Only India would be interested- they have a lot of recently built MiG-27s, and already use the AL-31F for its Su-30MKIs. However, the R-29B-300 will be much, much cheaper, so I can’t see it being very cost-effective, unless R-29B production has ended and the MiG-27 fleet is left engineless.

They are from laminated cards I saw at Farnborough 2006. I have the first one (C-X) which is the first two pictures, but someone else took the last P-X/C-X card (second two pictures).

OK. Yes, the USA has obtained a number of Su-27s for threat evaluation, along with MiG-29s, MiG-23s, etc etc. Thats what the artice refers to.

This has nothing to do with the US Navy. The picture is a clear fake.

Consider researching before posting. Its a radical idea, I know, but-

Don’t believe everything you read on the Internet.

Clear fakes.

I think you mean this story:

http://www.flightjournal.com/articles/su27/su27.asp

I’ve read that the USAF actually judged General Dynamics design to be 1st, Boeing’s 2nd and Northrop’s 3rd. However Boeing’s design was too similar to General Dynamics (single F100, ventral intake), so the USAF went for Northrop instead. Northrop did have a single engine design too, but part of the point of the flyoff to test 2 engines vs 1 engine. So Northrop were always on a bit of a loser IMHO.

Vixen 500E isn’t based on Blue Vixen; its a wholly new AESA radar, based on COTS technology. It builds on the experiences gained with Blue Vixen and CAPTOR.

Blue Vixen was a great piece of kit for its time- more than 20 target TWS, long range, light weight, (still classified) ILIC/Anderwave ECCM technology, more than 20 operating modes. Real shame Ferranti didn’t get the Foxhunter contract 🙂

When it gets to a range where the increased RCS becomes a problem it will probably be an active radar emitter anyway. Extra energy loss is worth it if it allows you to engage 12g targets instead of 7g targets IMO.

If the grid fins allowed tighter turns and created higher drag and also higherlift and were less likely to stall I would have expected they would need more powerful actuators, not less powerful ones. A little triangular fin would bite less into the air and stall at much lower angles than a grid fin.

Their performance in the supersonic regime and their relatively small size make them very attractive for missile applications. They present two
main disadvantages: They suffer a loss of stability in the transonic regime and have relatively high drag levels.

http://pdf.aiaa.org/jaPreview/JSR/2006/PVJA7939.pdf

The grid fin is quite a bit lighter. Therefore the amount of force needed to turn it is decreased. This allows the R-77 to make 12g manouvres without needing high power actuators. This was a sensible compromise at the time.

SO am I right in guessing that the 180PD is the ramjet powered model? Does that leave the 180 as the R-77M with the improved motor. All the stuff I read about the lattice wing configuration suggests that it was actually low drag already but also able to improve manouver performance because the high angle of incidence capability without stalling.

The crucial characteristic of the lattice wing was reduced torque needed from the actuators. This was crucial to achieving the necessary weight/performance characteristics. The R-77 was only slightly heavier than the AIM-120, despite the traditionally more bulky Soviet electronics. By using the lattice wing design, the actuators could be made smaller and save valuable weight.

However, the lattice wing increases RCS, and it was found to bleed energy more quickly in manouvres. So, the R-77 suffers more energy loss from manouvering than a missile with conventional fins.

With access to miniaturised electronics, and improved actuator technology, the benefits of the lattice wing no longer outweigh the costs, and hence the move to drop them.