Proof is for something that is so obvious and that is that i want to know what are the features of the newly upgraded R-77 (as your claim of upgrade i dont know of a upgraded version in operation) .

I wouldn`t say the evidence of upgraded R-77 is hard to find, but rather you are too lazy to find it yourself. Realize that it`s been a quite long time since they started the serial production of the R-77. It would be strange to think that they stuck with the same development, production and assembly technologies from eighties. The progress is happening all the time as you`ve mentioned before in case of the Aim-120. Small changes to electronic blocks, guidance and seekers because of availability of newer electronic components, saving weight and space, optimalization of processes, that all actually means small steps leading to improvements in missile characteristics, reliability, jamming resistance, kill-ratio, etc. You should know that already if you ever worked in the industry. Every batch of product leaving the assembly line may differ a bit because upgrades are continuously incorporated.
The obvious thing is that russian missile companies haven`t been used to satisfy them selfs in advertising, especially not Vympel and Agat. That is the place where US companies excel and every step in the missile development process they widely publicize: “we added a byte here and byte there, polished something more precisely”, etc………. No problem if you like it, but you wont hear it from russians often.
In 2000 the AGAT finished work on new ARH seeker for the R-77. Now the company is offering for export whole line of advanced seekers. The one with the 200mm diameter which is fitted in the upgraded R-77(originally fitted seeker 9b-1348E) had to be service ready by 2001. Is not it obvious that if they offer something for export, they already have it in the service?
AGAT R&D timeline of the 9B-1103 familly seekers

http://www.vko.ru/print.asp?pr_sign=archive.2006.28.04
http://www.airshow.ru/expo/334/prod_704_r.htm
http://www.airshow.ru/expo/334/prod_2845_r.htm


I`m hoping not to receive childish question like “how many upgraded R-77 are in service”, because WHO WOULD TELL YOU THIS?????. Yes, that is obvious too. Also I suggest to visit exhibitions like the MAKS, Farnborough or Lebourget, then spend a minute in the AGAT or Vympel stand and ask what news they have mastered for last few years.

regards
martinez

Translated in short: Many countries shown they interest in Mig-31, but internal situation in Russia and wrong trade politics was leading “очередь была, да рассосалась” (something like no contracts made).

Now my commetary: Thats EXACTLY what i was telling you. Internal situation and wrong trade politic. I.e. there was no approval given for Mig-31 export – at least in abovementioned countries.

I’m not dissagreeing with you, but just wanted to point out the fact that there was effort to sell the Mig-31!. Hypotetically speaking, the reason might be a “voice” of high military officials in the government saying not to sell the Mig-31, whereas the press spread out the story about the “wrong trade politics”. But we all know about the arms deal “fever” in nineties, they were selling anything to anyone.

The product 55B given is the R-29B-300 engine f.e.
In the former SU all was coded to cover-up heritage. It was not done for security reasons only, but it prevented the customers to get the related spares from other sources f.e.

That`s not weird at all when the producer has its own internal designations. Things are getting weird abroad as a user of Mig-23BN our airforce gave it code “aircraft 35, variant A” and the overhaul facility gave it code “product 1501”. Now several years after when studying I see often manuals named: “Mig-23BN and its systems”, “Aircraft 35 and its systems” or “Product 1501 and its systems”,…. 😉

I don`t have original aircraft documentation of the Mig-23BN at hand, so will try to adapt one from another Mig. The “Bible” of any soviet aircraft is called the “airframe book” which is unique for each one and starts with this form….
Martinez

I`m sure it is intentional, put simple facts together and you`ll come to the same conclusion.
There is only one prototype built and still in flight tests, the KLIMOV nozzles are most important things on the plane, the pilot is the general director RSK MIG for Flight-Operations himself, so why jeopardizing the aircraft on short take-offs risking to grind the nozzles :rolleyes: , especially on airshow outside Russia. Also, I think he is not yet using the TVC controlled take-offs activating the “wonder” switch only in safe altitude.

M

Thanks for the info but in Perkhevat (sp?) mode dont all blips except one disappear, so is the 29 A is better than the -16 A as far as radars SA goes, does it have true TWS?

Does the AN/APG-66 radar of the F-16A/B initially had BVR capabilities at all? Could the F-16A/B even handle the Sparrow? The Mig-29A had the BVR capability from the begining, the TWS mode has the designation “SNP”.

Next thing you will be trying to convince us all that even spaceships should only have dial pointers and anyone saying otherwise- kill him, kill him

That`s good, if you like humour, but you put words in my mouth I`ve never said.

1. What makes you think i am a wessie?
2. As I have already said many times, its not analogue dials but placement of the sole CRT or MFD that matters, look at the Mirage 2000H cockpit vs the 29 A.
3.Ergonomics is much more than just MFDs

1.Wessie is someone comming from west. Anyway where are you comming from?
2.I`ve seen the Mirage-2000H cockpit….placing the most important CRT down and in front of the control stick, where the pilot barely sees anything, that is ergonomics according to you?
3.Finally, you agree with me, but if this is a technical expression about cockpit ergonomics “they look like they have been squeezed together into a space not meant for them” we should rather leave this topic for now.

“Well , for one they arent rumours, they were fact
Second, MiG is being co-opted now, because they have a good deal already integrated and the IAF wants the upgrade asap, not wait to tinker with a Indo-Israeli- French hybrid
Third, Fedorovs Irkutsk is now involved, so thats better from IAFs pov
Fourth, it is open secret in IAF that MiG has really sc*rewed up in the past
in terms of their commitment to customer and often overhyped claims

That`s your opinion and everybody’s entitled to have one .

Fratricide in WVR combat? You’re pretty unlikely to be in a situation with a friendly aircraft where you’ll be mistaking him at such close range with an enemy, to say nothing of the assumption that IFF can only be given via visual cues.

One of many reasons why they cancelled it was that VTAS could break your neck during high g combat maneuvers caused by inertia of the HMS assembly.
Heh…so how funny it sounds if they fitted 500 Phantoms with that “crap” helmet. 😀 😀