I don’t know.. I personally find it quite hard to locate (moving) targets which would be worth using a $120k missile. Tanks are quite rare and destroying Toyota trucks by tossing Ferraris on them is hardly a sensible approach.. 🙂

The war in Syria is not the only war these helicopters might get used in. So, against an opponent with modern or even just decent SHORAD capabilities, a fire and forget missile’s price is much cheaper than that of a lost assault helicopter and it’s crew.

I think the first video is the following of the second video. I don’t know, why operator didn’t use auto tracker as helicopter fly quite fast at 270 km/h and at range of 5 km, where missile fly quite some time to the target and it is more difficult to track target manually, what is seen in the second truck in the second video, where operator dance with the cross around the target and with that miss it.

On a second look, I’d say that some form of auto-tracking is used when the TD gate is released (i.e. is not a solid line square) since it seems to track the missile smoke contrast and veer off the target during the engagement of the second stationary truck. During the engagement of the first truck, the operator seems to override it (as the TD becomes solid) while the missile is flying towards its target so it remains put.

I wonder if the ‘ур-a’ on the right relates to this tracking mode perhaps? In the DCS Ka-50 simulation, there are separate marks for target tracking to indicate whether the auto track has locked onto the target image (‘TA’)or if it’s just ground stabilized (‘тг’), but I guess those show when the automatic tracking master mode is used; there’s nothing like ‘ур-а’ there, but there is a ‘py’ WCS master mode which means manual mode in which the tracking gate size is not adjusted automatically and there is no target lead calculation. So, it might stand for some form of mixed control (y) manual (p) and automatic (a) targeting mode where the tracking gate size is adjusted manually (hence why they are not changing and the target tracking is suboptimal).

2nd missed right behind the truck, voice indicates as much. Hard to say what happens with third target, by the voice they clearly intend to engage it, but video sadly cuts off. No problem hitting the mover in the first video, so I’d guess they engaged it as well.

In these vids it looks like the target designator is not tracking the targets automatically, but that the pilot is doing it manually with stabilization only? This can be seen clearly when the moving target is tracked since the TD box is in the slewing mode. In case of the other two static trucks, it seems that the TD only gets ground stabilized when released from slewing, rather than establishing lock on to target. Perhaps there’s not enough contrast for reliable auto tracking so they prefer to use manual control?

I only have seen few operational MiG-31BMs carrying armament.. All of them have baseline R-33 missiles, usually carried in pairs using asymmetric load config.
Looks like the R-33S is pretty elusive, not much info about it, either..

Same here, but I suppose it might be due to it entering production roughly around the time of the breakup of the Soviet Union so the numbers produced were probably limited and the lack of spare parts could be a problem as well so it’s questionable how many (if any) remain operational.

This is all guesswork of course since there’s little to no information available. Perhaps the Russian forums offer some insight into the R-33S capabilities and status?

Berkut, do we know details about RVV-BD trials / introduction date? AFAIR it was marketed as LR-AAM option for (then called) Su-35BM in it’s export brochures. I guess some of it might be public.
R-33S is more than enough until then. It’s got 230 km of theoretical range. R-37 1994 test was 280 km. But Su-30 took over at some point because SBI-16M wasn’t fully operational.

I don’t think I’ve seen photos of R-33S on a MiG-31B yet. IIRC from a diagram, it is noticeably different (e.g. has a set of small wings added up front). Since it was a rather late project (just as the USSR was collapsing), I suppose it wasn’t built in large numbers?

Edit: there’s actually a live image showing it:

The MiG-31 got its new engine to allow operating it against low-flying threats, like cruise missile, doing so at subsonic speed below medium heights for its look down mode capable radar. Operating there or at speeds over Mach 2, both takes its toll in flight-hours left.

Sorry, I’m pretty slow these days. What was the point you were trying to make (i.e. how does this relate to my post)?

Doesn’t it have 9 hardpoints in total, four on each wing?

Yes, hence my question. I don’t see what’s confusing here?

Also, i can’t understand why VKS has not fielded twin launchers for A2A munitions yet. It isn’t really needed for flankers, but what about Migs?

Is there a need for those given its size and role? Besides, which missiles did you have in mind? Given those rear control surfaces I don’t see the R-77 as a candidate for rail launching.

The only thing, related to the “glass problem”, that i managed to find is a short conversation in the comments section under this photo: http://russianplanes.net/id157916

And i didn’t find any news about some production of canopies or news about speed-limit has been lifted. Honestly, i’m sure i would be aware of that, if some official news have been released. So i presume this info is based on some rumours and speculations in our Russian aerospace-Web segment.

Then I probably remember it wrong as I couldn’t find anything now, but some posts claiming that the BSM canopies are not actually entirely newly produced, but are reusing some old Soviet-made stockpiles of this special material needed.