Sukhoi 30 armament?

well, an intention is something different entirely from actually achieving the real thing…

That doesn’t mean it wasn’t the first SST design to fly. It spawned the most capable SST, the Tu-144D, which had the ability to carry more passengers over a longer distance than the Concorde…

Yes, but not by carrying fee paying passengers.

I never said it was by carrying passengers. Doesn’t change the fact that the Tu-144 was the first SST to earn money, just like a redesign doesn’t change the fact that the Tu-144 prototype wasn’t the first SST in the air. Even the Concorde had some redesigns before entering service, so do you throw out the first Concorde prototype flight as well?

No, the first passenger service of the Tu-144 was on 1-Nov-1977, almost 20 months after the Concorde.

Don’t see why this is meaningful except for winning your own-run d.ick comparison contest no one cares about. The delays had much to do with paperwork and approval of soviet authorities, the aircraft itself was already flying semi-scheduled freight and mail service.

Well, that’s just Hunky-Dory for you, isn’t it!:rolleyes:

I got no idea what ‘hunky-dory’ means..

But that’s of no use for a dispassionate observer of the discussion, who expects to see a logical process of reasoning and argument in action, now is it. What you’re saying is that it’s far more important the identity of the person making an argument – rather than the quality or strength of the argument itself…

Identity of the person is important… Respect is earned.. Sean has earned it by hundreds of balanced opinions and insights.. He has no problem giving credit to the other side where credit is due.. Unlike you, you are only looking for excuses to make your favorite [western] design win [over something russian, at best]. That is no reasoning to me, that is d.ck comparison and I am not playing that game..

As regards introduction date for the MiG-23ML into Iraqi air force service here’s something I found on the airwar.ru site

http://www.airwar.ru/history/locwar/persg/mig23/mig23.html

Check the first sentence on the second paragraph.
According to this site, the first MiG-23MLs were first delivered to Iraq through the port of Aqaba in the Dead sea during the winter of 1983 – but unlike some, I don’t believe every source I see – feel free to find an alternative source with an earlier delivery date if you can … they’ve all got equal validity, within reason, as far as I’m concerned!

This is interesting. I will try to find more about that topic.

Setting examinations now are we… are you some sort of member of an examinations board on Mig-23s?
Who runs the overall governing authority… GarryB??:dev2:

I first need to know whether you got a slightest idea what you are talking about. Because if you knew the differences I ask about, you’d know that the downgrades performed on export MF/ML/BN Floggers were of rather insignificant nature (mainly export version of IFF and RWR system).

[QUOTE=SOC;1240013]The Tu-144 was intended to be an SST just as much as the T-10 was intended to be a fighter jet.QUOTE]

well, an intention is something different entirely from actually achieving the real thing…

The Tu-144 was earning revenue before 1977, and before Concorde…

Yes, but not by carrying fee paying passengers. The flights between Moscow and Alma Ata carrying freight and mail were part of the final certification and acceptance trials before it’s allowed to carry passengers. It was typical of the Soviet system of bringing into service new types of civilian airliner. The Tu-154 underwent the same process.

Call the ‘CHARGER’ the world’s first supersonic ‘trash hauler’ if you like!:D

The Tu-144 which first flew in December 1968 was never an airliner and could never have been a suitable candidate for one either. Its role was more of a technology demonstrator if anything – in the same way that the EAP was in no way a Eurofighter or “Have Blue” was a stealth combat aircraft. The final Tu-144 which entered passenger service in 1977, was a very different aircraft in airframe design.

The Tu-144 was intended to be an SST just as much as the T-10 was intended to be a fighter jet.

No, the first passenger service of the Tu-144 was on 1-Nov-1977, almost 20 months after the Concorde.

The Tu-144 was earning revenue before 1977, and before Concorde…

Cough, cough.. RCAF C-17s…. RAAF C-17s… RAF C-17s… Cough, cough..

I should have said “USAF C-5s and C-17s were developed and purchased for the use by the USAF only”
The Australians, Canadians and the British were, of course, never consulted when the design specifications of these aircraft were being laid down.
Those particular countries won’t be renting their C-17s out for hire in the near future either…

So which aircraft was, then?

The Tu-144 which first flew in December 1968 was never an airliner and could never have been a suitable candidate for one either. Its role was more of a technology demonstrator if anything – in the same way that the EAP was in no way a Eurofighter or “Have Blue” was a stealth combat aircraft. The final Tu-144 which entered passenger service in 1977, was a very different aircraft in airframe design.

Concorde – first flown 02-Mar-1969, service commenced 21-Jan-1976
Tu-144 – first flown 31-Dec-1968, service commenced 26-Dec-1975

No, the first passenger service of the Tu-144 was on 1-Nov-1977, almost 20 months after the Concorde.

Unlike you, SOC know damn well what he is talking about.. I don’t require any proofs from him, because I know he has those.

Well, that’s just Hunky-Dory for you, isn’t it!:rolleyes:

But that’s of no use for a dispassionate observer of the discussion, who expects to see a logical process of reasoning and argument in action, now is it. What you’re saying is that it’s far more important the identity of the person making an argument – rather than the quality or strength of the argument itself…

So, those were not MiG-23MLs because you said so? Prove it.

I never tried to state anything. It’s you who needs to ‘prove it’.
But is it necessarily true, just because acig or the Iranian air force says it’s true? They both also say that Iranian F-14 Tomcats shot down 130+ Iraqi aircraft during the war, so that must be true too, I suppose… :rolleyes: 😎
As regards introduction date for the MiG-23ML into Iraqi air force service here’s something I found on the airwar.ru site

http://www.airwar.ru/history/locwar/persg/mig23/mig23.html

Check the first sentence on the second paragraph.
According to this site, the first MiG-23MLs were first delivered to Iraq through the port of Aqaba in the Dead sea during the winter of 1983 – but unlike some, I don’t believe every source I see – feel free to find an alternative source with an earlier delivery date if you can … they’ve all got equal validity, within reason, as far as I’m concerned!

Yes, they have existed. But I wonder what you really know about them. My question : how did Iraqi MiG-23MFs and MLs differ from those serving in SU?

Setting examinations now are we… are you some sort of member of an examinations board on Mig-23s?
Who runs the overall governing authority… GarryB??:dev2:

That’s not what I said. Now you’re taking my statements out of context to fit your argument. If they carry the R-73, they’ll have no problems carrying a follow-on designed to use the same interface. So why waste time finding a weapon that may or may not be more effective than the R-73.

the same can be said about transition from python 4 to python 5.
In the 90s it wasnt cleared that follow on of R-73 will be available in reasonable time. but still they continue to purchase R-73.
Asraam/Python5/Mica IIR are known for long time.

You haven’t understood weapons acquisition and development procedures.

Everything has specific context.

Depends upon the weapon. The R-77 doesn’t lock on before launch… the launch aircraft detects the target and tracks it to determine its position, its direction of travel and its speed. If the pilot chooses to engage that aircraft the distance is calculated and the targets projected position is determined and the missile is launched towards that point but will start scanning for the target say 10-15km before it reaches the intercept point… which is only an estimate anyway. As the missile flys towards the target area if the target speeds up or slows down or changes its flight direction the launch aircraft will perform a recalculation of where the target is going to be when the missile starts scanning… if the target only increased speed by a few kms per hour then the target will still be well within the R-77s field of view when it starts scanning and the launch aircraft will do nothing but keep periodically checking the targets speed and direction of travel. If the target performs a significant manouver the launch aircraft will calculate a new intercept point and command the R-77 to manouver to change course to head for this new intercept point via the datalink.
If the target detects the lock and detects periodic checks on its position if it starts to jam the missile will detect the jamming signal and perhaps home in on that instead if the jamming signal is where it expects the target to be. It may be programmed to use its own radar to illuminate the target with a coded signal so it can distinguish its own signal from the jamming to avoid homing in and hitting a towed jammer or a ground based jammer etc.

Anyway to answer your question HOJ mode would be instead of a lock rather than to speed up or slow down lock on time.

How does home on jam mode affect the time it takes to get a lock?

No it wasn’t. It was designed to achieve air-superiority/supremacy over the Warsaw Pact in Central Europe – as a PVO fighter serving over the USSR proper, the MiG-25 would rarely expect to meet an F-15 in such a conflict (with the exception of the odd MIG-25R/RB).

When it was first seen the Mig-25 was actually believed to be the Mig-23 and they thought it was a mach 3 interceptor that would actually be what the F-15 turned out to be (except for speed). When they designed the F-15 they knew the layout of the Mig-25 and its speed but very little else other than what they could work out based on rough calculations.

No, it’s being proactive, being reactive!

Being proactive is to counter possible moved by the other side before you know they have made them… ie building capabilities to attack rather than looking at the other sides offensive capabilities and developing equipment to counter their offensive capability.

I never said they weren’t operational – just that they probably fly as often as any other RuAF aircraft in service – not very often at all!

Based on what? apart from ignorance…

C-5s and C-17s were developed and purchased for the use by the USAF only and are not for hire or sale to the highest bidder…

Yes, the USAF had people to bomb and kill, they couldn’t spare a single transport aircraft… of course in the civilian sector the demand for the An-124 shows there is a market for large transports yet the C-5 production plant didn’t sell any civilian models… wonder why?

There’s a grain of truth in every stereotype…

Yeah, cause black men have larger penises than white men, and all black men look the same… I am sure you can’t tell Bill Cosby and Denzel Washington apart when they are standing next to each other… :rolleyes:

But what would a USAF pilot know about the operational issues and costs of an An-124 or any other Soviet built aircraft?

They will know that the C-5 is a problem aircraft…

But it has been repeated 101 times on this forum that the SU did export monkey versions of their weapon systems (you’re upsetting a lot of people, SOC!) and certainly how do you explain the existence of the MiG-23MS/BN in the first place, if such kind of policy didn’t exist It seems to me that the SU were themselves unsure whether to export downgraded gear and to what extent, just look at Iraq in the 1980s!

You think it was an accident that Argentine Exocets didn’t detonate reliably when they hit British ships during the Falklands conflict… anything with electronics in it can have a backdoor or a line of code that fakes a failure in certain circumstances. Do you really think the Allied coalition getting the F-35 will get the same aircraft the USAF will be getting…

Which is the bigger (easier) target to hit, Cobra or HIND?

So the A-10 is bigger and slower than an Su-25… I guess that makes the Su-25 better in your opinion?
The difference in size of the Cobra and the Hind is huge from front on but from the side the difference is not that great.

look at the relationship between B-70/A-12 – MiG-25 or F-4 Phantom – MiG-23

According to the Doug Richardson book I have on the F-16 they started with the Mig-21 and aimed for 30 percent improvements in performance in various areas… so I guess the F-16 is based on the Mig-21…

Yet monkey versions do exist, in Iraq and elsewhere in the world, as you have already stated.

And the west doesn’t do that…. hahahahahahahaha…

Let us bet who has more money – obnoxiously rich Volga Dnepr or the cash stripped USAF

Always makes me wonder when a backward eastern company that unless it is using an american business model must be incredibly inefficient can succeed in a role like leasing heavy transport aircraft yet uses backward poorly designed high maintainence low performance eastern aircraft when it could just buy an all Boeing fleet, adopt an american business model and actually become successful… like all the hundreds of western companies doing the same with those much better western aircraft like the C-17s and C-5s…

Could just be that you can’t give credit where credit is due, which is why I largely ignore most of what you say. During the cold war there was a western media habit of assuming anything good was a lie and anything bad must be true. You assume that the commies lied… and because the west opposed them that they must always therefore tell the truth. Perhaps you need to wake up with the rest of the world… or Saddam will launch a WMD strike on your home town within the next 45 mins.
Not better dead than red anymore… better dead than muslim.

The United States of America did not collapse as political entity in 1991 and the USAF still functions as the world’s largest, busiest and best funded air force. C-5s and C-17s were developed and purchased for the use by the USAF only and are not for hire or sale to the highest bidder…

Cough, cough.. RCAF C-17s…. RAAF C-17s… RAF C-17s… Cough, cough..

The Tu-144A prototype which first flew in December 1968 was NOTthe world’s first supersonic airliner!

So which aircraft was, then?

Concorde – first flown 02-Mar-1969, service commenced 21-Jan-1976
Tu-144 – first flown 31-Dec-1968, service commenced 26-Dec-1975

[QUOTE=Levsha;1238679]I have read that that was the case, on numerous occasions – and it would be Soviet practice/tradition – look at the relationship between B-70/A-12 – MiG-25 or F-4 Phantom – MiG-23 [QUOTE=Levsha;1238679]:rolleyes: What has F-4 in common with MiG-23? These two aircraft could not be more different..

I was actually replying to SOC’s original post – he didn’t provide too many proofs either, when he was making his comparisons, but you didn’t feel a need to get into a huff about this for some reason… now who’s being biased?

Unlike you, SOC know damn well what he is talking about.. I don’t require any proofs from him, because I know he has those.

And you treat ACIG’s word on this as gospel – don’t be cherry-picking now, I’ve read some of your comments on Tom Cooper’s site before.

So, those were not MiG-23MLs because you said so? Prove it.

What you seem to forget is that many An-124s are in commercial service – as long as there are a supply of clients willing to pay for Volga Dnieper’s or Polyot’s services, actually funding the flying of An-124 shouldn’t be a problem. This is not the case with an air arm like the USAF or the RuAF, who have a pre-set and limited budget to carry out a limited amount of flying. Actually, it’s somewhat specious, for any of us, to compare the operational costs between aircraft of a commercial profit making organization and a budget restrained air force.

Let us bet who has more money – obnoxiously rich Volga Dnepr or the cash stripped USAF 😉

Yet monkey versions do exist, in Iraq and elsewhere in the world, as you have already stated.

Yes, they have existed. But I wonder what you really know about them. My question : how did Iraqi MiG-23MFs and MLs differ from those serving in SU?

so do u think introducing some other WVR missile is going to reduce ability of aircraft to carry R-73 follow on? pretty illogical.
does it mean Mica integration with Mirage-2000 will become difficult due to R-73.

That’s not what I said. Now you’re taking my statements out of context to fit your argument. If they carry the R-73, they’ll have no problems carrying a follow-on designed to use the same interface. So why waste time finding a weapon that may or may not be more effective than the R-73.

u havent understood the context of the statement untill this point.

You haven’t understood weapons acquisition and development procedures.

Why buy the Python 4 at this point when there are thousands of R-73s on hand already, and the ability to fire the R-73 will likely make the aircraft capable of handling the replacement in the future?

so do u think introducing some other WVR missile is going to reduce ability of aircraft to carry R-73 follow on? pretty illogical.
does it mean Mica integration with Mirage-2000 will become difficult due to R-73.

http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/MONITOR/ISSUE3-1/chatto.html
Indeed Mirage 2000s on missions over Kargil in the summer of 1999 were carrying R-73 AAM

The MKI variant was advertised as far back as 1997.

was it certified?

Pakistan, like anyone else, will not put a weapon system into operational service if it hasn’t been tested first.

u havent understood the context of the statement untill this point.

Why buy the Python 4 at this point when there are thousands of R-73s on hand already, and the ability to fire the R-73 will likely make the aircraft capable of handling the replacement in the future?

The MKI variant was advertised as far back as 1997.

Pakistan, like anyone else, will not put a weapon system into operational service if it hasn’t been tested first.

The Topsight HMS is a bad example. Why? Because they were integrated with new aircraft under a new contract. Indian AF MiG-29s were delivered before you claim they should have been buying the Python 4, so they already had Russian systems installed and integrated. Next.

there is new contract of IAF MIG-29 upgrade just recently so where i new HMS/Python4 combo? we are already in 2008.

Oh yeah, here’s one for you. I guess the MKK/MK2 must be superior to the MKI as China did not acquire the tandem triplane layout, the TVC engines, or the Bars radar, right?

China acquired all those aircraft before MKI fully developed. MKI fully certified in October 2004 for first version. So u are comparing different time lines. Python 4 time period was in the 90s. and here we are discussing it in 2008.

Your arguments are simply based on past events which you are skewing to make your point for you. There is nothing factual in your argument. Reminds me of the whole “Pakistan inducts weapons before they test them” debacle :rolleyes:

Sequence of events and time line are pretty accurate. Pakistan only test weopons which are already inducted.

The Topsight HMS is a bad example. Why? Because they were integrated with new aircraft under a new contract. Indian AF MiG-29s were delivered before you claim they should have been buying the Python 4, so they already had Russian systems installed and integrated. Next.

Oh yeah, here’s one for you. I guess the MKK/MK2 must be superior to the MKI as China did not acquire the tandem triplane layout, the TVC engines, or the Bars radar, right?

Your arguments are simply based on past events which you are skewing to make your point for you. There is nothing factual in your argument. Reminds me of the whole “Pakistan inducts weapons before they test them” debacle :rolleyes:

Did you ever stop to think about the integration issue with Python 4 and the HMS in the Russian aircraft? No? Keep trying…

what do u think other integration issues that i mentioned like EW, LCD displays, targetting pods, HUD and on top of that larger antenna on A-50 airframe. they were willing to go extra on top of every thing. what about Topsight HMS for MIG-29K for such small quantitiy.

But what would a USAF pilot know about the operational issues and costs of an An-124 or any other Soviet built aircraft?

Admittedly nothing, but they can tell you how the C-5 fares, which was my point there.

The Tu-144A prototype which first flew in December 1968 was NOT
the world’s first supersonic airliner!

Eh? What SST beat it into the air?

whate else proof u need when two largest customers India/China in 90s were not buying Python 4 in thousands?

Did you ever stop to think about the integration issue with Python 4 and the HMS in the Russian aircraft? No? Keep trying…

The F-15 was designed especially to take on the Mig-25 – the Foxbat is the father and almost identical model for the F-15. In fact reduce the speed requirement for the Mig-25 to mach 2.5 so aluminium alloys can be used to reduce weight and cost and give the Mig-25 the later F-15s radar and avionics and you pretty much have an F-15.

No it wasn’t. It was designed to achieve air-superiority/supremacy over the Warsaw Pact in Central Europe – as a PVO fighter serving over the USSR proper, the MiG-25 would rarely expect to meet an F-15 in such a conflict (with the exception of the odd MIG-25R/RB).

Not lead and follow… action and reaction.

No, it’s being proactive, being reactive!

What makes you think RuAF are nonoperational?

I never said they weren’t operational – just that they probably fly as often as any other RuAF aircraft in service – not very often at all!

Even the US military uses An-124s under lease because their C-5s are inadequate for the job. When was the last time the Russians used a US transport to meet their needs? Never? Correct.

The United States of America did not collapse as political entity in 1991 and the USAF still functions as the world’s largest, busiest and best funded air force. C-5s and C-17s were developed and purchased for the use by the USAF only and are not for hire or sale to the highest bidder…

Never let the facts get in the way of a good stereotype….

There’s a grain of truth in every stereotype…

SOC:
Talk to almost any USAF pilot, even one outside of the air mobility community!

But what would a USAF pilot know about the operational issues and costs of an An-124 or any other Soviet built aircraft?

And when was this actually done with Soviet aircraft exported to other nations? MiG-23s, apart from the E model, were exported with R-23/24 and R-60 AAMs. MiG-25s were exported with R-40 and R-60 AAMs, a lot of which were the MiG-25PD variant. MiG-29s were, contrary to open press theories, never exported with the R-23. They were all exported with the R-27R and R-73 (the R-27T being an apparent rarity even in Soviet MiG-29 units, although it may have been exported as I recall seeing one on an Iraqi MiG-29 hit on the ground in DESERT STORM). They all featured the aircraft’s native radar system, albeit with a few sensitive and un-needed avionics items removed or replaced (recall the example where nuclear weapon carriage was not found on MiG-29s exported to other nations). I fail to see how these export aircraft can be seen as severely downgraded given the fact that they featured the same basic radar and weapons sets found on the aircraft serving within the Soviet Union.

But it has been repeated 101 times on this forum that the SU did export monkey versions of their weapon systems (you’re upsetting a lot of people, SOC!) and certainly how do you explain the existence of the MiG-23MS/BN in the first place, if such kind of policy didn’t exist It seems to me that the SU were themselves unsure whether to export downgraded gear and to what extent, just look at Iraq in the 1980s!

1MAN:
Not really, being able to take a hit/s is a VERY important part in serviving.

You’re right, it is important… just not as important as avoiding been hit in the first place. Which is the bigger (easier) target to hit, Cobra or HIND?

Actually the USSR’s “Concordski” was built before the French Concord.

The Tu-144A prototype which first flew in December 1968 was NOT
the world’s first supersonic airliner!

Quote:
Originally Posted by Levsha
No, the FLANKER was designed to be 20% better in most parameters than the F-15, which would not be possible unless the Soviets already had a sound knowledge of the F-15’s performance and capabilities. I’m pretty sure the KGB would have acquired a lot of technical data relating to the F-15 in the 1970s for Sukhoi to work on.

Flex297: There is no evidence about that.

I have read that that was the case, on numerous occasions – and it would be Soviet practice/tradition – look at the relationship between B-70/A-12 – MiG-25 or F-4 Phantom – MiG-23

I don’t have to have that kind of information because I have never stated that An-124 is so much more serviceable than C-5 or vice versa. I have never stated anything, it is you who presents his own BIASED GUESSWORK as FACT, so the burden of the proof lies with you. It’s easy, prove your strong claims or admit you know nothing about that and stop spreading nonsense.

I was actually replying to SOC’s original post – he didn’t provide too many proofs either, when he was making his comparisons, but you didn’t feel a need to get into a huff about this for some reason… now who’s being biased?

Even acig admit to lack accurate data about delivery dates of these versions. Nevertheless it must have been in the 70s, because official Iranian kill listings include an Iraqi MiG-23MLA piloted by Lt. Ah-Sabah shot down by Iranian F-14A using AIM-54 Phoenix as early as October 1980. There goes your theory..

And you treat ACIG’s word on this as gospel – don’t be cherry-picking now, I’ve read some of your comments on Tom Cooper’s site before.

I thought you stated that C-5s are A LOT MORE SERVICEABLE than An-124. Suddenly, the An-124 is easier and cheaper to maintain? Get a grip with reality..

What you seem to forget is that many An-124s are in commercial service – as long as there are a supply of clients willing to pay for Volga Dnieper’s or Polyot’s services, actually funding the flying of An-124 shouldn’t be a problem. This is not the case with an air arm like the USAF or the RuAF, who have a pre-set and limited budget to carry out a limited amount of flying. Actually, it’s somewhat specious, for any of us, to compare the operational costs between aircraft of a commercial profit making organization and a budget restrained air force.

Iraqi MiG-23MF/MLs had R-23 and R-24 onboard, too. Their MiG-29s had R-27s, just like Soviet versions. Where is the difference?

Yet monkey versions do exist, in Iraq and elsewhere in the world, as you have already stated.

All of that and you still have yet to prove that the R-73 is superior to the Python 4.

whate else proof u need when two largest customers India/China in 90s were not buying Python 4 in thousands? it is clearly inferior beyond doubt. i have told you Isreale has to export massively for its own good. The reason Israelis were ahead in certain areas because they had Industrial infrastructure to build better products along with capitalist financial system. and that Industrial infrastructure depended on import from West. Now Russia is importing large scale machinery on massive scale from EU/SK/Japan so there is reverse immigration going on and end result will be much different.
EW suite for aircraft is expensive or WVR missile?
I am not even going into French LCD displays, Cockpit design that effects the weight along with targeting pods. there is communication system and other things. or ur claiming India can afford R-73 on LCA but cant afford python 4 on MKI. how they afford Topsight on MiG-29K and Elta radars for some other aircraft?

I disagree with the above, as empty weight is exclusive of any internal fuel. The empty weight of F-15C is 12 tons only, as compared to >17 tons of the Su-30.

Empty weight of the F-15 C is 12.7 tons/28,000 pounds

Source – The great book of modern warplanes by Mike Spick