It is lack of investment in Soviet manufacturing and IT that led to such end products. Nothing do to with design of aircraft. The same MIG-35 can carry 50% more fuel of MIG-29 but still weigh the same with 6500kg weopon load and Mach 2.25 speed which F-16 cannot reach.

A Mig 35 won’t see M2.25 in combat either.

Two Russian Tupolev-162 strategic bombers — each capable of carrying 12 cruise missiles armed with single 200-megaton nuclear warheads — carried out exercises in Venezuela last month.

:eek::rolleyes:

I’m gonna have to raise the BS flag on that one. Exactly how large are these cruise missiles?

Export product shows progress of Industry. since US is not allowing export of F-22 but Russia will create Twin engine, long range, supercruise, Super manevorable, multirole export 5th generation fighter. It shows alot confidence. Similar is the case of Su-35. 400KM range radar for export. Russian officials always remind that export products performance is down graded. Iskaner-M has different range, stealth characteristics, end game manevourability and seeker with real time communication from satellites and UAVs.
I only mentioned that under poject 810 Vympel is creating longer range followup of R-37M. Simlar is project 610. etc. Russia always retains combat edge in sensore, weopons, EW etc. Kh-31PM and Kh-31PMK ring the bell.

I don’t doubt that certain performance aspects are downgraded, but I find it hard to believe that every single piece of equipment, and all of their components are all downgraded. Or that by reverse logic that one can assume that there are automatically huge performance increases of all pieces of equipment that are for Russian use. In other words, perhaps a sensitive system is detuned 5, 10, 20 percent, but I seriously doubt that the Russian equipment is 100 percent(or more) better in terms of kinematics, detection, etc.. This isn’t the Cold War and Warsaw Pact/Soviet client states countries. This is-if you’ve got money, we’ve got weapons time.

This things are for export thats why they showed it at Paris show. For Ruaf missiles they wont be discussing.

I see.:rolleyes:

It may be for new missile. larger than R-77 but smaller than R-37. They are increasing the range of new R-77 three to four times. so larger seeker with bigger FOV is needed.

Here’s the important take aways that I read in that article.

“We have a 350 millimeter [13.8-inch] seeker in addition to the 200- millimeter and the new 150-millimeter model. They are all the same basic design, but as we move up in diameter we add larger antennas, which provide for more range.”

There’s no mention of the missile that the 350mm seeker is going into. I guarantee you it won’t be an R-77 at 13.8 inches in diameter.

Another important tidbit-

“Since the performance of any active-radar sensor is related to the aperture size (area) of the antenna, the reduction in antenna diameter that results from the smaller antenna of the 9M-1103M-150 inevitably means that the maximum lock-on range of the new seeker is less than that of the larger 9M-1103M. Against a target of 5 m2 radar cross-section, the new seeker has a maximum lock-on range of 13 km, while the larger 200 mm-diameter seeker can manage lock-on at up to 20 km range against a similar target.”

What do you suppose the lock on range against a target in the <.001 or .0001 RCS would be? <1km? .5km? .1km?

The next question you need to ask- how far away will the F-35/22 pilot be able to detect the incoming missile(especially after its seeker goes active)?

One last question- can you point us to the source that says the R-77 is getting a 300-400% range increase? It certainly wasn’t in that article.

True, but can you prove superiority with that? No you can’t! That’s my simple point not more not less. Of course you can interprete the things your way to make the point, but the medal has two sites.

The Raptor’s requirements were for M1.5 supercruise and M1.8+ top speed.
We know that both of those were exceeded by a good amount, but we’re supposed to think that the F-35 will barely meet its requirements(or do worse)?

For a good reason. You guys only compare the F-35s basic config to make your point, but refuse to compare it in other configurations where the F-35 might not be that excellent.

The likelihood of the F-35 getting 4 kills(or 6 once the new launchers are installed), is higher than a non-LO aircraft getting 8 or more kills. You can’t automatically assume that fewer weapons(in VLO mode only) means less effective.

The inlet-system is the limiting factor of the F-35, when it comes to speed and nothing else. At least, when the chase-planes are with ETs and the real TOW of the F-35A not quoted. 😉

I’m pretty sure that the test pilots have taken these things into account, when they’ve made their remarks. Otherwise they might say that it flies much better than an A-7, which is what many here are inclined to believe is more indicative of the performance levels.:cool:

This comes directly from a LM document

It doesn’t say combat load or anything else. Though the same document claims >590 nm combat radius. So we basically can assume a higher max range, but the document doesn’t say so. It’s not new that initial range data are often much lower (published) than they actually are. So far we can work with that data only however and make assumptions at best.

I think it’s safe to say that if the max range really were 1200 miles, then the combat radius wouldn’t be 590-600 miles, unless the plan was to run out of fuel on the way home. The spec sheets tend to be on the conservative side.