its still real though, and offered for export. we actually dont know how many there are because even ukraine might have a few
yep, probably one of the few if not the only which can be fired against both air and ground radars
Their result are similar - never used in any war/etc, not produced in massive amounts.
Wow, what will have higher range, flat cap, or cone cap?
And that similar case.
1 Like
depends on what you mean by flat. and no R-27 has a flat cap.
Good luck with usage as A-G ARM missile, with that frequencies it will be hard
Oh, good, that you remember about adapters.
Well, HARM, used on MiG/Su, been recognised by avionics as R-27ER.
So, theoretically - yes.
But practically - Phoenix is way bigger/heavier, so it just doesn’t work.
While, EA (if not being legitimately implemented), just can be recognised (after adaptation) by avionics as R-27ЕR, and just be guided as R-77.
Missle cant be recognised as R-77 (i guess), due to different pylons (AKU/APU-470 for R-27, and 170 for R-77).
Just flat.
cant argue that but still possible
Your statements are backed only by your demagogic arguments, an excerpt from some book, and the words of a so-called pilot, whose meaning is completely unclear. So far, the only solid evidence we have is the Flight Manual.
Yes.
Spoiler
Now prove that the Su-27 cannot use the AIM-54.
ofcourse cones will be more aerodynamic in this case. if it was a smooth curve flat like the T or ET it wouldnt make much difference at slower speeds.
cones work better at mach speeds though
But you cant force radar into datalink to missile mode, trouble in that.
Even for using a new missile of the same family, software updates are necessary. Clearly, no one will upgrade the aircraft to use a missile that doesn’t exist.
So, you just prove that it causes difference.
As i said earlier - i won’t retype the bunch of text to someone too lazy for just scroll up.
Just go through topic, and you will find all what you need.
You have a psychiatrist grade/diploma?
If no - you wrong, boi.
not really.
AMRAAMs are made to be forwards and backwards compatible.
the R-27s are too.
the only thing that needs to be updated is the mission computer which needs to be told what ordinance it is carrying and since the EA has nearly similar flight and range performance ground engineers dont have to edit anything else
i didnt argue against that?
lol
Do you have any proofs more than words? Without any valuable proofs you re балабол.
1 Like
Text can be copied.
Give link at least.
Proof that.
Not in guidance, starting from one of C versions have 2 way datalink with missile, last have GPS onboard.
And even in size, theyre different, you cant fit 120A into F-22 for example
You stated “same perfomance”