R-77s and AIM-120s

GGTharos · November 23, 2005

The AMRAAM alone is a two billion dollar project.

I don't think 40 million dollars for radar research compares ;)

golfsierra2 · November 23, 2005

(I'm sorry, but how does a country that was always 20 years behind in electronics suddenly come up with a 'better seeker' compared to a combat proven, contuously upgraded missile with loads of money thrown at it).

Ahem, excuse me, who had the first manmade satellite in orbit ? Does the name "Sputnik" ring a bell ?.... ;)

November 23, 2005

Who went to the moon (and who didn't)? And how does any of this relate to the topic at hand?

TucksonSonny · November 23, 2005

The AMRAAM alone is a two billion dollar project.

I don't think 40 million dollars for radar research compares ;)

I guess Russian salaries are less exaggerated. :beer:

GGTharos · November 23, 2005

... So they're working for free?

Prototypes aren't free, neither are people. A team of ten people will cost you say, a mission from that budget for four years with russian salaries. Let's assume, yes?

The overhead for these people is going to be approximately three times that. Prototype equipment comes at costs between three and ten times of the finished product.

By comparison, ten people working on the AMRAAM might cost you, with overhead, some 50 millions over 4 years, let's say - those are VERY exaggerated salaries and overhead.

... Guess how much money you have left to throw at the prototype, and tests, and all that jazz now.

Start seeing the difference, or do I need to do the rest of the hypothetical math?

SniperRu · November 24, 2005

money invested doesnt mean alot, Russian stuff was always way cheaper than American, while being at the same tech level.

Americans spent 1 million dollars to develope a pen that writes in space,

Russians used pencils ;)

GGTharos · November 24, 2005

money invested doesnt mean alot, Russian stuff was always way cheaper than American, while being at the same tech level.

Americans spent 1 million dollars to develope a pen that writes in space,
Russians used pencils ;)

You can delude yourself all you want.

The Su-27/R-27 combo was well behind the F-15 when it was fielded. Same with the MiG-29. The Russian technology was ALWAYS behind, like it or not. ;)

'Cheaper' and 'Same quality' doesn't work unless you spend a disproportionate amount of time developing it, and that didn't happen.

You can have two of faster, cheaper, better quality, but not all three.

D-Scythe · November 24, 2005

money invested doesnt mean alot, Russian stuff was always way cheaper than American, while being at the same tech level.

Americans spent 1 million dollars to develope a pen that writes in space,
Russians used pencils ;)

Good grief, are you serious? Money invested doesn't mean a lot? Have you been out in the real world?

Pilotasso · November 24, 2005

money invested doesnt mean alot, Russian stuff was always way cheaper than American, while being at the same tech level.

2 dangerous missconceptions 1 one sentence. How efficient of you...:rolleyes:

1)Cheaper also takes in consideration the local economy and standards of living.

2)same tech level? says who? you?:icon_karu

The main Russian BVR weapon is the R-27, Russia hasnt yet have an ARH as the main BVR weapon, when it does it will be at least 15 years late.

It is widely known that Russian planes while with wonderfull aerodynamic properties they lag in electronics considerably.

Some of the upgrades such as the mig-29M/K are not even new. They are in paper waiting for funds for over a decade or more.Even if f they were fielded now, they are already at least late by early 90's standards.

For upgrading the technology level of its export aircraft Russia had to resort to western technology (IAF).

Tovan · November 24, 2005

Nope, no indicator, make note of your launch range, and experience will do the rest (i think it goes active @ 15km)

For any active missile, crank out to the side maintaining lock, watch your RWR, when it resets, the missile is active. Wait unitl it is nearly all lit up again and pull up and in toward the bandit, tapping chaff. make sure you do it for long enough.

neither russian plane can do that. TWS mode can track many targets but not engage like the f15 TWS.

you're wrong , Russian Plane can do that as well!!

The Mig-29S (Fulcrum C), could guide missiles to two targets at a time and operated in concert with R-27RE and R-77 AAMs. (by Yefim Gordon) and later version of SU-27 also.

Tovan · November 24, 2005

On eof the ED members posted a week or two in the Russian forums, essentially stating that 'people in the know' consider the AMRAAM to be a better weapon than the R77. The AMRAAM is equipped with better actuators, a better seeker (I'm sorry, but how does a country that was always 20 years behind in electronics suddenly come up with a 'better seeker' compared to a combat proven, contuously upgraded missile with loads of money thrown at it).

There is the R-77M which is definitely better thatn the R-77, but it isn't in production yet.

All fingers point to the AMRAAM being the better weapon right now.

This is what you think, looks like USSR wasn't as behind as you may think and in other fields it even surpassed their counterpart. As we saw in the GolfWar the Patriot wasn't as good as mentioned with the inability to destroy the warhead and instead only the fuselage or the rear part of the missile.;-)

Tovan · November 24, 2005

Who went to the moon (and who didn't)? And how does any of this relate to the topic at hand?

This is a big hoax, The US never land on the moon, it is all made. The US space project was a mess and suddenly they were able to land on the moon, not even talking about the radiation belt that it's protecting earth from which they pass through but the Russian didn't. If we look from Start the Russian had his high and low like the US but not as much as the US and they were the first in everything except that suppose landing on the Moon.

Some specialists (past and today) and Astronauts of that era said that it didn't happen like we saw it on TV, and that it was all made to win the race agains the USSR to show the superiority of the US. Some of them even talk knowing that their live was put to risk. Others less fortunate died in doing it... anyway a topic on that matter was available on Space.com mentioning all the points that lead to believe that it was a Hoax.

have a nice day

Tovan · November 24, 2005

... So they're working for free?

Prototypes aren't free, neither are people. A team of ten people will cost you say, a mission from that budget for four years with russian salaries. Let's assume, yes?

The overhead for these people is going to be approximately three times that. Prototype equipment comes at costs between three and ten times of the finished product.

By comparison, ten people working on the AMRAAM might cost you, with overhead, some 50 millions over 4 years, let's say - those are VERY exaggerated salaries and overhead.

... Guess how much money you have left to throw at the prototype, and tests, and all that jazz now.

Start seeing the difference, or do I need to do the rest of the hypothetical math?

I can tell you that a lot of money is thrown away by the windows in a capitalist society , as a person living in North America and having the opportunity to work in some military research and developpement i saw things that non related worker can see or hear, i can tell you that when a project is happening, everyone is making profits on their wallet and often delays occured which cause project inflation that justify the enormous budget allocate to it.

and this is the way Capitalist is recognized for.

D-Scythe · November 24, 2005

This is what you think, looks like USSR wasn't as behind as you may think and in other fields it even surpassed their counterpart. As we saw in the GolfWar the Patriot wasn't as good as mentioned with the inability to destroy the warhead and instead only the fuselage or the rear part of the missile.;-)

You wanna start a pi$$ing contest that you cannot win? Name one Russian missile that has hit anything with any significant success rate in the past 30 years.

You take the combat record of the Patriot? Well okay, the combat record of the Russian R-27ER in Ethiopia/Eritrea showed that this missile is at about as lethal right now as an American AIM-7E Sparrow from the Vietnam war - a missile about 50 years old.

If you can't accept the fact that Russia is worse off economically than the U.S. since the collapse of the Soviet Union, you are deluding yourself. Money talks, whether you like it or not. If the fact that the U.S. have more F/A-22s in the air right now than Russia has Su-27SMs isn't an indication that yes, Russia is somewhat behind because of economic reasons, I don't know what is.

Can we please get back on topic before this thread gets locked?

GGTharos · November 24, 2005

you're wrong , Russian Plane can do that as well!!

The Mig-29S (Fulcrum C), could guide missiles to two targets at a time and operated in concert with R-27RE and R-77 AAMs. (by Yefim Gordon) and later version of SU-27 also.

Right ... the METHOD in which this is done has been questioned quite a bit.

This is what you think, looks like USSR wasn't as behind as you may think and in other fields it even surpassed their counterpart. As we saw in the GolfWar the Patriot wasn't as good as mentioned with the inability to destroy the warhead and instead only the fuselage or the rear part of the missile.;-)

The Patriot wasn't conceived as a TBM - the capability was hastily retrofitted. How many planes has the Patriot missed? That's what it was built to do.

You think S300 can destroy a warhead more successfuly? Why is this, does it have a magical seeker? ;)

When has the S300 ever been used in actual combat? In GF2, the Patriot intercepted and destroyed all TBMs it detected.

This is a big hoax, The US never land on the moon, it is all made. The US space project was a mess and suddenly they were able to land on the moon, not even talking about the radiation belt that it's protecting earth from which they pass through but the Russian didn't. If we look from Start the Russian had his high and low like the US but not as much as the US and they were the first in everything except that suppose landing on the Moon.

Some specialists (past and today) and Astronauts of that era said that it didn't happen like we saw it on TV, and that it was all made to win the race agains the USSR to show the superiority of the US. Some of them even talk knowing that their live was put to risk. Others less fortunate died in doing it... anyway a topic on that matter was available on Space.com mentioning all the points that lead to believe that it was a Hoax.

You're too deep into conspiracy theories. THe moonwalks are quite well documented, and the 'pro-hoax' arguments have been shot down often enough.

I heard people 'talk even though their lives are put to risk' about Area 51 secrets. Do you believe everything you hear?

Tovan · November 24, 2005

2 dangerous missconceptions 1 one sentence. How efficient of you...:rolleyes:

1)Cheaper also takes in consideration the local economy and standards of living.
2)same tech level? says who? you?:icon_karu

The main Russian BVR weapon is the R-27, Russia hasnt yet have an ARH as the main BVR weapon, when it does it will be at least 15 years late.

It is widely known that Russian planes while with wonderfull aerodynamic properties they lag in electronics considerably.

Some of the upgrades such as the mig-29M/K are not even new. They are in paper waiting for funds for over a decade or more.Even if f they were fielded now, they are already at least late by early 90's standards.

For upgrading the technology level of its export aircraft Russia had to resort to western technology (IAF).

Some Mig-29 SMT and SU-27 SKM(Same tech level as F-16c or F-15e) are actually on the field right now, and a lot more is coming in from refitting the others to these standard to building new one. Su-35 is also on the corner as mentioned on the Pravda even saying that it will be similar to the Rafale concerning the MFD with tactile glove and some other advance stuff. The Mig-35(mig-29 ovt) could also be a good contender in the near Futur.

Tovan · November 24, 2005

You wanna start a pi$$ing contest that you cannot win? Name one Russian missile that has hit anything with any significant success rate in the past 30 years.

ok how about the SA6 who destroyed the US U-2 spying over Russia
or the Russian missile in vietnam that destroyed so many US aircraft.

You take the combat record of the Patriot? Well okay, the combat record of the Russian R-27ER in Ethiopia/Eritrea showed that this missile is at about as lethal right now as an American AIM-7E Sparrow from the Vietnam war - a missile about 50 years old.

* and from which the US still work with!

If you can't accept the fact that Russia is worse off economically than the U.S. since the collapse of the Soviet Union, you are deluding yourself. Money talks, whether you like it or not. If the fact that the U.S. have more F/A-22s in the air right now than Russia has Su-27SMs isn't an indication that yes, Russia is somewhat behind because of economic reasons, I don't know what is.

* I perfectly accept the fact that they crashed and burned, but slowly they are regaining ... the F-22 is not field yet and like the Comanche Project it could be CUT the same is for the F-35, the Americans are so in debts that they will never recover from it which will eventually lead them as their counterpart did in the 90s.

And it's not because they can't field as much aircrafts as the Americans that it means they are less advanced. Research and developpement are still good and as long as they are doing it they wont lag behind!

Can we please get back on topic before this thread gets locked?

what i said that could lead to a thread lock?

Tovan · November 24, 2005

Right ... the METHOD in which this is done has been questioned quite a bit.

The Patriot wasn't conceived as a TBM - the capability was hastily retrofitted. How many planes has the Patriot missed? That's what it was built to do.

* i think none? ,but as far as i know it wasn't use for that even now.

You think S300 can destroy a warhead more successfuly? Why is this, does it have a magical seeker? ;)

* Some videos even some on that forum show to me that at least it can destroy a warhead or drone's nose. Not necessarily, but maybe better build for that purpose.

When has the S300 ever been used in actual combat? In GF2, the Patriot intercepted and destroyed all TBMs it detected.

* But again how much missed the warhead? and don't forget that Scud or Scud variant are not a challenge in theory to a State of the Art missile like the Patriot. As for the S300 it may not as for today see actual combat, but at least in practice it show what it can do, and that it's the interception of missile's warhead or Drone's nose in a perfectly manner!

You're too deep into conspiracy theories. THe moonwalks are quite well documented, and the 'pro-hoax' arguments have been shot down often enough.

* From which the Americans are good for. The opposite is also true!!

I heard people 'talk even though their lives are put to risk' about Area 51 secrets. Do you believe everything you hear?

* Some yes and others no, i go with facts and senses. But you should know that some could be very true! it's like saying you don't believe in god or anything you're sure that's true. ;-)

GGTharos · November 24, 2005

Originally Posted by GGTharos
Right ... the METHOD in which this is done has been questioned quite a bit.

The Patriot wasn't conceived as a TBM - the capability was hastily retrofitted. How many planes has the Patriot missed? That's what it was built to do.

* i think none? ,but as far as i know it wasn't use for that even now.

But that's what it's job was.

You think S300 can destroy a warhead more successfuly? Why is this, does it have a magical seeker? ;)

* Some videos even some on that forum show to me that at least it can destroy a warhead or drone's nose. Not necessarily, but maybe better build for that purpose.

A Patriot can destroy a warhead, too. The question is, how well can you do it when the closure is more than mach 5?

When has the S300 ever been used in actual combat? In GF2, the Patriot intercepted and destroyed all TBMs it detected.

* But again how much missed the warhead? and don't forget that Scud or Scud variant are not a challenge in theory to a State of the Art missile like the Patriot. As for the S300 it may not as for today saw actual combat, but at least in practice it show what it can do, and that it's the interception of missile's warhead or Drone's nose in a perfectly manner!

In tests, the Patriot takes out icoming TBMs in a 'perfect manner' too ;)

You may think a scud variant is no challenge, but that's absolutely incorrect - you'll find out why when you realize what problems the spiralling issue caused. You might consider the iraqi scuds 'maneuvering weapons' in that respect. In addition, they were so poorly constructed that they would break up when re-entering the atmosphere.

Do you think that the S300 could better decide which piece contains the warhead than the patriot? ;)

Do you think it could more accurately strike a tumbling or rolling target? I really doubt it.

You're too deep into conspiracy theories. THe moonwalks are quite well documented, and the 'pro-hoax' arguments have been shot down often enough.

* From which the Americans are good for. The opposite is also true!!

Look, this is a very very silly argument to make on your part.

I heard people 'talk even though their lives are put to risk' about Area 51 secrets. Do you believe everything you hear?

* Some yes and others no, i go with facts and senses. But you should know that some could be very true! it's like saying you don't believe in god or anything you're sure that's true. ;-) __________________

You're not going with facts in all cases. Sometimes you seem to be going on lack of facts. :P

BladeLWS · November 24, 2005

Some Mig-29 SMT and SU-27 SKM(Same tech level as F-16c or F-15e) are actually on the field right now, and a lot more is coming in from refitting the others to these standard to building new one. Su-35 is also on the corner as mentioned on the Pravda even saying that it will be similar to the Rafale concerning the MFD with tactile glove and some other advance stuff. The Mig-35(mig-29 ovt) could also be a good contender in the near Futur.

So what you're saying is that Russia is fielding aircraft at the same tech level of aircraft that the US fielded in the late 80's right? :rolleyes: And like someone else said earlier, the US has more F/A-22's in active combat squadrons ready for deployment right now then Russia has SMT's or SKM's. Russia is lagging behind the US in modern combat aircraft by 15 years or more, because of its financial situation, and no one can make an argument against that.

Also the Patriot has been upgraded numerous times since the Gulf War, I think its on its 3rd series now? This is whats going to replace it come 2011, the THAAD http://www.globalsecurity.org/space/systems/thaad.htm

November 24, 2005

Anyone wanna point out where the hell are the stars?

http://www.solarviews.com/raw/moon/apollo11.gif

http://www.oughtred.org/classics/display-apollo11-6642-hires.jpg

http://astro.ysc.go.jp/apollo11-seismometer1.jpg

http://dunamai.com/images/Apollo11-earth_from_moon-large.jpg

"How did the pictures come out perfect? How did they photograph the sun when today's most advanced telescopes can't?"

I pitty the pathetic fools who believe this shit.

I rest my case.

D-Scythe · November 24, 2005

I pitty the pathetic fools who believe this shit.

I rest my case.

What case? That you can't spell "pity"?

November 24, 2005

Anyone wanna point out how come I see less stars in Phoenix than I do the outlying areas? Oh yeah, that light reflected from the ground thing.........

Nevermind, carry on.

I have 5 grand worth of pro camera gear. I can shoot a nighttime shot from my backyard that looks like that, no stars. Then I can change some settings and shoot 3 minutes later from the same spot that has stars. You might wanna know a bit about photography Deathangel before you go off on a rant.

Prophet_169th · November 24, 2005

Anyone wanna point out where the hell are the stars?

http://www.solarviews.com/raw/moon/apollo11.gif

http://www.oughtred.org/classics/display-apollo11-6642-hires.jpg

http://astro.ysc.go.jp/apollo11-seismometer1.jpg

http://dunamai.com/images/Apollo11-earth_from_moon-large.jpg

I pitty the pathetic fools who believe this shit.

I rest my case.

I dont think there are stars, because of exposure time?

muamshai · November 24, 2005

I sincerly hope that someone will not say that "Earth still revolves around the sun".

Sign In

R-77s and AIM-120s

Recommended Posts

GGTharos

golfsierra2

Guest ruggbutt

TucksonSonny

GGTharos

SniperRu

GGTharos

D-Scythe

Pilotasso

Tovan

Tovan

Tovan

Tovan

D-Scythe

GGTharos

Tovan

Tovan

Tovan

GGTharos

BladeLWS

Guest DeathAngelBR

D-Scythe

Guest ruggbutt

Prophet_169th

muamshai

Recently Browsing 0 members