The Russian Vihr missile does that, it stays in the laser beam and goes wherever the beam is pointing. I’m pretty sure that the point of this is to keep the missile light and fast (and cheap) with a very clever yet deceptively simple guidance system, while the guidance is still pretty much jam-resistant (any ECM/APS systems carried by the target are pretty much entirely unable to “dazzle” it or otherwise disrupt its guidance for example).

There are obviously drawbacks to it as well, you can’t use “external” designators for instance, and the entire firing process has to be in line of sight.

Sounds like the same style of laser guidance fitted on the RBS-70 SAM missile since the 1970s, as well as the South African ZT3 anti-tank missile.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RBS_70
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ZT3_Ingwe

According the latest news he says a real test firing with missiles my friend.

http://www.aviaport.ru/digest/2015/08/26/355753.html

It doesn’t quite say that in the text. Even if there were the firing of missiles, which type could it be? If it’s some sort of R-73 – great, but it still would not be a full test of the fire control system that the test firing of a radar-guided type, such as R-77, would imply.

Count the available size and types and see for yourself. Let’s concentrate on ESA only..

Why should we concentrate on ESA radars only? All recent new MiG-29 variants, SMT, 29K, etc, are fitted with mechanically scanned slotted-array dish type radars – as are Gripen and Typhoon also sold.

Russia PESA: SBI16 Zaslon (series), Zaslon-M (series), N011M BARS (series), N035 Irbis (series), V004 (series)
Russia PESA: Zhuk-MF (development), Zhuk-MSF (development), BARS-29 (development), Pero (demo), Kopyo/Pharaon (demo), OSA-2 (series?)
Russia AESA: N036 (development), FGA35 (development)
EU PESA: RBE2 (series)
EU AESA: RBE2-AA (series), Vixen 1000 (development), Captor-E (development)

I don’t know who is really interested in developing new PESA designs except for the Russian military – but then again there is more to a successful AI radar design besides its antenna type.

As regards airborne AESA radar – there are many such radar designs already flying in service around the world which originate from Western Europe/EU – think of Erieye AEW&C or Seaspray radars. There is no Russian airborne AESA design as of yet in service anywhere in the world (as far as I know?).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Active_electronically_scanned_array#List_of_existing_systems

A MiG-29 9.12 going at MAX AB at 16000 meters has top speed of M2.3, and fuel flow rate of 5,5 kg/sec @M2.3. A MiG-29, needs 4,54 minutes or 1499 kg of fuel to fly 100 nm at M2.3 speed, and it will still have 1632 kg usable fuel left to cruise; with 2 AAMs, that makes ~494nm range. On a more realistic scenario, a MiG-29 armed with 6 AAMs and EFT, can fly at M1.5 @16k meters with 3,3 kg/sec fuel flow (assuming Full AB, probably less in reality). It takes 1577 kg fuel to do so, and leaves 2759 kg fuel for rest of the flight; with overly pessimistic 4 kg/Nm fuel consumption, that makes 689nm flight range; lets call it 300nm+ combat radius including take-off, combat, acceleration and landing.

The combat radius of a MiG-29 flying at Mach 1.5 and carrying 6 missiles is not 300nm – try 150nm.

“The employment of the MiG-29 suffers from severe inherent constraints. The most obvious limitation is the aircraft’s limited internal fuel capacity of 3500-kg (4400 kg with a centreline tank). We have no air-to-air refuelling capability, and our external tank is both speed and manoeuvre limited. We also have only a limited number of tanks.

“But if we start a mission with 4400-kg of fuel, start-up, taxy and take off takes 400-kg, we need to allow 1000-kg for diversion to an alternate airfield 50-nm away, and 500-kg for the engagement, including one minute in afterburner. That leaves 2500-kg. If we need 15 minutes on station at 420 kts that requires another 1000-kg, leaving 1500-kg for transit. At FL200 (20,000 ft) that gives us a radius of 150-nm, and at FL100 (10,000 ft) we have a radius of only 100-nm.

http://www.16va.be/mig-29_experience.htm

In any case I doubt if there are many aircraft which can catch an F-22 penetrating airspace at Mach 1.7, perhaps MiG-31.

F-22’s supercruise ability is good, but definately is not out of this world, and definately not a game changer;

Really, do you know any aircraft that can do better (again maybe MiG-31)?

UK MOD reference says the RAF used the AIM-120B up until 2007 when it got the AIM-120C-5 (order placed in 2004).
I don’t think RAF currently have the AIM-120C-7.

Thanks for the info. So for a a while anyway, RAF Typhoons are armed with missiles a generation ahead of the missiles of Su-30MKI?

How China’s expert fighter jet designer avoids America’s mistakes

What a rubbish and cliched article.

Another key difference is the shape of the nose. If you look at a MiG-21 or J-7, each has a rounded, inward-protruding engine air intake. This made sense when these fighters came about in the 1950s and 1960s, respectively, as both types had limited fire-control radars.

But as Chinese radar technology advanced, Chengdu moved the Thunder’s air intake into its fuselage, freeing up room for the Chinese-made KLJ-7 radar  —  which has capabilities for both air-to-air and air-to-ground strikes.

Fascinating…

The amount of trucks it shipped didn’t always indicate in numbers of arrived.

Also regarding the trucks

http://www.1jma.dk/articles/1jmaarticlelendlease.htm

Only 19% of the trucks in the truck part were imported.

You are also including every truck that was produced in the Soviet Union before 1941 – many of these trucks would have been of limited use in serious combat roles on the Eastern Front, e.g. hauling heavy artillery. Certainly the supply of Lend-Lease trucks and artillery tractors outstripped the production of trucks within the Soviet Union itself in the 1941-1945 period.