Both beautiful as highly interesting the picture in the post above.

Thanks for the info. So basically this will be the production standard for all new Mi-28Ns after this modified version completes all testing? And will the new Mi-28NM be able to use the existing radio guided Attaka missiles if the radio guidance antenna is deleted?

If I understand correctly the Mil 28NM has been equipped with the radar at the top of main rotor as part of it primary systems just the AH 64D/E Apache, and it would not be only optional equipment as in previous versions of the Mil 28N.

With this radar in the main rotor the Mil 28NM will be able to operate with Attack missiles too, once these missiles can be targeted through the data-link in Ka or X band of the radar at the top of the main rotor, and thus the small radar in the nose like in the Mil 28N can be deleted.

I do not know if Vikhr were abandoned so far, however the Attack and Vikhr has been developing since the 80, but only the Attack missile has been produced with radio guidance , while the Vikhr were developed with dual channel guidance system, both laser and radio in the same missile.

The Vikhr were more complex than the Attacks, and the reason were supposed for this should be that the Vikhr had longer range than the Attack. About the information’s has been available from Vikhrs has been equipped with system as radio and laser guidance , in this case the radio command should be used at short distance until the missile has been aligned with the laser designation of the aircraft.

However other possibility were these dual system of radio and laser had been used to obtain better accuracy at long range with the laser channel from Shkval system at the day light, while the radio channel could be used with the radar from Ka 50 and Su 25 TM that had been developed in the decade of 80.

In this case both the Ka 50 and the Su 25TM could be able to use the Vikhrs both night and in adverse weather conditions, specially against air targets like attack helicopter and transport helicopters. Against air targets should be not necessary confirm with TV optical Shkval system if the target were friend or enemy, once aircraft’s and helicopter had IFF system.

Both Ka 50 and Su 25TM were equipped with TV optical Shkval system , but much less noticed were the radar system has been located in the nose above the TV / laser window from Shkval system into Ka 50. The Su 25TM should have been equipped with Kinzhal-S radar that was developed in 80 decade, and it were cancelled after the end of the Soviet Union. The X band Kopyo-25 has been replaced the Kinzhal-S with Ka band in the Su 25 TM ( Su 39).

The Ka 52 has been keeping such advanced radar dual band X / Ka in the nose, while the Mil 28N and Mil 28NM has been increasingly integrating the dual band X / Ka radar in the top of the main rotor, so this may show that missiles with radio guidance as Attack and the Vikhr( both laser and radio channels) could still be important. Once the millimeter-wave radar or X band from aircraft’s and the radio guidance from missiles has been suffering less degradation than IIR ( Imaging Infra Red) systems and laser guidance in adverse weather conditions, as well as the presence of smoke and high infrared sources that would be present on the battlefield due to fires in: building, vehicles, forests and vegetation.

Does anybody know for how long did the Mig-21bis serve with the VVS? I have OOB from military balance in 1989-90 and World air power journal 1990 that still lists it as active

anybody have more details ? how long did it survive and given that the mig-29 was plentiful by late 80s ( almost 450 according to most sources in VVS) what possible reason did it serve ?

The MiG 21bis had been played an important part in the first years from Afghanistan invasion by the USSR at the beginning of the 80.

In fact the MiG 21bis were used as fighter- bomber in those early years instead as Mach 2 interceptor for which it had been designed in the early 70’s.

But with the intensification of the war , the rebels had been highly increasing the launch’s of MANPADS as the FIM 43 Redeye since 1984 and later the FIM 92 Stinger since 1986, then the MiG 21Bis were gradually removed from its missions over Afghanistan with VVS, once it were not appropriate to carry out fighter bomber missions in this danger environment.In this case were replaced by Su 17M3/M4, MiG 23MLD, Su 25 and MiG 27D.

However for reconnaissance version of the MiG 21R were very capable, and it had continued in operation until the arrive of the highly advanced version of the Su 17M4R

One reason for this might be the own geographical conditions from Afghanistan, once the MiG 21bis has been demanded long runway to take off by its design, than it could be compared to other fighters from former Soviet Union (MiG 23/27, Su 17M3 /M4 and Su 25), specially in such region with conditions like high attitude and hot temperature .

That aspects in the War in Afghanistan has been restricted the capability to carry heavy weapons load as well as the maneuverability of the MiG 21bis to evade from MANPADS, as well as the shortage of air bases with long runways. Otherwise the MiG 21R had not been carrying weapons load, so it were less affected by these operational constraints.

With the outcome of the assessments has been made in the Afghanistan War, I guess the VVS had not glimpsed the possibility to improve the MiG 21Bis for a multi role fighter. Otherwise the MiG 23MLD had been widely used in Afghanistan as interceptor and to escort the fighter bombers near or even inside the Pakistan border. As well as the MiG 23MLD were used as fighter bomber until the end of the war in 1989.

In fact the interceptor Mach 2 as the MiG 23MLD had been widely used as fighter bomber during the War in Afghanistan even with the availability of large numbers of truly fighters bombers like the Su 17M3/M4 and MiG 27D.

In my humble opinion I guess that Russia and other republics from former Soviet Union had been removing from active service the last regiments from MiG 21Bis quite soon after the collapse of the former Soviet Union, as well as others such as Su 17M and MiG 27 , once those were highly specialized in its single mission, likewise the strategic interceptor MiG 25PD / PDS with twin engines that had been removed from the active service few years before of the single engine MiG 23MLD.

Indeed spare parts could be obtained disassembling aircraft’s from regiments deactivated , pilots and crews were available with low paychecks since there were no job opportunities during these years outside of the military forces. However the almost impossible challenge were to get aviation kerosene to keep the minimum training for all aircraft’s, even the most advanced like the fighters from 4 generation.

Most of the suppliers of the aviation kerosene from Soviet Union had been come from the republics of Azerbaijan and Kazakhstan, and with the end of the Soviet Union countries like Russia and others had started to import aviation kerosene by world market prices in dollars. After all the aviation kerosene produced in these countries had been considered with good quality.

What once it has not been considered even such important cost to the Armed Forces from Soviet Union, or even to civil aviation, it has become the biggest nightmare from those republics like Russia with economy in crisis and devalued currency , despite it had been producing and exporting oil, indeed there were no plants to process the aviation kerosene inside Russia or under the control of the government.

Then fighters like: MiG 21bis, all versions of the MiG 27, Su 17M3/M4 or Su 17M4R could have been keeping such still significant useful life in the early 90, and because it had only single engine , so it were lower operating costs and to maintain the same in active service, however those fighters were less capable to perform different tasks or even as regards the range of its missions. After all tanker aircraft to refueling small fighters in fly are not cheap to purchase or maintain in operation too, and those tankers aircraft’s were very rarely even during the Soviet Union, specially from the eyes of the former Frontal Aviation .

I thought the RVV-AE was the medium AAM.. silly me.

And funny enough the RVV-SD is ranged with 110km.. the same as R-77-1.
So JSR are talking out of his @ss as usual when he claim there are export and domistics specs difference here.

In general there are three generations from R 77 missiles:

1) R 77 (RVV-AE export) were the first generation after the end of the former Soviet Union with max range has been estimated around 80km.

2) R 77-1 (RVV-SD export) has been the second generation with max range has been estimated around 110km.

3) K 77M will be the third generation for the new T 50 (PAK FA) with max range has been estimated around 200 km.

Regarding if there are differences between the max range of those versions for Russia and export , this issue should be quite controversial, in my humble opinion I think that medium-range missiles BVR( Beyond Visual Range) this should not be applied by Russia, but in regard the long range missiles its quite possible.

However, its more likely there are differences between Russia and export versions with respect to the missile seekers in both hardware and software aspects , once the techniques from ECCM( Electronic Counter Counter Measures) has been classified as secret in the same way that the United States has been made with own AIM 120 missiles , along with all others countries that has been export its own BVR missiles.

Just as note it is very important has been access to the sources codes of the radars software from its own fighters, but the same shall be applied to the missiles BVR, once it could have been turned useless to develop its own techniques of the ECCM for the radars from fighters, and it does not do the same for its missiles BVR .

Yeah, these slits are fugly.(( Interior never was a strong point of our aerospace industry.

I do not know if there is a Russian word for this, but in Germany I know it does not exist or they had deceived me saying there weren’t such word for this ‘failures’. So those failures could have been classified as: provisory implement technical.

The worst problem with this provisory implement technical are the same instead it has become temporary, eventually it has become definitive since in many cases working very well.

In fact it seems they not even washed the airframe from Be 200 prior for the exhibition, as well as the final painting it has often been missing for an exhibition to Western eyes as young Russians, once they does not analyze something by the standards of the former Soviet Union.

As the Be-200 has been assessed around tens of millions of dollars, in fact the probable buyers of these in the world market will examine the product like such executive jet with high standard from a renowned brand, and not only by politicians and CEO, but even the high-ranking military.

In the West there are one concept of :’Apparent Quality Product’ that could be synthesized as the aspects of the product that can be observed or sensed by such superficially examining from all parts of the product that has been exposed by the customer.

However the concept of apparent quality product has been very important for the human being, once if they have detected little faults in such superficial analysis, then its probable customer will bring doubts even at the subconscious level with respect for the non-apparent aspects of the product, such as: the own compliance of all items that has been assembled into the product.

Thus their self-criticism has been become very obvious, what brings more doubts and questions about the: functional aspects of the product, its useful life and the worst part about the cost of the product.

In fact it were not just the Germans that had not created such word for it, but they made me explain the same countless times until they could understand the meaning of this word as: provisory implement technical . Finally when I thought they had understood the meaning, they started laughing because there had been thinking it was a joke!

Often I kill the jokes, but this time more by accident I had created good one for the Germans.

+1
Well written and explained!

Indeed it were very well written and explained the text from Swerve, however only about one side of this coin, after all as its highly clear the Government of India has not only interested in the purchase only 36 Rafales directly from France, but in its Make in India program.

As the Rafale F3 won the competition MMRCA, this would be the first option for the Make in India program.

if India will require 100% of ToT in this Make in India program , I think in my humble opinion that the negotiations would reached the same problem between all current competitors, as well as with the Rafale F3 in MMRCA program.

The reason in my humble opinion is again the excellent article has been collected by Tango III:

Western Defense Industry Future Imperiled by Local Programs

Nobody has really interested to develop competitors in the future, only markets for the present and also for the future.

The 100% ToT could have even created market at present time, but in the future there will be another major competitor in the market.

However if India will accept 100% ToT could become with time something like 30-40% ToT, and it will not involve sensitive technologies, then the negotiations will be done quickly.

If India will want 100% ToT it should necessary created such true partnership, because partnerships has been really formed because both need each other to achieve their goals. So when one partner can remain independent and in this way could reach his goal, then he will not compromise as it were expected by the other.

Lots of speculation here.. It could have been simple failure to detect a rocket launch..

In fact this is a realistic possibility, after all there are no systems with 100% reliability.

Among the various novelties from SA 18 when this entered in service in 1983 it has been included two modes in the trigger from the launcher that the operator could choose against the threat : the first mode were against fast targets (attack jets) and the second against slow targets ( helicopters).

“When engaging slow or straight-receding targets, the operator tracks the target with the iron sights in the launch tube and applies half-trigger. The shooter then pulls the trigger fully, and immediately applies lead and super elevation. This method is called a manual engagement. An automatic mode, which is used against fast targets, allows the shooter to fully depress the trigger in one pull followed by immediate lead and super elevation of the launch tube.“
http://www.armyrecognition.com/russia_russian_army_light_heavy_weapons_uk/sa-18_grouse_9k38_igla_man-portable_missile_technical_data_sheet_specificatio ns_description_pictures.html

As the missile were the same into the SA 18 launcher, this choice of ways by the it has seems a bit pointless, after all the rocket solid from the missile are also the same, however the difference between those two modes are about the fire solution that will be adopted by the missile after its launch.

In the case of the fast targets ( attack jets) the SA 18 will fly directly against the target as inherent in all previous soviet MANPADS ( SA 7 ,SA 14 and SA 16) .

But the second mode against slow targets ( helicopters) the images available from SA 18 and SA 24, that it has been show against at mock up targets both stationary or at low speed, the SA 18 and SA 24 has apparently been described an erratic trajectory away from the target, but subtly its changes the trajectory and hits the target.

SA 18

SA 24

In the case of AH 1W apparently in my humble opinion the missile SA 18 did not make such straight flew against the target, but it first climbing in the sky , and then already with the solid rocket off , the same its had headed against AH 1W.

This trajectory apparently erratic could have been put the SA 18 beyond the range or even confused the algorithms of the MAWS from AH 1W while the missile was climbing with the rocket on after the launch, but when it was dive against the target already with the rocket off the MAWS could have been unable to locate the SA 18 and launch the flares or even the to active jamming system in the top of the main rotor.

The problem with this seemingly erratic trajectory from the SA 18 and SA 24 against slow targets are that: it has been deliberately developed over many years to hit targets as attack helicopters from NATO since the early 80s by the former Soviet Union.

Wrong. The eventual lease (not purchase) of C /D would have been a different, separate contract.

If you know so much about this subject, please enlighten us with your knowledge, after all by what I have seen here in this thread, there are many who still believe that Brazil will receive 14 Gripen C / D before of the 36 Gripen E/F.

Why would you buy new NG and new C / D? And for the same unitary cost as NG? Doesn’t make sense.

In fact it does not make any sense, since It is not about to buy new Gripen C / D until those 36 Gripen E / F will be operational around 2025, once the time has been required for this will be long and as well as the cost will be high, instead the goal were compare both models like the second hand Gripen C/D with the new Gripen E/F.
Otherwise this table bellow does not make any sense to me either:

By the less of the unit cost from Switzerland the Brazil would have enclosed in its contract:

I guess that people from Switzerland does not think that table above has been made any sense too.

Wrong. Nobody ever claimed the increase from U$ 4.5 billion to U$ 5.4 billion was due to exchange rate. The REDUCTION of the value in USD AFTER the signature was due to the exchange rate because the contract was signed in SEK and not in USD.
Let me put in portuguese for you:
A REDUÇÃO do valor (em dólares dos Estados Unidos) DEPOIS da assinatura do contrato foi devido a flutuação da taxa de câmbio, já que o contrato foi assinado em coroas suecas e não em dólares.

Forgive me for my huge ignorance, but the Portuguese language has been beyond my capabilities. In reason of that I used the Google Translate for it.

The first translation that I got was something like this: you’re an old man very naive.

In fact I have agreed with this first answer , although it was not exactly those words that it wrote for me, but how it has been children in this thread , then I have soothed those adjectives about me.

However I had made others attempts until the Google could provided with this translation from your text:

“REDUCING value (in US dollars) AFTER the signing of the contract was due to fluctuation of the exchange rate, since the contract was signed in SEK and not in dollars.”

As you can see it is not the same words that you put in the first sentence in English that you wrote in your post: “The REDUCTION of the value in USD AFTER the signature was due to the exchange rate because the contract was signed in SEK and not in USD.”

Them in my humble opinion the sense of both sentence its not equal.

Please tell me if this translation has been correct, because if you really said it , then I will answer this or both.