They got Pl-12s from Ikea I guess.
and assambled it without reading the instructions
1 Like
many such cases.
My bad , correct that is an R-73 trainer , i should had checked better.
Regardless the argument stands. Here you have Polish MiG-29 displayed with R-60/M as in 2016, presumably those planes have already undergone MLU modernisation between 2011-2014 which includes BUS 1553 B as attested here.
Furthermore you have western modernised Ukrainian MiG-29MU1/2 which fire R-60 …
So the argument that somehow BUS 1553 B means incompatibility with R-60 still holds no water.
show me where i said that
you are the one that confalted the integration of forgein wepaons with the r-60 being compatible
and the polish 9.12 that were btw never upgraded because it would have been to expensive and they bought the F-16 instead
‘‘by using a standardised databus’’ … ''which iam pretty sure the r-60 isnt compatible with
so you are trying to tell me that the soviet missile from the 70s is able to comunicate with a digital databus
again being able to use forgein weaponry dosent mean it can use the r-60
and the reason why it is able to integrate forgein weapons is the modern databus
and i dont care anymore since you are apparently not able to understand that or bring any actual sources
to the point where you claimed a r73 is a r60 and where you are comparing non russian upgrades to old fulcrums to the Mig-35
you are the one conflating stuff and then comparing apples to oranges
Nope im telling you that one does not exclude the other. You are the one you brought up the standardised databus argument by specificaly stating that R-60 isn’t compatible with.
Again that is not the argument i made. The argument i made about foreign weapon integration was to show the intent of designers to include broad spectrum of armament.
your whole argument is that it can integrate forgein wepaons and thus use the r60
it is exactly your argument
and the only resamblance of a source you posted
Nope , the argument boils down to the MiG-35 presentation video i posted to support x8 R-77. It was argued that the information displayed at the end of the video was inaccurate since it stated R-60 support.
the “information” at the end of that video is not even a source since someone edited that into the video
your “source”
tell me did the people that attended the presentation also see that text?
and why is the text in english when the presentation is in russian
Only being able to carry x4 R-60s but x8 R-73s is also pretty suspicious.
Also the claimed maximum take of weight of 29000kg
We have sources from ROE directly saying 6x RVV-AE
That is what you decided to make out of my argument either by lack of reading comprehension or genuine intent to strawman my argument. I never said the aircraft uses the R-60 because it can integrate foreign weapons.
My point was purely about architectural feasibility, if an avionics system is open and flexible enough to integrate non-native, foreign armaments, then there is no inherent technical or architectural bottleneck that prevents integrating any other weapon system let alone for domestic ones.
Whether an airforce actually chooses to write the software or mount the legacy hardware is an operational and commercial decision, not an architectural limitation. Don’t confuse “nobody bothers to do it” with “the architecture isn’t capable of it.”
your whole argument is based on nothing
the r-60 isnt produced anymore
any old r-60 stockpile is long past its shelf life
and nobody would want to buy a modern jet just to use almost 60 year old missiles on
might as well stick to using Mig-23s then
and worst off all your source is not a source
you see some text that was put over a video is a better source
