By the way, the illustrations are not from brochures. You won't find them being distributed anywhere in the open domain. But they are worth a thousand words, hence the absence of any commentary or analysis.
Sid, am working on Part 2 of India's field artillery modernisation efforts, and will post it within the next 4 hours. Also working on an analysis of the two new Vympel AAMs--R-177 & R-95) that were last year proposed for co-development with the DRDO (just like what MBDA has done with the Astra AAM project.
I don't have that comparison chart as yet. But the engagement envelope of the R-27ET is definitely much more than that of the Mica-IR. That was confirmed almost 10 years ago. That's because the Mica-IR is used for close combat within visual range, whereas the R-27ET is used in conjunction with the R-27ER, i.e. a salvo firing against the target. It is a unique and well-known air combat tactic when engaging targets well beyond visual range. This was demonstrated by the Russians way back in the late 1990s to Boeing, which then programmed this scenario into one of the F-15E tactical flying simulators. Two years ago the IAF was contemplating using the R-27ETs on its Mirage 2000s and replacing the older Matra R550 Magic-2 AAMs.
yawn, now you have started to bore me.
ReplyDeleteinstead of posting one after another brochures, write some quality analysis.
you are better then that.
Thanks for your vote of confidence.
ReplyDeleteBy the way, the illustrations are not from brochures. You won't find them being distributed anywhere in the open domain. But they are worth a thousand words, hence the absence of any commentary or analysis.
ReplyDeleteno, i am serious boss.
ReplyDeletedespite of what people say, i like to read analysis by you in this field.
but it should be analysis, instead of cut paste pics.
quality matter over quantity.
oops, i missed your second comment.
ReplyDeletebut take my views in a positive way.
OK yaar, will be posting some 'analysis' for you within the next few hours. Khush?
ReplyDeleteSid, am working on Part 2 of India's field artillery modernisation efforts, and will post it within the next 4 hours. Also working on an analysis of the two new Vympel AAMs--R-177 & R-95) that were last year proposed for co-development with the DRDO (just like what MBDA has done with the Astra AAM project.
ReplyDeleteA big thanks.
ReplyDeleteSid
i prefer the brochures. nice, crisp and to the point.
ReplyDeleteprasun continue with this pls imstead of tx heavy posts.
to prasun
ReplyDeleteprasun also post about mica IR VS
AA10 IR
some people have phobia that whatever electronics russia makes is worst than western counter parts
someone called r 77 radar seeker older compared to mica in su30mki
section u posted
but its a good seeker has traking
range of 10NM against
0.01meter square RCS
r 77 is capable of engaging other
air to air missiles and even guided munitions but that guy was not ready to beleive
i asked him about the price of MICA compared to aa10
there r more aa12,aim120c than MICA
cuz MICAS just unaffordable the capability they provide is inferior
and price is too high
to prasun
ReplyDeletewhat about future russian and US
ramjet missiles competing meteor
any new BROChURES
Got technical presentations on the R-177 and R-95 AAMs along with technical data on their active seekers. Will upload them gradually. No rush.
ReplyDeleteto sengupta
ReplyDeletewhat about comparision between MICA IR and AA10 IR
I don't have that comparison chart as yet. But the engagement envelope of the R-27ET is definitely much more than that of the Mica-IR. That was confirmed almost 10 years ago. That's because the Mica-IR is used for close combat within visual range, whereas the R-27ET is used in conjunction with the R-27ER, i.e. a salvo firing against the target. It is a unique and well-known air combat tactic when engaging targets well beyond visual range. This was demonstrated by the Russians way back in the late 1990s to Boeing, which then programmed this scenario into one of the F-15E tactical flying simulators. Two years ago the IAF was contemplating using the R-27ETs on its Mirage 2000s and replacing the older Matra R550 Magic-2 AAMs.
ReplyDeleteto prasun
ReplyDeleteif r 77 has greater range than MICA then aa10 has greater range then r77 its so simple to under stand
also IAF uses AA10 IR on mki
but some people argue that
MICA IR has better range but i don't beleive in that
NO one bought MICA IR
IAF alredy has almost 2000 aa10 missiles
PLEASE IN future if u have some brochures about this please post those AA10 IR VS MICA IR