My thoughts-
Tu-160, which is being upgraded at the Kazan Gorbunov Aviation Production Association, up to 24 missiles.
It can carry 24 Kh-15. No need to assum they mean Kh-101 here.
a new variant of the KAB-1500 guided bomb
No mention of guidance type. I’m betting GLONASS/INS here.
According to globalsecurity;
China purchased four to six S-300PMU batteries (48 to 72 missiles) in 1991 and purchased an additional 120 missiles in 1994
The Su-35 will be built by a rival Brazilian company (Avibras)
Even the F-15 can be seen as evolved from the F-4, though admittedly the end result is quite different. The initial fixed wing configuration studied was practically an F-4 clone, which evolved to the end form via a tailed delta (MiG-21 influence) with MiG-25-style intakes.
Yes, as far as I remember 1983 was definitely before the “late 80s”. I would go so far as to say it could even be considered “early 80s”. Mind you, I was only 10 in 1983 so I might be mistaken…
No, it can’t carry R-27R. It might be able to carry R-27T but was never fitted for such.
Well- the top one is R-24, and I couldn’t tell the bottom one due to being unable to see its wings or tail 😉
I got pictures of MiG-23MLDs with R-24 in flight…
They are Cold War pics of Floggers operating from Cam Ranh Bay.
AFAIK R-24 wasn’t really exported, and then after the USSR disappeared the MiG-23s were largely retired, so photography is limited.
Nice little plane isn’t it
Origin: Arbeitsgruppe fur Luft- und Raumfahrt, Switzerland.
Type: Light fighter.
Engine: See text; data for RB199 Mk 104 augmented turbofan of 16,000lb
(7257kg) thrust.
Dimensions: Span about 24ft (7.3m); length 37ft 9in (11 5m); height 14ft
(4.25m); wing area (main surface) 240 sq ft (22m2).
Weights: Loaded (air superiority mission) 15,190lb (6890kg).
Performance: Max speed (clean or AAMs only, hi) 1,320mph (2124km/h,
Mach 2); takeoff run (air superiority mission, SL) 1,150ft (350m); landing run
(with drag chute) 1,250ft (380m); initial climb 59,000ft (18000m/s); typical
combat radius (attack weapons, lo-lo-lo) 280 miles (450km).
Armament: One internal gun (30mm Oerlikon KCA preferred); seven external
stations for 4,410lb (2000kg) of weapons, including AAMs and all normal attack
weapons.
History: Study in progress since 1975.
User: Not yet funded.
A competent and largely professional group in Switzerland has devoted much time and private money to promoting an attractive lightweight fighter in the belief that there is a large (3,000-4,000 units) global market for such aircraft. Many of the advantages of a small fighter are obvious: lower costs of acquisition and ownership, lower training costs, higher serviceability, reduced vulnerability in combat and probably enhanced agility, and many others.
At first the Piranha was as small and simple as possible, and an early propulsion choice was two Larzac M74-07 augmented turbofans. This gave way to the RT.172-58 Adour, and pressure of increased mission demands and higher performance has now forced concentration on the R B199 with the GE F404 as a second choice. Inevitably this puts the Piranha squarely into the same class as the superficially similar JAS39. How, then, can this private proposal hope to succeed?
ALR would reply that their project is even smaller and simpler than the Swedish aircraft, and also offers significant advantages over the F-20A Tigershark and other existing aircraft. It has a flapped canard and wing trailing-edge “flaperons” all controlled by a digital FBW system, though the dogtooth wing leading edge is fixed. By 1984 the wing had grown in size from the 16m2 of all previous studies to the figure given above, to achieve higher sustained and instantaneous turn rates. If ever an unofficial fighter project deserved to succeed, this does, if only for the decade of effort behind it.
Future Fighters (1984) by Bill Gunston
Late 70s and early 80s
Pirana (the swiss version) can be found here:
An EJ200 engined Gripen would be very cool. Extra thrust + commonality with Typhoon. The only trouble is it should be flying already…
Adobe Photoshop…