your argument is this:
the reason why they can integrate forgein weapons is the standart databus
so yes you are conflating the databus with being able to use the r-60
rebrand
6 Likes
I was wondering when that was gonna happen
You mean nothing other than Phazotron deputy director stating so explicitly … Look im not interested arguing over established facts. You are free to go with 4D mental gymnastics , im not into that.
What physical capabilities are you talking about ? MiG-29M 9.15 could already carry four Kh-31 on pylons 3/4/5/6 . Kh-31 is double the weight of R-27
Nope you are still missing my argument here.
I employed the open architecture nature in order to support the argument that the R-60 ( which is a domestic weapon ) incompatibility thesis made no logical sense since designers took the effort to increase the compatibility spectrum not shrink it.
You used my argument in order to make the claim that foreign weapon compatibility came thanks to standardised databus which you were pretty sure R-60 wasn’t compatible with.
Then i showed you an R-60 being used on the plane which was supposedly not compatible.
Which brings at back to square one and my actual argument :
What is the supporting document or technical reason that explains why R-60 is/was not compatible with early MiG-35 ?
explain to me why russia should be integrating a missile that they dont even produce anymore
and why it isnt listed in any export brochure
have you considered that the Mig-29SMT might use a legacy system to still use the r-60
becasue the 9.12 sure as hell didnt have a digital databus either
also that is a r-73 and not r-60
training r-60s are way shorter and has the frontal fins way closer to the seeker
1 Like
Excellent question , even better i have already answered it. The logic is pretty straight forward. MiG-35 was primarily made for export. As such potential export customers might already have stockpiles of older ( Soviet ) armament and thus be interested in their integration on newer platforms for training purpose if not for active combat duty.
Because brochures have never been exhaustive list of available armament options. For instance here you have an Su-35 brochure which only lists RVV-MD aka R-74M yet we know for a fact it can carry R-73 . Or another example Su-34 ( prior export denomination was Su-32 ) brochure which does not list R-27 yet we know for a fact it can carry .
What are we even arguing about here??
trying to add the R-60Ms to the MiG-35?
Yes and 4 Er on mig35
genuine waste of time and electricity lmao
not even the 9.15 did that and no primary source back that on any 9.41 lmao
1 Like
any old r-60 stockpiles are long past their shelf life
and for training purposes they have training r-73s like you have shown here
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Bro what the fuck is North Korea doing.
from what i heard that missile is closer to a Pl-12 than a sparrow
and we already got the r-77 used with a N019
1 Like
That would make sense, but it looks a lot like a Sparrow.
at the same time the missile being launched looks nothing like the one bellow being displayed an mounted on the MiG with the fins at the back
1 Like
Yeah, the top one looks more like a Sparrow while the bottom has fins that almost look like they sweep forwards.
it almost looks like they put the PL-12 fins on backwards
1 Like
The most funny thing is the migs got a irst like missile upgrade
1 Like