my mistakes or try to make my point as clear as possible.

Nothing of what I said has been altered as far as principle. Sure, some minute details have not been 100% technically correct, but you have not pointed to them out. They are irrelevant to the subject at hand and my investigation in the radar anyway.

Now onto radar use WVR. You say you never said it was worthless WVR?

Perhaps you didn’t use that exact word, but

No, there is no but nothing. Neither is there a perhaps or even a maybe.

The latency is a problem, a big problem in any hybrid analog designs. It also affected the AWG-9 of the F-14A. That radar actually has a planar array & far more digitization.

This really sounds very close if not exactly you saying “it is worthless WVR and the Soviets only expected and designed the KOLS, HMS, and heat seeking missile to be used in close quarters and no manual you will find disagrees.”

You do not want to have this particular discussion my friend, oh thou lover of the MiG-29.

After all you seemed to be under the impression that there was an early production version with higher elevation limits,

No. I never said this in the slightest. The initial production line 9-12 is easily identified by its aerodynamic limitations & physical qualities of several devices built in the airframe. This is how I and others know how to identify them.

The Soviet operator's manual I referred to is in regard for the 9-12. Meaning this is an authority of the Soviet Standard N019 Rubin.

And Topaz is a type of rock, just like many Soviet radars have had names after rocks. It does not mean it is literally a rock does it?

No, Phazotron-NIIR simply has a tradition of naming their development teams and the radar they develop after them. Why they chose the name Topaz, I do not know. Maybe because its clearer than Saphire and Ruby? More color variety?

I would have chosen Amethyst personally.

You say admitting error is a trait of the wise, perhaps you can do the same and show that you are also wise.

What would you like me to admit?

 

[ZIGGY-2014]

EDIT: As I understand some of your words better after sitting with them, I have removed redundant parts

I also do not understand what you mean by N-019 being incompatible with R-27ER, as it’s the same seeker with the same electronics only differing by motor. A Pilot interview saying a German aircraft with simulator pylon plugs would also show correct range for ER additionally shed doubt on the matter. There are many reasons beyond incompatibility that an Air Force may decide against arming a MiG-29 with R-27ER such as not having acquired it, Foriegn relations, supply, or other platforms such as Su-27 utilizing its range better.

Because the ER is offered to client states who are not NATO & are willing to pay for upgrade to the N019ME & The R-27ER for expanded capabilities. Such clients for example, are Serbia & India. I am not sure if Syria has the R-27ER though they operate a custom 9-12SM tailored to their own needs like the Serbian Mig-29SM+.

Simulator plugs does not mean that the ER is plug and play. That is an illogical assumption. As you read Overscan discussion with another user about Tolckachev's treason. It would make zero tactical, strategical & geopolitical sense to go through all the trouble undoing that damage to develop N019M and R-27ER just for it to be labeled operationally obsolete day one in a electronic warfare environment. Then sell those R-27ER to your non-NATO clients?

I assure you, that you will never find a Mig-29 with an unmodified N019 Rubin and the R-27ER. The Ukrainians achieved their own modification in their MU1 & MU2..

As I mentioned earlier. ECM hardening of a radar requires modification to the transmitter. N019 Rubin cannot guide the ER. It's guided by the secure transmissions of the N019M.

 

[Aeria Gloria]

Then why mention planar arrays?


I did not, but ok. What of it?

I believe its mentioned to be operated by a mechanical drive somewhere here in the forum by others as well. If true, did we come to this conclusion based on this link you just shared?

Please take a hard look at the functionality of both systems. Do not just look for the information to confirm your biases. Most importantly do not make me the object of your obsession this weekend. I assure you; I am not worth it.


My personal pet peeve is bad punctuation and bad sentence structure. I simply go back to correct my mistakes or try to make my point as clear as possible.

Nothing of what I said has been altered as far as principle. Sure, some minute details have not been 100% technically correct, but you have not pointed to them out. They are irrelevant to the subject at hand and my investigation in the radar anyway.


No, there is no but nothing. Neither is there a perhaps or even a maybe.

The latency is a problem, a big problem in any hybrid analog designs. It also affected the AWG-9 of the F-14A. That radar actually has a planar array & far more digitization.

You do not want to have this particular discussion my friend, oh thou lover of the MiG-29.


No. I never said this in the slightest. The initial production line 9-12 is easily identified by its aerodynamic limitations & physical qualities of several devices built in the airframe. This is how I and others know how to identify them.

The Soviet operator's manual I referred to is in regard for the 9-12. Meaning this is an authority of the Soviet Standard N019 Rubin.



No, Phazotron-NIIR simply has a tradition of naming their development teams and the radar they develop after them. Why they chose the name Topaz, I do not know. Maybe because its clearer than Saphire and Ruby? More color variety?

I would have chosen Amethyst personally.


What would you like me to admit?

When did I mention planar arrays? I am only speaking about N-019 our entire conversation.

I believe its mentioned to be operated by a mechanical drive somewhere here in the forum by others as well. If true, did we come to this conclusion based on this link you just shared?

Did we come to this conclusion? If you mean myself, I am simply going by the definition of gimbal, I used it properly to describe the rotating reflector according to every online dictionary I can find including aviation radar specific resources

I cannot find any other website or source that makes an equivalent differentiation between a gimbal and “mechanical drive.” It almost seems as if you have made up this difference between two things which mean nearly the same thing to create a bone to pick with me and assert your superiority. Is there any source or book or study I can read that makes an equivalent differentiation as you that I might have missed? If you only heard it here and merely believe it, why do you dig into this so deeply? What is backing up this claim? Gimbals are mechanical, and they use drives in order to rotate.

What would you like me to admit?

What of it? I was trying to find your justification for saying I am wrong to say gimbal by splitting the “gimbal” and “mechanical drive” definitions into two different things seemingly arbitrarily, and could not find anything online that seemed to agree with a separation of “gimbal” and “mechanical drive” definitions. I am not looking to confirm my biases, as I have shown I can admit when I am wrong. Your gimbal and mechanical drive descriptions are both mechanical, and both can use servos. I do not see how they are mutually exclusive and any reason to argue over such a divide. If going by a global definition of a word is confirming a bias, I do not know what you are trying to achieve or profess to know better.

You say latency now, but what you also claimed was

The burden of close close quarters engagements belongs to the OEPs and helmet sight. They can only directly guide IR sensors without any support of the radar. IR missiles are the primary weapon system of close quarters engagements technologically and doctrinally. You look in any operator's manual of Mig-29 and Su-27 that are equipped with this specific type of antenna, IR guided missiles are the sole weapon systems mentioned specifically by name.

This is quite a lot more then merely only saying “it has high latency.” And is a claim I have shown incorrect with the weapon employment manual for 9.12 and other sources.

You do not want to have this particular discussion my friend, oh thou lover of the MiG-29.

Why not? I provided plenty of sources to engage in this discussion and your assertion of the radar having little to no use or intention to be used WVR. You said

Additionally, the radars have no tactical requirement or need for wider tracking zone coverage anyway.

And the weapon employment manual you claim to know and love so well shows that the radar has the widest tracking area of any sensor and highest azimuth! 20 degrees more azimuth then HMS, 35 more then IRST, 10 degree more then any IR missile it can designate onboard. It has 2 degrees more elevation upwards then any IR missile designation it can do and more for other sensors. The only area it has less then scanning area in is downwards elevation of R-73/R-27T/ET seeker and HMS to the sides, but is likely of little important since pilot can only see 14 degrees over the nose.

You also said

They can only directly guide IR sensors without any support of the radar.

But interaction mode even pairs them together allowing them to support each other and pick up lost locks. You say this Soviet manual is an authority, yet disagree that because of latency it cannot do the things I have provided nearly 20 examples of from said manual?

What would I like you to admit? You change your argument as some points when you are shown to be wrong or given challenging evidence, you say you said one thing when in fact you said quite a bit more then just that one thing. You dig into definitions of things that seem to come from nowhere that is beyond even arguing semantics. It seems to me you quite like to move goal posts in an attempt to confirm your own biases, and accusing me of such again seems like projection on your part, and a clear pattern. I believe if you would simply admit that you were somewhat incorrect about certain things, or even over zealous and exaggerating, it would go along way to anyone that reads this to show you also are debating in good faith and trying to get to the truth of the matter, rather then merely trying to be correct. You say it is wise to admit you are wrong, yet you seem allergic to admitting any fault of your own.

Because the ER is offered to client states who are not NATO & are willing to pay for upgrade to the N019ME & The R-27ER for expanded capabilities. Such clients for example, are Serbia & India. I am not sure if Syria has the R-27ER though they operate a custom 9-12SM tailored to their own needs like the Serbian Mig-29SM+.

Simulator plugs does not mean that the ER is plug and play. That is an illogical assumption. As you read Overscan discussion with another user about Tolckachev's treason. It would make zero tactical, strategical & geopolitical sense to go through all the trouble undoing that damage to develop N019M and R-27ER just for it to be labeled operationally obsolete day one in a electronic warfare environment. Then sell those R-27ER to your non-NATO clients?

I assure you, that you will never find a Mig-29 with an unmodified N019 Rubin and the R-27ER. The Ukrainians achieved their own modification in their MU1 & MU2..

As I mentioned earlier. ECM hardening of a radar requires modification to the transmitter. N019 Rubin cannot guide the ER. It's guided by the secure transmissions of the N019M

On R-27ER, I do not need to show a picture of a 9-12 with 27ER to logically say there is no reason for it not to work with it. The seeker and guidance unit is the same. There is no reason it could not work with it, and at the very least using the same DLZ information as R-27R if the software was not programmed for it.

I do not know what is not logical about thinking there might be some truth to a pilot saying the ER pylon plug which mimics the ER missile would show the proper DLZ and thus allow it to use R-27ER, and the pilot in this interview even indicates himself that it could “carry it” when asked if it could. It is only mimicking the missile, the DLZ information isn’t sent by the pylon, it is generated by the SUV computer within the aircraft. The whole point of a simulator plug is it makes the aircraft think a certain missile is loaded.

ECM hardening of a radar requires modification to the transmitter. N019 Rubin cannot guide the ER. It's guided by the secure transmissions of the N019M

What does ECM hardening and N-019M have to do with this? They use the exact same seeker and guidance module. If you like to think the R-27ER is some ECCM upgrade to R-27R, go ahead on your own, but it is easy to find that they share the exact same seeker and guidance. The R-27 is a modular missile just for this use case. It only called E for extended motor. Not ECCM

It would make zero tactical, strategical & geopolitical sense to go through all the trouble undoing that damage to develop N019M and R-27ER just for it to be labeled operationally obsolete day one in a electronic warfare environment. Then sell those R-27ER to your non-NATO clients?

The R-27E series was developed at same time as short burn motor series, it took longer but it’s not that they made the longer burn motor to be more ECCM resistant, they did it for range.

You say it is “an illogical assumption” to think that a R-27ER simulator pylon plug being recognized by SUV and shown with its DLZ means that the same aircraft could fire and recognize a real R-27ER.

I believe it is an illogical assumption and quite a leap for you think that because you think “It would make zero tactical, strategical & geopolitical sense” that the Soviets HAD to make it more ECM resistant just because it is introduced later. As you say, they developed N-019M to keep MiG-29 from being obsolete, but there is nothing to say that R-27ER was developed to “be more ECM resistant.” You are assuming this because in your mind it makes strategic/tactical/geopolitical sense, to, in your words, “justify your own biases.”

Does everything that militaries have done and developed make strategic/tactical/geopolitical sense? Many things don’t, many things are easy to judge in hindsight. And yes while I love the MiG-29, I try to be careful not to overestimate because of what “should make sense.” In my mind it makes little sense that interaction mode should only work with MPRF, yet I know it’s true based off documentation.

Maybe the rocket motor took longer to manufacturer, perhaps the testing took longer, perhaps it was lower priority as it was mostly intended for Su-27 which was having its own issues and being delayed. There are many possible reasons for a later introduction and I see no reason to assume that “later date = more ECM resistant” unless there is a source saying so.

Correlation does not equal causation. The 9B-1101 seeker has plenty of documentation on how it is guided in the MiG-29B weapon complex documentation, and no where does it need a specific “level” of secure transmission to work. It not being carried by 9.12 does not mean it is incompatible, there are many reasons to not see it loaded on 9.12 that I have mentioned in my previous post.

If the seeker and guidance were actually different, I could see the logic and reasoning to your argument, but it used 9B-1101 or 9B-1101K for export in all instances of both R-27R/ER. You may believe it, but I do not find it convincing at all, and I have never spoken to anyone else that would think the same seeker and guidance unit would have such a difference purely because of its motor, letter suffix, and introduction date.

Both began development in 1974, and according to the well sourced missilery.com page K-27E began flight tests in 1979 from Su-15, quite a while before N-019M development and discovery of Tolkachev’s betrayal. “In 1983, another 39 launches of K-27 and 66 of K-27E were made.”

 

[ZIGGY-2014]

I will try to address all your concerns now. But I am not interested in going beyond that.

Since we moved on from the misinformation of your initial reply, you have continued to hyper fixate on everything I say in attempt to trip me up. You have since resorted to putting words in my mouth & making up entire positions I never even hinted at.

None of this has anything to do with your professed "love" of this design, nor it's history & legacy. You simply feel you lost face and the initiative.

You now seek to reestablish whatever you lost by dragging me away from my interest only to explain for the second time now that your entire understanding of Gimbals & Mechanical drive systems is limited to a 2-3 paragraph description of a Meriam Webster general-purpose dictionary.

it is cassegrain it needs only to gimbal half the amount of a planar antenna due to its double reflector design.

Here is where you refer to a planar array. Good thing you asked, because this is also a good example a subtle effort to deceive and disinform.

"The radar only needs to pivot half the amount of a planar array??" Where in the world did you come up with that brilliantly written maskirovka?

Halfway? It is incapable of scanning its full azimuth unless it be divided mechanically by three sectors. All dictated by a 3-position analog switch, nothing else.
The radar will offer zero indication which sector it is currently in lest the pilot look down at what position he left it in. the radar is incapable of pivoting even half of the of the amount of a planar array. It is not going to magically track outside its zone coverage either.

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 oddities 5 degrees with STT before the lock is dropped

What radar were you referring to here? Since I established that this statement it is not in regard to the N019 Rubin and you have no choice but to concede.

Did we come to this conclusion? If you mean myself, I am simply going by the definition of gimbal, I used it properly to describe the rotating reflector according to every online dictionary I can find including aviation radar specific resources

Hold up there, cowboy.

What definition are we going by? A definition you read today from a website called How Stuff Works?

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.

"A versatile word to describe something on a pivot. Something that rotates on an axis for any purpose or reason driven by any force." Are you serious?

My guy literally just described a door hinge, and the mechanical force applied to the door to open and close it.

It did not cross your mind whatsoever to use the immense power that is at your fingertips to extract a more comprehensive explanation? Perhaps one from a mechanical engineering perspective?

Of course, the layman and general public use many "versatile" words found in medicine and engineering for general purposes. Do we refer to things in the general here?

So where do you think the word Gimbal comes from? Some Greek inventor named Philo of Byzantium woke up one day and decided the world was in dire need of a word they can trust, a word so versatile that it can be used even to describe something on a pivot?

Yet I am the one playing semantics?

The R-27E series was developed at same time as short burn motor series, it took longer but it’s not that they made the longer burn motor to be more ECCM resistant, they did it for range.

You say it is “an illogical assumption” to think that a R-27ER simulator pylon plug being recognized by SUV and shown with its DLZ means that the same aircraft could fire and recognize a real R-27ER.

That is so absolutely irrelevant . You actually do not know much of anything.

The R-27ER entered service when? What year did the R-27ER enter service?

The year is all that matters. Because by the time R-27ER entered service, the N019 Rubin had already been discontinued. The N019M Topaz & Product index 9-13S was in serial production. It is the last fighter that the USSR ever made.

What don't you understand here? The N019 Rubin was CIA compromised & operationally obsolete. The Americans defeated the N019 Rubin. It never stood a chance. A total victory for the CIA as it achieved in publicly humiliating the USSR, & forcing them to spend up valuable resource to reverse the damage. NATO would ultimately own the Mig-29 and the N019.

Why would they serial produce a new missile for a discontinued radar that is rendered operationally obsolete by the principal enemy of the USSR?

The R-27ER was originally developed & entered service for Su-27 which at the time served in a completely different branch of the military that never operated a single Mig-29 ever in history.

Why would the R-27ER come compatible with a fighter developed under a completely different program for of the VVS that has an obsolete radar which had already been discontinued?

On R-27ER, I do not need to show a picture of a 9-12 with 27ER to logically say there is no reason for it not to work with it. The seeker and guidance unit is the same. There is no reason it could not work with it, and at the very least using the same DLZ information as R-27R if the software was not programmed for it.

I do not know what is not logical about thinking there might be some truth to a pilot saying the ER pylon plug which mimics the ER missile would show the proper DLZ and thus allow it to use R-27ER, and the pilot in this interview even indicates himself that it could “carry it” when asked if it could. It is only mimicking the missile, the DLZ information isn’t sent by the pylon, it is generated by the SUV computer within the aircraft. The whole point of a simulator plug is it makes the aircraft think a certain missile is loaded.

Yeah, well you can logically dream about it without pinging me.
you are operating entirely on emotion and a personal desire to change Soviet history to fit a delusion that is verifiably false. The R-27ER was never compatible with the N019 Rubin. You will never find evidence of it. It's been searched for all over already. It's a non-issue. Kind of like the N019 Rubin.

The Ukrainians specifically mention that their modifications were able to give their N019 Rubin compatibility with the R-27ER. One of those modifications was in the transmitter. What I already explained to you in which you ignore. Because I am right & you continue to push false information.


The DLZ and SUV does not have any authority in what transmission type and pattern the R-27ER will recognize for compatibility. Only the radar. The radar gathers the critical data, such as target speed, distance, and trajectory, and then hands this information off to the fire control system, which includes the Dynamic Launch Zone (DLZ) . The DLZ uses this data to determine the optimal launch parameters for the missile, helping the pilot to achieve best possible parameters.

 

[Jemiba]

The tone of this discussion seems to be getting out of control! Answer the arguments, not the one, who came up with them, please !
Of course, you can go on with your one-vs-one debate, but via PM only !
Please regard this as a warning, both of you !

 

[ZIGGY-2014]

The tone of this discussion seems to be getting out of control! Answer the arguments, not the one, who came up with them, please !
Of course, you can go on with your one-vs-one debate, but via PM only !
Please regard this as a warning, both of you !

Understood, J

 

[Aeria Gloria]

he tone of this discussion seems to be getting out of control! Answer the arguments, not the one, who came up with them, please !
Of course, you can go on with your one-vs-one debate, but via PM only !
Please regard this as a warning, both of you !

My apologies. I will keep all my further comments only to the subject matter of the thread.

three sectors. All dictated by a 3-position analog switch, nothing else.
The radar will offer zero indication which sector it is currently in lest the pilot look down at what position he left it in.

Whatever the matter of it’s rotation, the position is not only indicated by position of the switch. It is shown on the HUD also. The only time the HUD and switch will disagree is in SNP mode, which is a property of the mode itself.

What radar were you referring to here? Since I established that this statement it is not in regard to the N019 Rubin and you have no choice but to concede.

I already conceded I was wrong here many posts ago, I believe my third post in this thread. Since then I 100% admit the azimuth limit is 65 degrees in both scan and track

Are you serious?

My guy literally just described a door hinge, and the mechanical force applied to the door to open and close it.

It did not cross your mind whatsoever to use the immense power that is at your fingertips to extract a more comprehensive explanation? Perhaps one from a mechanical engineering perspective?

So where do you think the word Gimbal comes from? Some Greek inventor named Philo of Byzantium woke up one day and decided the world was in dire need of a word they can trust, a word so versatile that it can be used even to describe something on a pivot?

Yet I am the one playing semantics?

I gave “howstuffworks.com” as one of many examples of its definition. I found an engineering paper that your words had the closest resemblance to and I could not find anything agreeing with your perspective on the difference of gimbal and mechanical drive being two entirely separate ways of moving something. The only difference I can find is that one rotates and one is driven, and a gimbal can have its rotation be mechanically driven. I searched quite alot with my fingertips as you say, and did not find anything to corroborate that a radar would exclusively use either a gimbal or a mechanical drive to move the reflector. I can’t find any reason that the N-019 reflector could not be described as being mounted on a gimbal, that is additionally mechanically driven.

I have asked for a source that agrees with your interpretation. Until I see one that does explain or indicate that a radar may move the reflector with either a gimbal or a mechanical drive but not both, I have no reason to believe different then I do now.

The year is all that matters. Because by the time R-27ER entered service, the N019 Rubin had already been discontinued. The N019M Topaz & Product index 9-13S was in serial production. It is the last fighter that the USSR ever made.

I still think this is a bit of assumption that this applies specifically to the R-27ER seeker and guidance but not R-27R.

Why would they serial produce a new missile for a discontinued radar that is rendered operationally obsolete by the principal enemy of the USSR?

Again, correlation does not Equal causation. Unless something specially says the two are related, I see no reason to believe it when it known both 27R and 27ER use the same seeker.

The R-27ER was never compatible with the N019 Rubin. You will never find evidence of it. It's been searched for all over already. It's a non-issue. Kind of like the N019 Rubin.

The Ukrainians specifically mention that their modifications were able to give their N019 Rubin compatibility with the R-27ER. One of those modifications was in the transmitter. What I already explained to you in which you ignore. Because I am right & you continue to push false information.


The DLZ and SUV does not have any authority in what transmission type and pattern the R-27ER will recognize for compatibility. Only the radar.

There is picture of Slovak MiG-29AS donated to Ukraine during the war carrying R-27ER, the Slovak modifications from all publications seem to only ever mention NATO compatibly and cockpit modifications such as displays. With armament system untouched. I have not seen anything to indicate Ukraine has modified the radar since receiving it, though I am sure it is possible. I believe there is enough doubt on the matter that it is not clear cut enough to whole heartedly rule out N-019 using R-27ER, especially as the seeker and guidance is identical.

The radar gathers the critical data, such as target speed, distance, and trajectory, and then hands this information off to the fire control system, which includes the Dynamic Launch Zone (DLZ) . The DLZ uses this data to determine the optimal launch parameters for the missile, helping the pilot to achieve best possible parameters.

I do not know if you are saying that Radar generates the DLZ or not, but does appear to be done by the BP module and SUO-29M2.

 

[ZIGGY-2014]

Look, you made the mistake of marrying yourself to the idea that the N019 does in fact employ a gimbal system. When it is obvious just by looking at the thing & the massive number of mechanical moving parts (I will get into shortly) that are required to orient and stabilize. It is also obvious by its horrendous boresight performance which are not the fundamental design objective of the antenna in the first place.

When I told you it most certainly does not operate on a gimbal system, you got excited & doubled down on it and never stopped mentioning it in every single reply since.

However, now that it is becoming more apparent to you that the N019 does not employ a gimbal system,
you have now engaged in deception and disinformation tactics here in the one & only place we should have refuge.

You attempt to the alter the very definition of the word gimbal as nothing more than "versatile" word used to describe anything that sits on a pivot & moved by a force.

That is an inconvertible fact written by your own hand:

every else you look, 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.

You evoked the names of Cambridge, Meriam Webster, Collins & all that is found in heaven & earth to co-sign for your logic.

But the truth is, none of these dictionary definitions mention Gimbal as a "versatile" word that is only limited to the imagination of the speaker, or that it be anything that pivots and is moved by a force.

I am simply going by the definition of gimbal, I used it properly to describe the rotating reflector according to every online dictionary I can find including aviation radar specific resources

No, you are not & never did unfortunately.
The statement above is designed to deceive, obscure & avoid intellectual responsibility for flawed logic.

With that said, I do not have anything else that I can help you with moving forward.

​

 

[ZIGGY-2014]

Gimbal System Radar​

1. Flexibility and Range of Motion: Gimbal systems provide a wide range of motion, allowing the radar to quickly and accurately track targets in multiple directions.
2. Stability: Gimbals offer better stability and precision, especially in dynamic environments, making them ideal for applications like aircraft and drones.
3. Speed: Gimbal systems can rapidly adjust the radar's orientation, providing faster response times and improved tracking capabilities.
4. Reduced Wear and Tear: Gimbal systems have fewer moving parts, leading to lower maintenance requirements and longer operational lifespans.
5. Digital Integration: Modern gimbal systems often incorporate digital controls, enhancing their precision and allowing for more sophisticated tracking algorithms.

Gimbal System Motors​

1. Direct Drive Motors: These motors provide immediate response, smooth motion, high pointing accuracy, and error correction. They are often used in high-precision applications like cameras and drones.
2. Brushless Motors: These motors are commonly used in gimbal systems due to their high efficiency, reliability, and low maintenance. They offer smooth and precise control, which is essential for applications requiring stable and accurate movement.
3. Stepper Motors: Stepper motors offer high acceleration and torque retention without using a brake or other mechanism. They can be controlled by micro-steps to provide smooth motion.

Advantages of Gimbal Systems Over Mechanical Drive Systems​

1. Precision and Speed: Gimbal systems, especially those using direct drive and brushless motors, offer higher precision and faster response times compared to mechanical drive systems.
2. Stability and Smoothness: Gimbal systems provide better stability and smoother motion, which is crucial for applications like cameras and drones.
3. Reduced Wear and Tear: Gimbal systems have fewer moving parts, leading to lower maintenance requirements and longer operational lifespans.
4. Digital Integration: Modern gimbal systems often incorporate digital controls, enhancing their precision and allowing for more sophisticated tracking algorithms.

Mechanical Drive System Radar​

1. Simplicity: Mechanical drive systems are generally simpler in design and operation, making them easier to understand and maintain.
2. Cost-Effective: These systems are often less expensive to produce and maintain compared to gimbal systems.
3. Durability: Mechanical drive systems can be very robust and durable, capable of withstanding harsh environmental conditions.

Mechanical Drive System Motors​

1. DC Motors: These are simple and cost-effective, often used in mechanical drive systems. However, they can have higher latency, and less precision compared to digital systems.
2. Servo Motors: These motors are used for precise control of angular position, velocity, and acceleration. They are reliable but can be more complex and expensive to maintain.

Limitations of Mechanical Drive Systems​

1. Limited Range of Motion: Mechanical drive systems have a more restricted range of motion compared to gimbal systems, which can limit their tracking capabilities.
2. Slower Response Time: Mechanical systems are generally slower to adjust their orientation, which can be a disadvantage in dynamic environments where rapid target acquisition is crucial.
3. Higher Maintenance: Mechanical drive systems have more moving parts, which can lead to higher maintenance requirements and a greater likelihood of mechanical failure.
4. Analog Operation: Many mechanical drive systems operate on analog principles, which can result in higher latency and less precision compared to digital systems.

 

[ZIGGY-2014]

There is picture of Slovak MiG-29AS donated to Ukraine during the war carrying R-27ER, the Slovak modifications from all publications seem to only ever mention NATO compatibly and cockpit modifications such as displays. With armament system untouched. I have not seen anything to indicate Ukraine has modified the radar since receiving it, though I am sure it is possible. I believe there is enough doubt on the matter that it is not clear cut enough to whole heartedly rule out N-019 using R-27ER, especially as the seeker and guidance is identical.

The above information is additional disinformation tactic to obscure and dilute the research many of us have spent years compiling.

The existence of the letter S that follows after any variant of the MiG-29 is the first obvious indication that the Slovakian Mig-29AS may just not operate the N019 Rubin.

The Russian Federation will never refer to any Mig-29 with the letter S unless it has been upgraded or has been serial modernized. If upgrades came directly from the Russian Federation, they are a commercial product of the Russian Federation. Export clients of Former Soviet Republics & Former Warsaw pact nations will typically adhere to this standardization.

Any individual who truly appreciates the history & legacy of the MiG-29, its radars, and the countries who operated them would already know this.

The first Mig-29 to ever receive the S designation was product index 9-13S. Which of course received the N019M Topaz.
All serial produced Mig-29 with the letter S in their name have either the N019M Topaz or greater. All Mig-29 that will ever be found with the R-27ER are equipped with N019M or greater.

the Slovak modifications from all publications seem to only ever mention NATO compatibly

From ALL publications. Only NATO compatibility is ever mentioned.

Obscure, disinform, deceive.

Team, please remember: Google is your best friend.

Slovakia Said Goodbye to the MiG-29AS, Which Are to Be Sent to Ukraine: Advantages of the Aircraft | Defense Express

After receiving the MiG-29AS, these aircraft will become the youngest in the Ukrainian Air Force

en.defence-ua.com

Straight from the horse's mouth, the number one news publication dedicated to military technological affairs of Ukraine, reporting straight from the capital.

1994-1996 Slovakia received the Mig-29S 1994-1996 directly from the Russian Federation to squash debts.

The Radar? N019ME Topaz, the export variant. The name Topaz is specifically added so there is no room for misinterpretation.

Please note how a major capability that is always mentioned about the N019M Topaz is its ECM capabilities or "immunity to interference" as it is here described by the Ukrainians. This all has direct historical ties to a man named Adolph Tolkachev once upon a time in the Soviet Union.

I am a man of integrity and have provided how to identify the Topaz. Nothing has changed.

There is picture of Slovak MiG-29AS donated to Ukraine during the war carrying R-27ER

Well obviously, it would be carrying the R-27ER during the Ukrainian war...

It already had the Russian Federation supplied radar to support it & no modification to the transmitter would be needed carried out behalf of the Ukrainians such as what they did to achieve MU1 and MU2.

 

[overscan (PaulMM)]

I'm going to ban both of you from this topic if you keep making snarky comments about each other.

 

[ZIGGY-2014]

I'm going to ban both of you from this topic if you keep making snarky comments about each other.

My apologies, and it's not that I do not actively consider Jemiba's warning either. This will no longer be an issue. You both have my word.

 

[Aeria Gloria]

owever, now that it is becoming more apparent to you that the N019 does not employ a gimbal system,
you have now engaged in deception and disinformation tactics here in the one & only place we should have refuge.

You attempt to the alter the very definition of the word gimbal as nothing more than "versatile" word used to describe anything that sits on a pivot & moved by a force.

No, you are not & never did unfortunately.
The statement above is designed to deceive, obscure & avoid intellectual responsibility for flawed logic.

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. Unless I can see an outside source that states this separation of “gimbal” and “mechanical drive” and how they are mutually exclusive, it seems to me that gimbaled and driven by servos is a good way to describe the mounting of the reflector.

The above information is additional disinformation tactic to obscure and dilute the research many of us have spent years compiling.

The existence of the letter S that follows after any variant of the MiG-29 is the first obvious indication that the Slovakian Mig-29AS may just not operate the N019 Rubin.

The Russian Federation will never refer to any Mig-29 with the letter S unless it has been upgraded or has been serial modernized. If upgrades came directly from the Russian Federation, they are a commercial product of the Russian Federation. Export clients of Former Soviet Republics & Former Warsaw pact nations will typically adhere to this standardization.

Any individual who truly appreciates the history & legacy of the MiG-29, its radars, and the countries who operated them would already know this.

Thank you I was truly not aware that the MiG-29AS radar had been upgraded to such specification. 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. So please believe me when I was I say I did not know, and thank you for informing me. I believe it’s reasonable to think the “S” could be for Slovakia. That being said I have also always focused my time and research on the original Soviet variants. I hope you understand