CHNJET喷气俱乐部

 找回密码
 立即注册

QQ登录

只需一步,快速开始

扫一扫,访问微社区

12
返回列表 发新帖
楼主: 万磁王

入侵者中队飞行员谈美俄战斗机对比

[复制链接]
 楼主| 发表于 2015-6-12 14:45:05 | 显示全部楼层
欢迎大家在B站关注CHNJET
其他俄制战斗机
  我试着说下我对美制 VS 苏制战斗机的观点。我对抗过苏制战斗机,驾驶的是F-15、F-16、F-5和米格-29(这个当然不算,它自己就是苏制战斗机,当时我们只是没有其他的异种型对手)。驾驶美制战斗机的时,我对抗过米格-21、米格-23、米格-29和苏-27。
F-5-v-Mig-29.jpg
德国空军的米格-29也和美国海军的F-5较量过

回复 支持 反对

使用道具 举报

 楼主| 发表于 2015-6-12 14:45:17 | 显示全部楼层
  首先大家需要知道的是,在战术航空领域,苏制战斗机在设计和制造时使用一套与众不同的哲学。这就像拿达拉斯牛仔队和一支欧洲职业联赛足球队进行对比,虽然他们玩的都是“足球”,但实际上却有天壤之别。苏联的哲学是把控制和操作都集中化,这意味着飞行员和飞机都是地面控制站的延伸,飞行员没有支持自主独立作战的设备,也没有经过这样的训练,如果你切断他和地面控制站的联系通讯,他的设备就不足以自主战斗。美制战斗机的哲学是集成控制,分散操作,这意味着美制战斗机有足够的设备来自主战斗和决策,美制战斗机传感器和显示设备可为飞行员提供战斗空域的信息,这对于做出决策十分必要。预警机和地面控制站能够为飞行员提供解决谜题的每一个关键提示,但他们没有真正的控制权限。让我出名的事情就是对预警机大叫“STFU”(闭嘴的缩写)后关掉了无线电。
  用F-15对抗米格-21和米格-23非常容易。“鱼窝”难以被发现,你得自己去搞清楚舱盖上的斑点到底是一只渡渡鸟还是一架米格-21?我也用F-5对抗过别的飞机,打米格-23就像打一头幼年海豹,米格-21显然是一个更接近的对手。
  我开F-16(30,40和50批次)的时候对抗过米格-29和苏-27。由于我在米格-29上有500小时经验,我想多谈谈这种飞机。
  “支点”是一种很可靠的飞机,它很少出故障,对F-16可以做出同样的评价。F-16在超视距空战显然能痛打米格-29,双方初始探测到目标的距离很接近,但我还是觉得F-16稍有优势。超视距阿姆拉姆导弹 VS AA-10就像在开玩笑,当米格-29到了可以发射AA-10距离的时候,阿姆拉姆已经进入主动段,F-16已经掉头飞走了。如果强迫他们打近战,我看优势还是归F-16飞行员。他的传感器可以告诉他多架米格-29的确切位置,而米格-29可能只发现一架F-16同时不会显示对手的确切位置。如果米格-29飞行员确实获得态势感知了,那么他的头盔瞄准器和“射手”导弹组合会让他成为一个致命对手。但F-16装备有联合头盔瞄准与显示系统和AIM-9X导弹的话,优势还是归F-16所有,因为AIM-9X的离轴发射能力远比AA-11“射手”强。如果最终拼机炮了,F-16还是占优势,因为它维持高过载转弯能力更强,视野更好,响应更快,飞起来更容易,横滚速度快太多了,加速也比米格-29快,就好像米格-29被胶水粘在了地上。“支点”其实是一种很马马虎虎的飞机,我并不是说“支点”是案板上的鱼,“蝰蛇”飞行员还是需要全神贯注与之作战的。“支点”最好让空战快点结束,因为它没有多少燃料可用。
141406pvf99602r6z949z0.jpg
黑烟一直是米格-29容易被目视发现的原因
  驾驶米格-29的时候我对抗过F-4,F-14,F-15,F-16,F-18,狂风F3,和幻影2000。其中最致命的是F-15C,最烂的是幻影2000,只有对抗它的时候我才能在出门那刻就知道今天又能踢对手屁股了。
  在驾驶F-16时,我发现使用増程型AA-10C导弹的苏-27(比起米格-29)是一种更致命的超视距空战飞机。“侧卫”同时还有一个很不错的红外搜索与跟踪系统,可以给你造成麻烦。你用阿姆拉姆导弹依然有优势,只是需要多集中注意力。对于视距内空战,“侧卫”在这种尺寸的飞机里算机动性很好的,当苏-27很重的时就像一头猪在打滚,当它烧掉了部分燃料,高攻角机头指向能力很不错,但是能量衰减也同样惊人,等到它能量掉下来,我发现用F-16可以轻易战胜它。在另一方面,“侧卫”和F-15很相似,它是地勤人员的噩梦。

回复 支持 反对

使用道具 举报

 楼主| 发表于 2015-6-12 14:45:46 | 显示全部楼层
原文
I've got over 500 hours in the MiG-29 and 2000 hours in the F-16 (I also flew the F-15A/C and the F-5E). The following is an excerpt from a research paper I wrote while working on a Master's Degree in aerospace engineering.
MiG-29 Fulcrum Versus F-16 Viper
The baseline MiG-29 for this comparison will be the MiG-29A (except for 200 kg more fuel and an internal jammer, the MiG-29C was not an improvement over the MiG-29A), as this was the most widely deployed version of the aircraft. The baseline F-16 will be the F-16C Block 40. Although there is a more advanced and powerful version of the F-16C, the Block 40 was produced and fielded during the height of Fulcrum production.
A combat loaded MiG-29A tips the scales at approximately 38, 500 pounds. This figure includes a full load of internal fuel, two AA-10A Alamo missiles, four AA-11 Archer missiles, 150 rounds of 30mm ammunition and a full centerline 1,500 liter external fuel tank. With 18,600 pounds of thrust per engine, this gives the Fulcrum a takeoff thrust-to-weight ratio of 0.97:1. A similarly loaded air-to-air configured F-16 Block 40 would carry four AIM-120 AMRAAM active radar-guided missiles, two AIM-9M IR-guided missiles, 510 rounds of 20mm ammunition and a 300 gallon external centerline fuel tank. In this configuration, the F-16 weighs 31,640 pounds. With 29,000 pounds of thrust, the F-16 has a takeoff thrust-to-weight ratio of 0.92:1. The reader should be cautioned that these thrust-to-weight ratios are based on uninstalled thrust. Once an engine is installed in the aircraft, it produces less thrust than it does on a test stand due to the air intake allowing in less air than the engine has available on the test stand.
The actual installed thrust-to-weight ratios vary based on the source. On average, they are in the 1:1 regime or better for both aircraft. The centerline fuel tanks can be jettisoned and probably would be if the situation dictated with an associated decrease in drag and weight and an increase in performance.
Speed
Both aircraft display good performance throughout their flight regimes in the comparison configuration. The MiG-29 enjoys a speed advantage at high altitude with a flight manual limit of Mach 2.3. The F-16’s high altitude limit is Mach 2.05 but this is more of a limit of inlet design. The MiG-29 has variable geometry inlets to control the shock wave that forms in the inlet and prevent supersonic flow from reaching the engine. The F-16 employs a simple fixed-geometry inlet with a sharp upper lip that extends out beyond the lower portion of the inlet. A shock wave forms on this lip and prevents the flow in the intake from going supersonic. The objective is to keep the air going into the engine subsonic unlike a certain ‘subject matter expert’ on this website who thinks that the air should be accelerated to even higher speeds than the aircraft is traveling. Supersonic air in the compressor section? That’s bad.
Both aircraft have the same indicated airspeed limit at lower altitudes of 810 knots. This would require the centerline tanks to be jettisoned. The placard limits for the tanks are 600 knots or Mach 1.6 (Mach 1.5 for the MiG-29) whichever less is. It was the researcher’s experience that the MiG-29 would probably not reach this limit unless a dive was initiated. The F-16 Block 40 will easily reach 800 knots on the deck. In fact, power must be reduced to avoid exceeding placard limits. The limit is not thrust, as the F-16 has been test flown on the plus side of 900 knots. The limit for the F-16 is the canopy. Heating due to air friction at such speeds will cause the polycarbonate canopy to get soft and ultimately fail.
Turning Capability
The MiG-29 and F-16 are both considered 9 G aircraft. Until the centerline tank is empty, the Fulcrum is limited to four Gs and the Viper to seven Gs. The MiG-29 is also limited to seven Gs above Mach 0.85 while the F-16, once the centerline tank is empty (or jettisoned) can go to nine Gs regardless of airspeed or Mach number. The MiG-29’s seven G limit is due to loads on the vertical stabilizers. MAPO has advertised that the Fulcrum could be stressed to 12 Gs and still not hurt the airframe. This statement is probably wishful and boastful. The German Luftwaffe, which flew its MiG-29s probably more aggressively than any other operator, experienced cracks in the structure at the base of the vertical tails. The F-16 can actually exceed nine Gs without overstressing the airframe. Depending on configuration, momentary overshoots to as much as 10.3 Gs will not cause any concern with aircraft maintainers.
Handling
Of the four fighters I have flown, the MiG-29 has by far the worst handling qualities. The hydro-mechanical flight control system uses an artificial feel system of springs and pulleys to simulate control force changes with varying airspeeds and altitudes. There is a stability augmentation system that makes the aircraft easier to fly but also makes the aircraft more sluggish to flight control inputs. It is my opinion that the jet is more responsive with the augmentation system disengaged. Unfortunately, this was allowed for demonstration purposes only as this also disengages the angle-of-attack (AoA) limiter. Stick forces are relatively light but the stick requires a lot of movement to get the desired response. This only adds to sluggish feeling of the aircraft. The entire time you are flying, the stick will move randomly about one-half inch on its own with a corresponding movement of the flight control surface. Flying the Fulcrum requires constant attention. If the pilot takes his hand off the throttles, the throttles probably won't stay in the position in which they were left. They'll probably slide back into the 'idle' position.
The Fulcrum is relatively easy to fly during most phases of flight such as takeoff, climb, cruise and landing. However, due to flight control limitations, the pilot must work hard to get the jet to respond the way he wants. This is especially evident in aggressive maneuvering, flying formation or during attempts to employ the gun. Aerial gunnery requires very precise handling in order to be successful. The MiG-29’s handling qualities in no way limit the ability of the pilot to perform his mission, but they do dramatically increase his workload. The F-16’s quadruple-redundant digital flight control system, on the other hand, is extremely responsive, precise and smooth throughout the flight regime.
There is no auto-trim system in the MiG-29 as in the F-16. Trimming the aircraft is practically an unattainable state of grace in the Fulcrum. The trim of the aircraft is very sensitive to changes in airspeed and power and requires constant attention. Changes to aircraft configuration such as raising and lowering the landing gear and flaps cause significant changes in pitch trim that the pilot must be prepared for. As a result, the MiG-29 requires constant attention to fly. The F-16 auto-trims to one G or for whatever G the pilot has manually trimmed the aircraft for.
The MiG-29 flight control system also has an AoA limiter that limits the allowable AoA to 26°. As the aircraft reaches the limit, pistons at the base of the stick push the stick forward and reduce the AoA about 5°. The pilot has to fight the flight controls to hold the jet at 26°. The limiter can be overridden, however, with about 17 kg more back pressure on the stick. While not entirely unsafe and at times tactically useful, care must be taken not to attempt to roll the aircraft with ailerons when above 26° AoA. In this case it is best to control roll with the rudders due to adverse yaw caused by the ailerons at high AoA. The F-16 is electronically limited to 26° AoA. While the pilot cannot manually override this limit it is possible to overshoot under certain conditions and risk departure from controlled flight. This is a disadvantage to the F-16 but is a safety margin due its lack of longitudinal stability. Both aircraft have a lift limit of approximately 35° AoA.
Combat Scenario
The ultimate comparison of two fighter aircraft comes down to a combat duel between them. After the Berlin Wall came down the reunified Germany inherited 24 MiG-29s from the Nationale Volksarmee of East Germany. The lessons of capitalism were not lost on MAPO-MiG (the Fulcrum’s manufacturer) who saw this as an opportunity to compare the Fulcrum directly with western types during NATO training exercises. MAPO was quick to boast how the MiG-29 had bested F-15s and F-16s in mock aerial combat. They claimed a combination of the MiG’s superior sensors, weapons and low radar cross section allowed the Fulcrum to beat western aircraft. However, much of the early exploitation was done more to ascertain the MiG-29’s capabilities versus attempting to determine what the outcome of actual combat would be. The western press was also quick to pick up on the theme. In 1991, Benjamin Lambeth cited an article in Jane’s Defence Weekly which stated that the German MiG-29s had beaten F-16s with simulated BVR range shots of more than 60 km. How was this possible when the MiG-29 cannot launch an AA-10A Alamo from outside about 25 km? Was this a case of the fish getting bigger with every telling of the story? The actual BVR capability of the MiG-29 was my biggest disappointment. Was it further exposure to the German Fulcrums in realistic training that showed the jet for what it truly is? It seems that MAPO’s free advertising backfired in the end as further orders were limited to the 18 airplanes sold to Malaysia.
If F-16Cs and MiG-29s face off in aerial combat, both would detect each other on the radar at comparable range. Armed with the AIM-120 AMRAAM, the F-16s would have the first shot opportunity at more than twice the range as the Fulcrums. A single F-16 would be able to discriminately target individual and multiple Fulcrums. The MiG-29’s radar will not allow this. If there is more than one F-16 in a formation, a Fulcrum pilot would not know exactly which F-16 the radar had locked and he can engage only one F-16 at a time. A Viper pilot can launch AMRAAMS against multiple MiG-29s on the first pass and support his missiles via data link until the missiles go active. He can break the radar lock and leave or continue to the visual arena and employ short range infrared guided missiles or the gun. The Fulcrum pilot must wait until about 13 nautical miles (24 kilometers) before he can shoot his BVR missile. The Alamo is a semi-active missile that must be supported by the launching aircraft until impact. This brings the Fulcrum pilot closer to the AMRAAM. In fact, just as the the Fulcrum pilot gets in range to fire an Alamo, the AMRAAM is seconds away from impacting his aircraft. The advantage goes to the F-16.
What if both pilots are committed to engage visually? The F-16 should have the initial advantage as he knows the Fulcrum’s exact altitude and has the target designator box in the head-up display (HUD) to aid in visual acquisition. The Fulcrum’s engines smoke heavily and are a good aid to gaining sight of the adversary. Another advantage is the F-16’s large bubble canopy with 360° field-of-view. The Fulcrum pilot’s HUD doesn’t help much in gaining sight of the F-16. The F-16 is small and has a smokeless engine. The MiG-29 pilot sets low in his cockpit and visibility between the 4 o’clock and 7 o’clock positions is virtually nonexistent.
Charts that compare actual maneuvering performance of the two aircraft are classified. It was the researcher’s experience that the aircraft have comparable initial turning performance. However, the MiG-29 suffers from a higher energy bleed rate than the F-16. This is due to high induced drag on the airframe during high-G maneuvering. F-16 pilots that have flown against the Fulcrum have made similar observations that the F-16 can sustain a high-G turn longer. This results in a turn rate advantage that translates into a positional advantage for the F-16.
The F-16 is also much easier to fly and is more responsive at slow speed. The Fulcrum’s maximum roll rate is 160° per second. At slow speed this decreases to around 20° per second. Coupled with the large amount of stick movement required, the Fulcrum is extremely sluggish at slow speed. Maneuvering to defeat a close-range gun shot is extremely difficult if the airplane won’t move. For comparison, the F-16’s slow speed roll rate is a little more than 80° per second.
A lot has been written and theorized about the so-called “Cobra Maneuver” that impresses people at airshows. MAPO claimed that no western fighter dare do this same maneuver in public. They also claimed that the Cobra could be used to break the radar lock of an enemy fighter (due to the slow airspeed, there is no Doppler signal for the radar to track) or point the nose of the aircraft to employ weapons. Western fighter pilots were content to let the Russians brag and hope for the opportunity to see a MiG-29 give up all its airspeed. The fact that this maneuver is prohibited in the flight manual only validates the fact that this maneuver was a stunt. Lambeth was the first American to get a flight in the Fulcrum. Even his pilot conceded that the Cobra required a specially prepared aircraft and was prohibited in operational MiG-29 units
Another maneuver performed by the Fulcrum during its introduction to the West is the so-called “Tail Slide”. The nose of the jet is brought to 90° pitch and the airspeed is allowed to decay. Eventually, the Fulcrum begins to “slide” back, tail-first, until the nose drops and the jet begins to fly normally again. The Soviets boasted this maneuver demonstrated how robust the engines were as this would cause western engines to flameout. The first maneuver demonstrated to me during my F-15 training was the Tail Slide. The engines did not flameout.
The MiG-29 is not without strong points. The pilot can override the angle of attack limiter. This is especially useful in vertical maneuvering or in last ditch attempts to bring weapons to bear or defeat enemy shots. The HMS and AA-11 Archer make the Fulcrum a deadly foe in the visual arena. The AA-11 is far superior to the American AIM-9M. By merely turning his head, the MiG pilot can bring an Archer to bear. The one limitation, however, is that the Fulcrum pilot has no cue as to where the Archer seeker head is actually looking. This makes it impossible to determine if the missile is tracking the target, a flare, or some other hot spot in the background. (Note: the AIM-9X which is already fielded on the F-15C, and to be fielded on the F-16 in 2007, is far superior to the AA-11)
Fulcrum pilots have enjoyed their most success with the HMS/Archer combination in one versus one training missions. In this sterile environment, where both aircraft start within visual range of each other, the MiG-29 has a great advantage. Not because it is more maneuverable than the F-16. That is most certainly not the case regardless of the claims of the Fulcrum’s manufacturer and numerous other misinformed propaganda sources. The weapon/sensor integration with the HMS and Archer makes close-in missile employment extremely easy for the Fulcrum’s pilot. My only one versus one fight against a MiG-29 (in something other than another MiG-29) was flown in an F-16 Block 52. This was done against a MiG-29 at Nellis AFB, Nevada. The F-16 outturned and out-powered the Fulcrum in every situation.
The Fulcrum’s gun system is fairly accurate as long as the target does not attempt to defeat the shot. If the target maneuvers, the gunsight requires large corrections to get back to solution. Coupled with the jet’s imprecise handling, this makes close-in maneuvering difficult. This is very important when using the gun. Although the Fulcrum has a 30 mm cannon, the muzzle velocity is no more than the 20 mm rounds coming out of the F-16’s gun. The MiG’s effective gun range is actually less than that of the F-16 as the 20 mm rounds are more aerodynamic and maintain their velocity longer.
If the fight lasts very long, the MiG pilot is at a decided disadvantage and must either kill his foe or find a timely opportunity to leave the fight without placing himself on the defensive. The Fulcrum A holds only 300 pounds more internal fuel than the F-16 and its two engines go through it quickly. There are no fuel flow gauges in the cockpit. Using the clock and the fuel gauge, in full afterburner the MiG-29 uses fuel 3.5 to 4 times faster than the Viper. My shortest MiG-29 sortie was 16 minutes from brake release to touchdown.
I'll attempt to give my perspective of US vs Soviet fighters. I have flown against Soviet fighters while flying the F-15, F-16, F-5 and MiG-29 (of course, the MiG-29 really doesn't count since it's also a Soviet fighter; we just didn't have any dissimilar adversaries). While flying the US fighters, I have flown against the MiG-21, MiG-23, MiG-29 and Su-27.
One should remember that Soviet fighters were designed and built using a different mindset with respect to tactical aviation. It's almost like comparing the playbook of the Dallas Cowboys with that of some profi-league football (soccer) team in Europe. The sport goes by the same name but it's just not the same. The mindset of the Soviets was centralized control and centralized execution. That means the pilot and aircraft were an extension of the ground controller. The pilot was not provided with the tools nor the training to operate autonomously. If you cut off his communications link with his ground controller, the Soviet pilot was not equipped to operate on his own. US fighters are conceived around the concept of centralized control, decentralized execution. That means that US fighter has all the tools necessary for the pilot to operate and make autonomous decisions. The US pilot's aircraft sensors and displays are designed to provide him with the battle-space information required to make those decisions. AWACS and GCI are there to provide pieces to the puzzle. They have no real 'control authority'. I've been known to tell AWACS to STFU and quit garbaging the radios.
Flying against the MiG-21 and MiG-23 with the F-15 was relatively easy. The Fishbed is difficult to see and you have to ask yourself if that speck on the canopy is a piece of fly do-do or a MiG-21? I also flew against those airplanes while flying the F-5. The MiG-23 was still a baby seal while the MiG-21 was much more evenly matched.
I have flown against the MiG-29 and Su-27 while flying the F-16 (Blocks 30, 40 and 50). Since I have 500 hours in the MiG-29, I'll talk a little more about it.
The Fulcrum is a very reliable airplane. It seldom breaks. The same can be said about the F-16. The F-16 absolutely owns the MiG-29 from beyond visual range (BVR). Initial contact ranges from both aircraft are similar although I'd give a slight edge to the F-16. The BVR AMRAAM against the AA-10A is a joke. By the time the Fulcrum pilot gets in range to shoot an AA-10, the AMRAAM has gone active and the F-16 pilot has turned around and is going away. If forced to merge, I'd still give the advantage to the F-16 pilot. His sensors will tell him exactly where multiple MiG-29s are. The Fulcrum pilot may have situational awareness (SA) on one F-16 and his displays won't point out exactly where his F-16 adversary is. If the MiG-29 pilot does have SA, then his helmet-mounted sight and AA-11 Archer make him a deadly adversary. If the F-16 pilot has the Joint Helmet-Mounted Cueing System and AIM-9X, the advantage is still with the Viper pilot as the off-boresight capability of the AIM-9X is significantly higher than the AA-11. If it comes down to a gun fight, I still give the advantage to the F-16. The F-16 sustains a high-g turn better than the MiG-29, has better outside visibility, is more responsive and easier to fly, rolls significantly faster and will out accelerate the MiG-29 like the Fulcrum was glued to the floor. The Fulcrum is a very sloppy-flying airplane. I'm not saying the Fulcrum is a push over; the Viper pilot needs to bring his A-game. The Fulcrum pilot better prosecute the merge pretty fast because he doesn't have the fuel to hang around very long.
While flying the MiG-29, I have flown against the F-4, F-14, F-15, F-16, F-18, Tornado F-3, and Mirage 2000. The 'deadliest' was the F-15C, the worst was the Mirage 2000. It was the only one I'd walk out the door knowing we were going to kick their asses.
While flying the F-16, I found the Su-27 to be a much more lethal BVR airplane with the exended-range AA-10C. The Flanker also has a very robust infrared search-and-track system that can also cause issues. You still have an advantage with the AMRAAM. You just have to be more cautious. In the visual fight, the Flanker is still impressive for an aircraft of its size. If the Su-27 is fairly heavyweight then it's a wallowing pig. If it has burned off some fuel, its nose-pointing ability a high angles of attack is impressive. So is its energy bleed off. If you can get him to give up some energy, I found it very beatable with the F-16. On the other hand, the Flanker is a lot like the F-15 - it's a maintenance nightmare.

回复 支持 反对

使用道具 举报

您需要登录后才可以回帖 登录 | 立即注册

本版积分规则

sitemap|联系站长|版权说明|小黑屋|Archiver|手机版|CHNJET喷气俱乐部 ( 京ICP备15028347号-2 京公网安备 11011202000937号 )

GMT+8, 2024-12-22 20:30

Powered by Discuz! X3.4

© 2001-2023 Discuz! Team.

快速回复 返回顶部 返回列表