By the way what is this? I have not seen it before, is this the Irbis?

http://www.niip.info/main.php?page=raz_sky_n11_01m

Nope, that’s the antenna system for BARS, which is offered for sale as a separate module without NIIP’s processer unit to those customers who are still not satisfied with Russian computing and electronic technology.

Good guess though, for IRBIS is a development from BARS for use on the MiG-35.

Here’s a picture of IRBIS-E’s antenna and diagram of the radar’s layout:

From http://www.niip.ru/main.php?page=library_sky17

It is indeed, although it’s derived from the Mil Mi-8 and not from the Mi-4.

Oops, my mistake!!

The Z-6 project was begun in the mid-sixties long before anyone in China, or even that many people in the Soviet military, ever laid eyes on an Mi-8.
So yeah, it’s almost definitely derived from the Mi-4.

So roberto_yeager, my apologies for the uncalled for correction:o 😮

77114 was originally put up for sale with a price tag of $10 million USD. However, the Russian government blocked the sale due to the fact that the NK-321 engines it was refitted with were military engines (they power the Tu-160). Since then, the aircraft has been seen fitted with it’s original RD-36-51 engines (you can tell thanks to the unique nozzles of the -51), so it may yet be sold.

Refusing to supply NK-321 engines because of their military applications might indeed be the reason that the Russians gave for not selling them, but I can’t help but think that the Russians are being a little bit inconsistant in their rules. If this were really the case the Soviets/Russians should never have sold any of their Tu-154M or Il-62M airliners – both of which used the Soloviev D-30 engine, which, in afterburning form is used to power the MiG-31 – one of the Russians most classifed aircraft.

He basically lost most of one rudder in their props and forced the Orion to make an emergency landing.

I’m pretty sure the FLANKER pilot didn’t delay in finding somewhere to land either!:rolleyes: :rolleyes:

I’m just pointing it out because I once saw a picture of the same Flanker adorned with a P-3 “kill” marking as a result of the incident/accident and I couldn’t help but wonder why the Norwegian pilot couldn’t have applied the same marking to his P-3 Orion – with a Su-27 Silhouette underneath his cockpit window of course…;) 😉

The WW2 spitfire was powered by a water cooled engine.

The term water cooled is almost certainly incorrect terminology, if we are talking about aero engines.

The liquid used for cooling such aero engines as the RR merlin or the Daimler Benz DB 600 series was rarely completely water, but usually a half and half mix of both water and ethylene glycol, or sometimes just ethylene glycol on its own. I think other liquids may have been used, someone else might be able to tell us.:confused:

Liquid cooled is the more appropriate term.

You need to make the distinction between the balance of conventional power and the balance of strategic nuclear power.

I mentioned in my post that I was only talking about the nuclear balance of power.

In the strategic nuclear balance interceptors are like tanks. In the unlikely event they survive their contribution will be minimal. After the ICBMs and SLBMs have hit their targets there will be few operational radar, command and control, or airbases still operational. 6-7 hours later when the bombers and cruise missiles fly over things wont have changed much in that regard.

That’s exactly my point! The proposed ABM system is probably too vulnerable to a nuclear strike, or to an early conventional strike by Su-34s or cruise missiles, to be any serious threat to the Russian Federation. It’s even within range of Russian air force Su-25s armed with Kh-29s! So why are the Russians complaining about it?

BTW if you want to compare conventional forces and somehow claim the Russians are being silly, you will achieve the opposite. The CFE treaty controls tank, APC, and Helo numbers in Europe but does not include naval forces like the USMC. With an original balance of 20,000 tanks per side NATO and the Warsaw Pact had the same number of forces. Now with all of the Warsaw pact and even some former Soviet Republics part of NATO the numbers are now a joke with 2/3rds of the numbers on the NATO side with the opposing side pretty much being Russia.

I don’t deny NATO’s superiority in conventional forces, but it’s completely useless against an attack by Iranian nuclear armed ballistic missiles, hence the proposed ABM system.

Yeah, and the upgrade of some Mig-31s and Su-27s will completely compensate the USAF introduction of the F-22 and F-35 into operational service…

You’re quite right, the introduction of over a 1000 “Eurocanard” 4.5 generation aircraft into European service, the introduction of the F-22 into American service, along with upgrades to the F-15 and F-16 will give NATO an improved capability to intercept any Kh-55 armed Tu-95/Tu-160. That’s actually a real alteration in the balance of nuclear power.

Why don’t the Russians complain about this? It has much more bearing upon the issue of “balance of nuclear power”, instead of whinging about the 8 or so missiles in the any future ABM system!

The number of TOPOLs the Russians have is limited by treaty. Currently the Moscow treaty. There is no limit on the number of interceptor missiles the US can build and deploy. Can’t you see the problem? If they dont react this time when should they react?

No limit on the number of interceptor missiles that the Russians can build either, if they think that they are so potent or effective.

Come to think of it, which country has actually got the most interceptor missiles in service now anyway? I don’t know for sure, but I wouldn’t be surprised if it was the Russian Federation.:rolleyes:

The Russians have more or less made this type of weapon their speciality, having brought into service recently the A-135 system around Moscow, along with the introduction of the S-400 system, which will supplement if not replace all S-300 versions – but nobody in theWest is complaining about this, or are they?:confused:

AIM-95

Interesting and intelligent choice there.

I read so much about DACT exercises involving German MiG-29s and NATO F-16s and how the R-73 and ‘Schlem’ HMS system was crucial in allowing the MiG to win in most combats. It always raised the question as to why the Soviets had such a system while NATO didn’t – bearing in mind that the US Navy had in fact pioneered ‘HMS off-boresight systems’ in the 1970s with the VTAS/AIM-9H combo and then the US developing the AIM-95 system – just in time for 4th generation fighters.

Why didn’t the Americans see the obvious advantages of HMS systems and develop it further to its logical conclusion – why didn’t they put the AIM-95 into service?

Hey folks, Well it seems now even the Mighty Challenger Tank is no longer invulnerable.

Who said the Challenger was ever completely invulnerable, anyway the crew survived, didn’t they??:confused: