the implications of such a configuration are that you’re going to be flying your high-value asset right over the target area – seems a bit excessive for a drop-and-hope bomb run.

I wasn’t talking about the bombs there, but the A-A missiles.:)

Let me explain what i think. I believe those are R-27Ps (look what R-27P is). Now what Su-34 is, an aircraft designed to blast the oponents ground assets. What are Su-34’s enemies, fighters and SAM/AAA. Now if you have some enemy fighters either coming towards you, or chasing you , what do you do, drop your bombs and mix it with them? No. Put your ECM and try to sneak in ( which may or may not work every time, see HOJ). Possibly. But how about a little present for your oponents aswell, they feverishly paint you with radars trying to get to you, so what you do is send then a nice R-27P from as far as possible ( think R-27P is based on the long burn R-27E, correct?). So if the opposing pilot is smart and he knows what he’s against he either hopes he won’t swallow that R-27P while trying to get to that Su-34, or puts his radar off and moves the hell outta there. Either way, this gives the Su-34 precious time to get past (or escape) , do it’s job, get out of there, or even down some of the interceptors ( if the other pilot is not smart enough!)

Now obviously i don’t know this for sure, but imo it should be possible to use the R-27P against ground radars aswell if necessary, isn’t it ?

(I wonder if the Su-34s electronics would allow it to actually fire an R-27 BEHIND it, cued from RWR/ESM contacts.)

Anyway that’s how i believe Su-34 will fight. If true , it’s a very neat trick. :rolleyes:

PS: I hope i haven’t talked too much , the imperialist pig-spies are surely outhere.:D

PPS: Saw the mention of R-27P in one of PiBus articles.

Does Raven-1000P have a swashplate? And are there any pics of 39-7 and 8 under construction released by the SAAB chaps?:)

Thanks.

Yeah, those kiwis are always cooking something i tell ya. 😀

Someone was saying in another thread that the fact that 2002 has a pitot , it meens it won’t have an AESA installed ( or at least it will only have a MSA).

Looking on the net , i found two AESA equipped aircraft that still have a pitot, F-2A and MiG-35. Perhaps there is a way to “cancel” the effect of pitot tube on and AESA anyway ( software?).

PESA equipped a/c like MiG31 and Su-30MKI also have pitot ( dunno how relevant that is or not).

I’ve been puzzled why did they moved the pitot though. If it doesn’t have a radar in afterall , maybe it will have a dielectrical radome ( to test it ), but they didn’t wanted to make a hole in it to put the pitot in the same position as on 2001?

Or maybe the position of the pitot influenced too much the aerodinamic testing results, so they moved in on the radome tip to minimise it’s effects?:confused:

Just thinking out loud.

I’m very wary of anything the western media/powers ( especially american) have to say about China and their interpretation of China’s policies and objectives, besides it says CIA on that map , so as far as i’m concerned it has no value.

Now is it possible to be pointed out to somewhere where there is a relatively neutral, balanced and well argumented view of this situation? Thanks.:)

Nice! Testing dumb bombs now, I see 🙂

#961 is single seat, whereas this one is a twin-seater – if it’s a conversion from an existing airframe, #967 with a new radome is a better candidate. Other than that though, it is certainly closer to those two than the Indian variant or the mysterious new one (as it retains both the IFR probe and Flanker-style datalink antennas).

Welp, aparently 967 crashed in 2011 after being reconverted back to KUB ( 947?) , isn’t it ? At least , that’s how i understood that event.:confused:

Besides , i’ve read somewhere that since both the two seaters and single seaters have the same airframe ( with a 600l tank in the second cockpit for the single seaters ), it’s easy enough to convert it to a two seater.

Also , the “dirty” marks around the gun and around the cockpit and fins are strikingly similar to those of 961 , but i can’t find images as clear as for 204 for it (961 i meen ).

Lastly , usually Mikoyan’s bort number for prototypes tend to mean “something” isn’t it? It just stroke me when i saw bort 204, since MiG-35 961 is given as being converted from K airframe 02-04.

Just my 2 cents .:)

So anyone knows what’s the story with KUB 204 ? Doesn’t seem to be new, it appears to have traces of it’s gun firing.

Is this maybe ex. MiG-35 961( K airframe 02-04, hence my suspicion) now transformed into a naval variant? :confused:

http://russianplanes.net/ID78262

Spudman friend , why don’t you stick to what you know and are good at ? Maybe you’d like to post about F-35 AF-17 and 18, f.e. 🙂 Just please don’t start talking about China, Russia and so on , honestly. Seen a bit of your political views in other …umm…places , so , please stick to aeroplanes. 🙂