your loss then.
its not as if i play russian anyway
They still can cause damage, but with mostly in complex.
So, they not similar enough?
??? 🤔🤔🤔
But at same time you need to change properties of carried weapon, to prove compability
i mean that i wanted russia to get a prototype missile for their Su-27 before we get to the R-77M and 120D era
a flat and conical cap is not similar.
a conical and more conical IS similar
1 Like
If necessary, they will draw a paper rocket for Gaijin
Similar enough or what?
And it isnt enough?
what are you on about?
ah id rather go for the EA as it was tested at least
R-27 is fully modular platform, that different only in seeker.
As long, as Su can launch 1 type of R-27 - it can launch all of them.
Guidance - is a another question, but at least if carrier can use R-27ER/ET, R-77, and ARAGM - it can use all of them.
Firstly, the author (i guess), know really better, than you or me.
When as soon as you start writing books (at least those that have been proofread), or at least acquire decent evidence to the contrary, then you will question the words of other authors.
Secondly, my source based on different works, which give him more than one look at the material being discussed:
Spoiler
Полигон. Е.Гордон, А.Фомин, А.Михеев. МиГ-29
Janes’s. Jon Lake. Mikoyan MiG-29 Fulcrum
4+ Publishing. Piotr Butowski. MiG-29 all variants
And a few more, but they, in my opinion, are somewhat biased in favor of the USSR/RF Air Force, so I don’t find them reliable.
Thirdly, they describe events that actually took place, with more than accurate dates, numbers, and devices. Which has a rather positive effect on the willingness to believe these sources.
Oh, boy.
Your “I ain’t believe” is “personal opinion”.
I works with real historical facts, that you can even find by yourself - they don’t classified.
Then, i, use logic (and knowledge, gained from those sources), to make conclusions.
This maybe don’t a flight manual.
But even flight manuals don’t describe all possibilities of plane. They describe only the most popular/available assets of plane, for the time they been written.
Not even a word about AIM-54
LAU-118/A Guided Missile Launcher
AERO-5
The LAU-118/A missile launcher is used to launch the AGM-88 HARM anti-radiation missile from aircraft such as the F-16 and F/A-18. The LAU-118/A provides the mechanical and electrical interface between the aircraft and the AGM-88A HARM missile. The LAU-118/A is delivered to the organizational level mated to the HARM missile as a preloaded accessory suspension equipment combination which is then attached to the aircraft’s parent bomb rack. In a typical installation on the F/A-18, that LAU-118/A launcher is attached to a BRU-32/A bomb rack, with the LAU-118 providing the umbilical interface between the aircraft and the HARM. Through this connection the HARM communicates with the aircraft’s radar warning equipment and the system’s dedicated launch computer via the aircraft’s MIL-STD-1553B digital databus. The LAU-118/A can be configured with either 14- or 30-inch suspension.
The Navy LAU-118(V)1/A launcher provides the mechanical and electrical interface between the AGM-88A/B High Speed Anti-Radiation Missile (HARM) and aircraft. It is a single rail launcher modified from the AERO-5B-1 series. A unique mechanical configuration prohibits installation of the HARM missile on an unmodified AERO-5 launcher. The Navy LAU-118(V) 1/A is electrically different than the Air Force LAU-118(V)2/A launcher and is not interchangeable.
The AERO-5B-1 and LAU-118 series rail launchers are used to launch the AGM-45 SHRIKE anti-radiation missile. They provide the electrical and mechanical interface between the SHRIKE guided missile and the launch aircraft.
So, it can’t.
Proved.
Even if you, with (hammer, and some mom), will get Phoenix on Su-27 - it can’t launch.
Even if you can launch (haven’t any idea how) this one as dumb rocket (like S-25) - it can’t be guided (well, maybe by AWACS, but i dont sure about it).
So - your take is s**t.
While my idea, about comparable missle, with comparable soft/hardware can be implemented, without dark magic, and blood sacrifices, done by hammer and sickle.
You stated that amraam have reverse capability, but if your WCS didnt know what is more modern amraam, including properties - you might get problems
Janes journal isnt really good to use as source
It CAN, because all R-27, have same “brains”!
If you need proofs - look for R-27 specifications.
They different only by seeker and engine!
So if ER has IOG (missile will track the last known location with the last known parameters. If it doesn’t see the target, it simply heads to where it might be) - ET, EA, EP, etc., have too.
Just as i said - it’s not their main mode of work, because it’s unreliable, and better use the radar ones, for that type of BVR interceptions, so it ain’t been prescribed in manual.
They (R-27ET) must be LOBL, by “ustav”, but they can LOAL, by hard/software.
And that not states that 27T have IOG and datalink.
So, special loal mode, that nobody know about, designed by soviets 20000000 years ago?
That a historical fact.
Еще до постройки первых МиГ-29М для отработки вооружения и оборудования новой модификации ММЗ им. А.И.Микояна подготовил несколько опытных самолетов - летающих лабораторий. В целях дооснащения истребителя ракетами РВВ-АЕ были переоборудованы два серийных МиГ-29 типа «9-12», получившие №970 и 971. Первый полет МиГ-29 №970 состоялся 24 декабря 1984 г., МиГ-29 №971 - 12 августа 1985 г. Испытания их продолжались до 1989 г., на 970-м выполнили 286 полетов, на 971-м - 204 полета. Последняя машина в 1986 г. использовалась также для летной отработки новых модификаций ракеты К-27 с пассивной и активной радиолокационными головками самонаведения.
RVV-AE naming was made way later, so, looks like you provided not really accurate source
Solid enough theory, backed to tests, and good background.
Well, we have a tested missle, on plane, capable to use same stuff, as available planes.
Sound pretty solid.
I - getting proofs on table.
You - just gaslighting.
Yeah… sure, that be worse to me…
Thats not a reason, until there will be trustable proofs of that, like a flight manual.
You just trying to insult others, multuple times, nothing else. But ofc, others gaslighting and etc.
That isnt fine.