Alfa

Development of the Su-27 took place in the late 70'ies/early 80'ies - i.e. during the height of the cold war, where funding wasn't a problem. That the Su-27 got the N001(really an upscaled version of the MiG-29's N019) and not a phased array set like the Zaslon was down to technical issues at the time rather than economic ones.

Antenna size is down to the aircraft in which it needs to fit and a smaller version could probably have been made for the Su-27. I think it had more to do with the size/weight of the radar as such - the Zaslon is very heavy(IIRC about twice the weight of the N001), which may not be a problem for a dedicated interceptor like the MiG-31, but less feasible/practical for an air-dominance fighter like the Su-27.

GG I am not saying that PRFs are the same for the N019 and N001 or too close to be distinguished by the RWR, but suggested that, in case information wasn't available for one of them, that they could have been "slotted together" due to the similarity in design(antenna type, emitter etc) as well as employing the same weapon(R-27R) - i.e. better to have a "29" resolution to work with than an "unknown". PRF/frequency tuning aside, the N019 and N001 are virtually identical in design, while the AN/APG-65 is totally different.. Precisely and therefore I don't believe that an APG-65 or an N010 for that matter could be confused for an N019 despite similar antenna size - which BTW brings up an interseting question....what symbol will appear on RWR for an Indian MiG-29K ? :)

I guess it depends on how narrow a bracket of known parameters a contact has to fit into in order to be considered a match versus how similar those parameters can be for diffferent radar sets. Yes so do I. Well I suspect otherwise :)

Well yes but there must have been some rationale behind it - there is little reason for implementing something like that unless you have reason to believe(falsely or not) that its accurate.

Yes but considering that the Su-27 is much less proliferated than the MiG-29, I guess its possible that, at one point in time, there was no ELINT data on the Su-27 and that the RWR when looking up recieved "signature" and not finding it in the databank, would pick the closest match(i.e. "29") and display that......plausible?.

Well as you can see it has already capsized and is floating bottom-up, so..

Yes I think so too.

Ok :) In regards to the meaning of "AE" - the "A" is for "Active"(denoting that it is ARH). I am not sure about the meaning of the "E" suffix in relation to the RVV-AE though - for the R-27ER it is for "high-energy"(or something like that) denoting the increased power of the rocket motor, while in other cases it stands for "Export". BTW the "RVV-SD" abbreviation - "РВВ-СД" in cyrillic stands for: "Ракета воздух-воздух - средней дальности" i.e. "Air-to-air missile - medium range". The site doesn't mention "R-77" because its the old Soviet designation for an earlier iteration of the missile, while the RVV-AE is considered a different product(specifically for export).

Yeah it was a rhetorical question :)

RVV-AE = РВВ-AE in cyrillic РВВ for "Ракета воздух-воздух" = AAM for "Air-to-Air Missile" Obviously. Range mainly - the RVV-SD is a little longer and heavier indicating a bigger rocket motor, but it probably also has a new seekerhead(9B-1103M). They are practically the same - "R-77" is the original Soviet designation, while "RVV-AE" is the designation for a later export version. Why did you ask the questions when you already have a link to the manufacturer's site containing all the answers?

Indeed. Besides, the existance of stock piles is one thing, training pilots to use them is another - i.e. the scaresity of photos showing aircraft carrying them may not be indicative of the former, but would seem to be in regads to the latter.

Not quite right Pilotasso - the designer of the missile(Vympel) is Russian, but during Soviet times had its production plant in in Ukraine. The seekerhead(9B-1348 ) is by a Russian company called AGAT.

The discussion you were refering to was about the R-77 in service with the Russian airforce. The MiG-21-93 is in service with the Indian airforce, but not with the RuAF. Not in design, but internal components likely do. Well "eastern block" :D

I think you misunderstood what the discussion was about Vekkinho. You can find videos showing the RVV-AE being launched/destroying targets, so everyone knows that it exists and that it is in operational service e.g. with the Indian airforce. The discussion was about whether the Russian airforce has adopted it/has stockpiles of it. Edit: sniped by Pilotasso.

Supposedly yes, but.. Pastel can use either a main MFD or a separate dedicated threat display, but the latter is clearly not there in the Su-25T cockpit and the TV display does not look very multi-functional to me....nor would it be particulary practical with only a single display for everything :)

Yeah I suspect that eXPeRT is seeing the Ekran panel as a SPO-15 display. :) Yes thats the thing Thats just a question of layout - e.g. look at the cockpit of the Su-25SM which has a large LCD on the left side of the front instrument panel, but I agree with you that the Su-25T/TM cockpit layout doesn't leave much room for it. I heard that the military wasn't interested in a radar(and associated weaponry) in connection with the Su-25 at all - whether built-in or podded. I also heard some critism from pilots in regards to the basic concept of the Su-25T/TM.....i.e. along the lines of the extra systems complexity not being worth the weight penalty/less agility in typical CAS type of missions. But we will see what happens :)

Yes thats possible, but I doubt it Hajduk. I would think that in such case they are returned to the respective design bureau - even when a type has been accepted into service, they tend to keep the prototype airframes as testbeds for further developments.

You can? - where do you see the Beryoza in that picture?

Strange question - for the MoD to accept the type into the arsenal of the armed forces of course. There are lots of examples of aircraft prototypes that have been sent to operational units for field testing. In some cases they were later adopted into actual service(e.g. the Su-33 which wasn't officially accepted until 1998 ) and in some cases they weren't - e.g. the Ka-50 also saw some action in Chechnya, but has been rejected in favour of Mi-28 and Ka-52. In the case of the Su-25 it is clear that for the time being the Russian MoD is going for the Su-25SM upgrade instead of new-built Su-25T/TM. Whether the long term prospect for new CAS aircraft will be based on the Su-25T/TM or an entirely new type is another question. What GG and I are saying is that there are varies aspects of the advertised attributes of the Su-25TM/Su-39 that don't seem practical(to say the least).

Yeah it does look quite crude - I think the CRT display is just a dedicated Skhval interface and nothing else....and since there is no other display to be seen, I don't see how Pastel RWS could be installed.

I have a some high-res photos somewhere, but rembered that one of them was posted on here on the forum once: http://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=1540438&postcount=10024 Cockpit of Su-25TM/Su-39 prototype(# 21). Yes thats what I was on about in regards to the cockpit perhaps not reflecting what was envisioned - a single crude CRT to display radar, Skhval and Pastel RWS :)

There was some evidence that the Su-25T saw some action in Chechnya, but AFAIK this was sort of "operational testing" - I don't think the type ever entered actual service with the VVS. Well "Su-25TM" and "Su-39" are just two names for the same thing(like Su-27K vs. Su-33) and merely a further development of the Su-25T involving the podded multifunctional radar(Kopyo-25), modification to the WCS to incorporate it as well as some integration with the Shkval system. IIRC two prototypes were build, but whether these fully reflect what was invisioned is of course another question - at least the cockpit doesn't look any different to that of the Su-25T. Yeah Kh-31 in particular.....it seems that the Su-39 would be hard pressed even to bring that missile to required launch conditions(min launch speed).

There is a great deal more to the real GCI than that though. In the MiG-29 GCI is integrated into the radar operation modes - it displays more target information on the HUD, affects the radar scan pattern and automatically directs it towards the datalinked target position. So it not only helps the pilot to locate the target, but also to acquire it quickly and with less workload.

15,5 million? - hardly a bad deal. PoAF = Portuguese Air Force ;) They are F-16MLUs - i.e. upgraded to today's standards. There is a difference between "outdated" and "worn out".....and a very big difference between 15 million and 150 million :)