star49I Dont understand this
i dont think u understand. because u make assumptions and claim u dont assume.
– Its western rivals are allready in mass production like the rafale, EF typhoon , F-16 block 60 and super hornet !!!
Again more assumptions. when they clearly said that there is no rival to this aircraft anywhere in the world so why u are comparing these fighters with it?
Surely this isnt russias response to the F-35 for which it is working with India on the Mig 5th gen. strike aircraft .
ofcourse not. klimov just started work on 5th generation engine. India particaption is contigent upon 126 plane order.
star49You definately neglected the entire rationale i provided.
I see ur rational but it is illogical. see the ukrainian observation about getting R-77 tech and there benefits. modern countermeasures can easily aircraft evade the missile. so u have to fight with cannon. i posted this because there some people who said that MIG-29OVT is underdeveloped plane. the same will be ur case at the end.
For the moment, this is the only MiG-29 OVT there is. Unlike its Western rivals, however, its mass production can be launched almost immediately.
[Vlasov] There is no other such aircraft in the world in serial production or prototype form, that is to say close to the stage of serial production as we are now.
[Narrator] It is obvious that its variable thrust vector gives this aircraft phenomenal manoeuvrability. But is it really needed? Is there any future for close aerial combat itself? The argument about this has now gone on for decades, ever since fighter aircraft began to be fitted with effective air-to-air missiles en masse.
The critics of the dogfight doctrine maintain that an aircraft armed with modern missiles will simply not allow the enemy anywhere near itself. Arms development cast doubt on the future of manoeuvrable aerial combat. But it has also meant that close combat will live on. Modern countermeasures enable aircraft to take evasive action against enemy missiles ever more effectively.
No i didnt assume . All i wanted was charecteristics and to what degree the new R-77 had been upgraded and was in service something which MARTINEZ has done..
how much better is R-37 compared to R-33? 300% range increase. and it is not funded like R-77 untill recently.
star49Proof 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) . It is so convenient to assume that russia allready upgrade its capability to the levels of wester upgrades on their capability however is it wrong for me to ask for evidence of these upgrades (specially When I am providing technical information and specs on the upgraded US missile as evidence myself) ??? Is it wrong for me to ask to what degree is the latest R-77 in service superior to the original R-77 (remember we are comparing in service missiles and not what is planned may or may not be offered) .
It is obvious in sense that every thing else is upgraded so why left this thing? when obviously it is the largest exported missile. u cant sell old stuff. thats how logic works.
That says nothing of any upgrade to the Russian operational R-77. As i make the one that is being offered to the UKS is a downgraded version ?? So how has the R-77 in RuAF service been constantly upgraded FOR THE BETTER over the years.?? I want atleast some information on seeker upgrades,airframe upgrades,ECCM upgrades,propulsion upgrades etc etc . I AM NOT IN THE ASSUMING BUISNESS ..
u are surely in the ASSUMING business when u stated that AIM-120C is the best BVR without looking at other side.
and UKraine is offered the export version like every one else which certainly Ukranian knows it is not the top of the line.
The zest of the project is that the active homing warhead was designed in the last years of the Soviet Union exactly for the R-27 missile which is produced in quantity in Kiev. Should the project work out, we would have one of the world’s best missiles in terms of range (the current 60-70 km would increase to 110 km from and 80 km for R-27 and R-77, respectively) and one of the cheapest ones because Ukraine produces the R-27 in quantity.
Trade-offs for Russian option
Who says it is better??? All i said was that from sources such as Global security , FAS , designator systems etc one can make out that in capability the Original R-77 and the Aim-120A were PRETTY MUCH ON EQUAL FOOTING HOWEVER the r-77 had the range and end game manuevrability advantage . So where does the question of the Aim-120A being superior come into play??
i havent raised AIM-120A issue. It was ur ASSUMPTION that R-77 is the same as it was introduced decades ago without any upgrades.
star49So all I can rely on is assumption to support the fact that there are upgraded versions of the R-77 from the original missile whilest I cannot find proof of that .
why u need proof for some thing that is so obvious. Every thing else that russia exported has been upgraded so why shouldnt be the case with this one as this is most important component. and where is ur proof that AIM-120 is better than R-77 without actual competition between them. there is something else also involved u have to look at MIG-29OVT/Su-32
they are calling Tor-m1 as 5th generation sam because of its ability to engage PGMS. so why left air to air missiles in previous generations?
here is the proof from ukraine that R-77 and RVV-AE does not have the same seeker. i bet there performance is also different.
Russia has said in no ambiguous terms that it will never agree to give Ukraine a missile control channel because it would pose a threat to Russia on the market. This approach proves that Ukraine is being offered an orientation to outdated on-board armaments. Having a plant to produce air-to-air missiles in quantity, Ukraine is being offered to buy new missiles with an active homing head in Russia (not even the R-77 but the RVV-AE export version)
There is one loophole although. It is possible to combine the Ukrainian standard R-27 missile with a Russian active homing warhead featuring in the R-77 and the export-type RVV-AE missiles
Source: Zerkalo Nedeli, Kiev
star49it will be interesting to see whether they get phased array radar with Su-30 with this price.
http://www.royfc.com/acft_news_old_jul4.html#24jul
As the head of Salyut, Yuriy Eleseev, said, the Su-30MK2 airplanes which completed the flight to Venezuela, were equipped with upgraded AL-31F-M1 engines. During the flight they made two stops for refueling. No problems arose during the flight.”Source: 24.07.06, ARMS-TASS
star49Ok then Provide me with the facts of the various programs , how they went on acheving the betterment of the standard R-77 and how the R-77 has evolved over the years into the so called new varient that you talk off that is better then the C5 and C7 examples.
The point is not how they achieved betterment but ur illogical assumption that R-77 of today and future is the same as 16 years ago. If S-300/KH-59/Kh-25 export missiles got upgraded so why not R-77/R-73 which sold more than others. or ur assuming that IN MIG-29K will use 20 year old missile.
For a2a role the raptor carries 6 aim-120C and 2 AIm-9X and that is about what required , never met a pilot who wants more then this as a matter of life and death .
where exactly is that role in this world now. u can carry 20 to 30 bvr with same price with 4th generation fighters and they can cover greater area and more sorties.
I never even touched on the Su-27SM or MKI why bring it into discussion. All I want is some proof of the statement that you made stating that R-73’s that are in service in RuAF are better or at best equal to the Python 5 and Aim-9x interms of technology , offboresighting , LOAL and other key comparing criterion.
Vympel sold some R-73 to SA in early 90s for evaluation and SA has most of the above mentioned technologies in there R/U/A darter so what makes u think Vympel is not capable of either building it or obtaining it from outside?
star49So let me get this straight ! You are trying to say that the original R-77 completely outclassed the Aim-120A interms of technology (not just end game manuevrability) and the US is trying to catch up and may just have cought up with the aim-120C5 and C7 ??? How many times has the R-77 been upgraded since it was first declared operational? And how many of those upgraded missiles are in operation?? What are some of the other upgrade programs currently underway?? You’d have to answer all those questions to convince me that the R-77 is a robust program which is constantly improving. The aim-120 on the other hand is constantly improving since the A varient came out . Most of the upgrade programs are based on feilding operational missils except one (the Ramjet version that lost to the meteor) we now have the C7 varient currently in operation that changes the electronics and some software changes aswell as increases the range and end game manueverability , while the C7 is the new production standard (has been for over a year) there is a new version that is being tested onboard aircrafts such as the F-22A raptor and that is the aim-120D varient which will finish its test program in about 12-14months time and then will slowly become the production standard . There have been 6-7 various improved versions of the aim-120 since it came out and all of them are operational . Could you speak anything of this sort of the R-77 other then the fact that ALL THIS WAS JUST AN EFFORT BY THE USAF TO CATCH UP TO THE R-77’S TECHNOLOGICAL SUPERIORITY!!!
If West spent 20 years to catch up to R-73 why shouldnt be the same case with R-77? R-77 was first offered to India with MIG-21 upgrade some where around 1993-94. so do u think they are still offering the same missile 13 years later with no upgrades? similar is the case with China from 1999 to 2006. In past 7 years they are supplying the same missile. and what Ruaf chief statement there Su-27 with old radar is more effective than all export Flanker variants. So obviously weopons are one of the most important things.
http://www.ainonline.com/Publicatio…/d1agatp72b.htm
AGAT can scale seekers to size of missile’s task
by Reuben Johnson
Russia’s AGAT Research Institute is unveiling a new seeker that could become an industry standard in the air-to-air and surface-to-air missile industry. Designated the 9B-1103M-150, the model is a more advanced and compact version of the active RH seeker fitted to the Vympel RVV-AE medium-range air-to-air missile–the Russian equivalent of the Raytheon AIM-120 advanced medium-range air-to-air missile (AMRAAM).
Since air-to-air missiles became the primary fighter aircraft weapon, manufacturers have produced them in size categories with dimensions and endurance based on their firing and range/engagement envelopes. As such, components made for one size or type of missile usually could not work on another. Several technological developments have now changed that, allowing AGAT to develop the 9B-1103M-150 model of its long-standing active radar homing seeker, on display here for the first time ever here at Le Bourget.
“In the air-to-air missile world of today we have infrared [IR] homing missiles which are operating at beyond visual range [BVR], something not possible several years ago and was strictly the territory of a radar homing [RH] missile,” explained AGAT general designers Dr. Josef Akopyan. “The reason is that at longer ranges an IR seeker can take out a target and sometimes be less susceptible to jamming than a RH seeker is. In a similar vein, now find that there are scenarios when it makes sense to employ an active RH missile at shorter ranges, but on a smaller missile body, so that we retain the maneuverability of the smaller, short-range IR missile–but with the accuracy of an active RH medium-range missile. The two classes of missiles–IR and RH–have now essentially crossed over into each other’s engagement envelopes.”
Designers had previously identified a need to place an active homing seeker on their R-73 (AA-11) missile airframe. But the missing piece of the design for this shorter-range RH missile was a scaled-down version of the same AGAT active RH seeker fitted to the Vympel RVV-AE (AA-12). Akopyan’s design team has taken the standard 200-mm-diameter seeker of the RVV-AE and developed a 150-mm seeker that will fit the R-73 airframe.
“Even though we reduced the overall dimensions of the seeker, retains all of the operational performance of the larger version used in the RVV-AE. It employs an all-digital signal processing system, which has allowed us to improve its range performance, immunity to jamming, and its overall tactical combat performance,” Akopyan told Aviation International News.
AGAT designers also remark about how much today’s open architecture technology has made a difference in their ability to scale up or scale down the size of a seeker. “Our seekers now are like a set of matryoshki,” said one AGAT representative, referring to the famous Russian dolls.e have a 350 millimeter [13.8-inch] seeker in addition to the 200- millimeter and the new 150-millimeter model. They are all the same basic design, but as we move up in diameter we add larger antennas, which provide for more range.”
50 % composite wont make it stealth howevre it is a step in the right direction and I believe the T-50 will incorporate a lot of those technologies (am i correct? ) however for a 5th generation we’d need even more that is complete Stealth features ie. Internal weapon bays . Thereby u can see that this would not only get you Low RCS but also will make the frame drag free therefore stealth and supercruise interms of technologies from a design point of view are complementary in nature. That is what the F-22A and the PAKFA are going to acheive .
and why u need stealth for which will reduce ur weopon size and payload. the opponents on which u are economically interdependent there cant be war and for the others u dont need it.
No all I was saying that the Aim-9x and Python 5 are modern missiles which are probably the top of the new IR HOBS missiles as they offer greatest Of boresighting capability aswell as LOAL capabilities and new sensors etc etc – You on the other hand said that russia probably has similar missiles in its arsenal but only exports the R-73 and then I asked you to provide specs for the R-73 which is acording to you in russian service but better then the export R-73 , so far I am yet to see any specs!!! give me a reason to beileve that the R-73 specs available to me on the net on various sources are different from the actual specs???
then how Su-27SM becomes better than Su-30MKI? if there is no difference in weopons. One is TVC and the other is not. think about it.
Ofcourse I have however do you know that the cold war is over? And the USAF is now for all practical purposes an expeditionary force?? And in that enviroment a first line of defence with the f-22A is great .. The USAF was supposed to get 700+ F-22’s to substitute 800 or so F-15 in an event that the cold war was still on (and those F-22’s would have been more capable then the current ones ( IRST and other goodies) ) .
one cold war theory u still need F-22. but world is globalized now. u cant use F-22 against those where it is required. and for others u need bomb trucks.
What a response 😉
so whats wrong with that.
No one is Asking India to go buy fifth generation fighter (infact they actually want it themselves:) ) . the F-22 is catered to the USAF’s needs and not to any other developing countries . The developing countries would be better off buying mig-29’s and F-16’s for the forceable future and maybe the F-35 if it works out as planned.
i think India can afford stealth fighter and they surely need it.
star49Show me evidence to sugest that the Modern Export R-77 is comparable to aim-120C7 ??
First u started that AIM-20C7 version is superior to what ever R-77 without giving evidence. u judge from Russian SAMs, Anti-ship, Anti-radiation, ICBMs that there missile capabillity is second to none. just look at KH-65MR. where are the counterparts in West for all of these?
So in other words you cannot provide me with the capability of the IR missile specs of the Ruaf’s top in operation missile while those of the USAF’s top IR missile the aim-9x are known and why do you want me to believe what i dont know ??
so u know exact capability of AIM-9X and all other airforces which still use R-73 dont know about what they are buying.
For all practical purposes the F-22A is faster then the legacy jets if you measure speed by the rationall of supersonic range. With a weapons load of 6 Aim-120’s and 2 Aim-9’s the raptor can stay at a speed of mach 1.72 for a period of 120nm and still manage a all out range of 510nm . Can the su-27 manage to stay at mach 1.72 for 120nm and then turn around and do a subsonic run for another 400nm or so ?? Can the F-15?? Can the F-16?? Can the Mig-29 ????
put 5th generation engines like AL-41/F-119 in Flanker and make it 50% composite it will have similar capability.
Ofcourse when the USAF has only AESA in operation whilest the Europeans and russians are still sometime away from aquiring it (3-6 years) onto their fighters . USAF has allready tested the F-22A against its own AESA radars 63vAESA and the apg-77 itself . The Apg-77 itself doesnt see the raptor fast enough to get a shot on before the other bandit (in cases where one F-22 is with corner reflectors on) . Talk to Adrian and he’ll do the math for you as far as those figures are concerned he;s allready done it once at A C I G .
my point is not with F-22. u can do the same thing with 4th generation fighters by putting similar equipment on it at much lesser cost. offcourse u havent heard of doctorine of overhelming force and destroying enemy with standoff weopons.
Anyway it is your opinion however the USAF thinks diffrently to a point where they are willing to spend 300+ billion dollars on it (F-22 – 70billion and F-35 – 250 billion) and the RuAF itself wants a LO airframe for the PAKFA .
they have to spend money some where.
http://www.mosnews.com/feature/2006/06/22/fifthgenfighters.shtml
Great possibilities, which the on board equipment of the fifth generation aircraft affords, can be completely realized only by the presence of corresponding information, supplied by various channels of communications from dozens of sources — from AWACS aircraft, reconnaissance aircraft, ground navigation systems, fighters-neighbors in the group etc. In absence of a congruous structure, made up of dozens of air and ground elements, a significant part of the potential of fifth generation aircraft simply will not be realized, and money wasted on the purchase of such high-end fighters will be tossed in the wind. As a result, fighters of the new generation will be practically of no use to developing countries–incredibly expensive by themselves, as they will require special support systems which developing countries simply cannot afford.
star49And singapore chose the F-15E over the EF typhoon does it mean the F-15 is superior?
The F-15 that Singapore chose is defenitely superior to EF version. Just look at payload, range, nose size, aesa, speed, TWR underweopon load.
So you dont provide me of some evidence to show that a comparable R-77
(comparable to c7-c5) is in reaserch and close to being feilded and you want me to believe you why?
u started with assumption that R-77 currently exported is not comparable to modern AMRAAM. i have given one export example. u can get second one for Algeria. a country with 65 be in pocket does not even consider Meteor based fighter.
Please give me specs of the home used IR misile .
how can u get that specification. u have to live with the theory that export version of weopons are of reduced capability and does not represent true research potential.
Then why the PAKFA , F-22 , or the F-35 or even the eurocanards for that matter?? And why even develop the 4th gen fighter cuz the same analogy could be used for 4th gen . How would you upgrade the newer concept of combined stealth and supercruise to the legacy jets ??
because 4th generation fighter has reached the weopons load, speed, avionics, FBW, man-machine interface that was not present in previous generation. show me 5th genaration fighter that can fly faster, carry more and have avionics that can be put in 4th generation fighter. and the way radar tech is improving stealth and supercrusie will be obsolete.
And it shouldnt be ideally!! Read carefully why i wrote it . it was a rebuttal to the comment that the USAF was as secretive about the F-22 as the RuAF is with the PAKFA which is definately not the case .
it is about sukhoi and LM not about airforces.
star49You didnt get me right !! I meant that the superiority of Mig-29 over the eurocanards in the three regimes of aircraft speed is debatable . Whats 25 years got to do with this?? We can even debate the f-16’s manueverability with that of the F-22 however it doesnt suggest that they are so close to each other that we have to sit and weight in the points one by one . A debate is a simple discussion regarding the merits or demerits of certain things .
how is MIG-29 superiority in 3 speed regimes debatable? MIG-29A has clearly more top speed and better climb rate than the 3 eurocanards. and Now New MIG-29 has more internal fuel, TVC, Full FBW, and bigger nose. even MIG-29K which MIG designated as MIG-33 is better than Euro canards having more than 24 tons of Maximum takeoff weight. MIG-35 is 800kg lighter than this.
We have to compare things that are in operation rather then what is going on with development etc etc Western fighters have been flying with C5’s for some times and US fighters are flying with C-7’s and soon will begin flying with the D varient . I dont see developmental timelines for any new R-77 varient so I dont want to assume . Ofcourse if you want to keep it fantasy then factor in the meteor aswell which i left out because it isnt operational .
so why they will give timelines of future development when they havent done in the past? the fact that RMAF considered Su-30MKM>F-18E is enough that atleast they are equal if not superior.
Again do you seriously think that the HMS and HMD’s of today that are being used are same as those of russia 25 years ago???? And what about HOBS missiles such as o5 , aim-9x and IRIS-T , are they the same as the archers with the mig-29’s .. The modern HMS are far more and present a ot of other tactical data to the pilot . you seem to suggest that the west is behind with regards to HMS and has just caught up to a technology level of russia 25 years ago.
so u are judging the home used missile with export version of R-73?
25 years doesn matter . New fighters arent born one every 8 years or one every 10 years . The mig-29,su-27,f-15 and 16 represented a previous generation of thinking and technology whereas the F-22A , F-35 and PAKFA represent the 5th gen of thinking and technology . The EF , rafale and T-50 are dead center borrowing some 5th gen elements.
how is F-15, F-16, Su-27 pervious generation thinking when they can use the same weopons, radars, engines, netcentric support, Pilot interface, in new versions. they can be as much upgraded as Fifth generation fighter. u dont need Fifth generation fighter when all other things are in place.
Atleast we had a picture of the F-22 being developed in its production facilty and LMA was publishing pictures almost on a monthly basis , Same thing with the F-35 you can clearly see it being assembled peice by peice at its fort worth facility and LMA comes out with pics every 2.5-3 weeks . We had the ATF requirments published way before the first F-22 flew and research medias such as journalists knew what the F-22 was supposed to do interms of key areas such as supercruise etc etc We had public hearings in congress and senate where the USAF under oath gave progress on the F-22 and we were well made aware of the problems that the F-22A raptor was having with the avionics , fuel overheating and now the titanium .Ofcourse the USAF isnt dum enough to come out and tell us the exact RCS , Turn performance etc etc however what they have to do BY LAW and on orders from the congress/senate is compare the performance with what was demanded when the ATF was fashioned and make public the results and so we can now all see the FLIGHT TEST DATA of the raptor and how it compares to the requirment of the USAF . They have also shown areas where it wasnt able to meet its requirment such as o. of loads to transport components etc etc a lot lot was known on the F-22 even before the raptor was chosen over the YF23 . Meanwhile we dont know at what stage the PAKFA is , Have no RuAF released CG or model of what it is supposed to look like etc etc .
every country has different model of governace. PAK-FA funding is not dependent on congress or journalist reviews.
star49Komsomolsk Su-30MK2 flew down there, so I would not be so sure of Irkutsk…it’ll be Komsomolsk.
Too much involved with MKI (French, Israeli, Indian subsystems) for Russia to do a unilateral sales deal with Chavez on this…hence, Komsomolsk and the much less sophisticated (and politically/economically easier) Su-30MK2…
I think price of MKI and MK2 is almost similar now. just look at 28 Su-30MKA for $1.2B and now this over a billing dollar for 30 aircraft. and chavez cant get MKI line untill 2009 because of smaller production capacity of Irkut. so Komms product is logical choice .
star49Interesting. I was asked to supply examples where the Russian military has proven less than successful. I provided two examples that are obvious.
proven less than successful? the same people are ruling both afghanistan and chechnya which russia supported from the begining. it is the uncivilized bunch which are on the run.(offcourse supported previously by otherside).
The reply? Oh they are not valid examples for the following reasons/excuses as if stating them means the failures didn’t actually occur in the first place. :confused:
Sauron
so who else could do better job than russian do taking into account the opposition and russia currency was not reserve currency of the world. the fact that russian successfully killed chechens inside Qatar and Putin made statement in presence of saudi prince gives enough indication that he will get information from countries bordering irak.
star49Interesting. I was asked to supply examples where the Russian military has proven less than successful. I provided two examples that are obvious.
proven less than successful? the same people are ruling both afghanistan and chechnya which russia supported from the begining. it is the uncivilized bunch which are on the run.(offcourse supported previously by otherside).
The reply? Oh they are not valid examples for the following reasons/excuses as if stating them means the failures didn’t actually occur in the first place. :confused:
Sauron
so who else could do better job than russian do taking into account the opposition and russia currency was not reserve currency of the world. the fact that russian successfully killed chechens inside Qatar and Putin made statement in presence of saudi prince gives enough indication that he will get information from countries bordering irak.
star49The Russian military was run out of Afganistan by 19th century tribesmen.
19th century tribesmen? or 20th century terrorists backed by OIL and Drug money of around the world not to mention free flow of weopons and training and unlimited men power.
The Russian military didn’t exactly cover themselves in glory in Chechnya. Grozny for example where it appearently forgot everything it learned in WW11 about street fighting.
so how else they should fight?. In that time UAV technology was not that advanced nor tanks that protected. and hard currency to buy loyalties was another problem. u have to use what u have.
I am sure the list could be expanded.
for example?
It would be interesting to see what resources they could bring together in Iraq. It would have to be more than a few guys in black outfits with no InTel, air support, etc and no experience working with the locals not to mention the new Iraq government.
Sauron
no experiance and intel? Arabs fought all there wars with russian weopons. i am sure russians know alot about them.
star49The Russian military was run out of Afganistan by 19th century tribesmen.
19th century tribesmen? or 20th century terrorists backed by OIL and Drug money of around the world not to mention free flow of weopons and training and unlimited men power.
The Russian military didn’t exactly cover themselves in glory in Chechnya. Grozny for example where it appearently forgot everything it learned in WW11 about street fighting.
so how else they should fight?. In that time UAV technology was not that advanced nor tanks that protected. and hard currency to buy loyalties was another problem. u have to use what u have.
I am sure the list could be expanded.
for example?
It would be interesting to see what resources they could bring together in Iraq. It would have to be more than a few guys in black outfits with no InTel, air support, etc and no experience working with the locals not to mention the new Iraq government.
Sauron
no experiance and intel? Arabs fought all there wars with russian weopons. i am sure russians know alot about them.
Sign In
