Yes, it was fired at a distance of 228 km. That is right there in the article. Why you aren’t getting this is beyond me.

And the MiG-31 cannot shoot down SAMs or AAMs no matter what statements you fraudulently misinterpret to make it seem so. They’re talking about “antiaircraft missile systems”, meaning missile systems designed to shoot down aircraft. He differentiates these things from “aviation”, meaning that they are not airborne. That means some sort of surface to air system.

Those were old tests though. The latest version can shoot down SAMs/AAMs from 600-700km.:D

Wow – and this continues. There is no definitive source on the net – about any of this. Nothing definitive about the SM either – whether its lighter or has any higher TWR – yet they say its been strengthend – which would make it contradictory by logic – and it gets taken as Gospel – that is then forced down our throats – which then leads to star49s next set of assumptions that the next RuAF product will be 50% better…..

No, no, no….using old Russian technology they were able to improve products by 50%. Now that they have newer technology, all improvements are at least 100% better in every way, and in the future it’ll only continue to improve.:D

Seems to me that in coming years all the advantages of the F22 will be achievable using UCAVs and long range stand off weapons.
The F22 is never likely to be used to defend the US mainland and i cant see where it fits in really , air superiority can be easily achieved by the US against 90% of countrys using “conventional” fighters such as F/A18 / F16 / F15 + B2s etc.
The Russians PAK-FA is vapourware at the moment and if the US had to attack them it would probably lead to a nuclear war anyway , the F22 wont help here.
When the F35 comes into service it really compounds this imo.
Im not picking on the F22 either, the EF can be justified because UKs Tornados are not fighters they are interceptors.
In fact looking at the other 4+ gen fighters deployment they are all justified.

If the USAF has to fight, they don’t want an even match against their foe- they want complete dominance, and FAST. Su-30/35s will pose a huge challenge for 4th Gen fighters, with potential for significant losses. This is especially true if the foe also has S-300/400 or other modern SAMs. The F-22(and F-35) offer first day of war capability in a high threat environment, that no other current aircraft could survive in(at least not without a huge amount of supporting assets). Survivability and flexibility, combined with significant advantages over would be foes is certainly a pretty good justification. The problem is that they’re not being bought in sufficient numbers to keep costs down.

320km lockon range was achieved in 1994. u can expect closer to 1000km lock on range now. missile was fired 8km height. Here low altitude is considered 2km and high altitude as 16km. range difference is 400% between 2k and 16km height. u can assume that from 8 km to 20 to 22km height MIG-31BM can boost the range by atleast 100% for 600km intercept. and that would be without further increasing speed or using missile with newer technlogy.

we are not talking about 80s era missile. Here missile that hypersonic targets cannot escape. Aircrafts have very little chance to escape..

Everthing is directly proportional to money. and there is no point to put customer stuff on brochures.

That was in the past. Now Sukhoi is implementing TVC for supersonic speed. Sukhois are masters of aerodynamics. They have alot more credibility than anyone else.

Wow, just wow. Apparently the laws of physics don’t apply to Sukhoi or the Russian air force. What is your standard for determining credibility by the way?

MIG-31 shot of 1994 was only from 8000m height. Why 18 to 22km height should have the same range. and what about all technology developments of past 15 years? so ur assumptions are clearly wrong.

You’re the one making specific claims, so the burden of proof is on you, otherwise they are pure speculation. Without knowing the most advantageous launch profile of the missile, I can’t comment on which altitude is optimal, though I’d expect additional range from higher altitudes. I don’t assume that a 200-400km increase in range is a reasonable estimate though.
Perhaps 15-30% improvemnt might be more realistic.

These are general specification for export customer nothing to with even real performance for customer who pays the money. for BARS and Zhuk-ME the range is only 120 to 160km but real life performance is way higher than that. only who pays for this thing will know the real performance.

So if I understand you correctly, if I’m a customer who pays more money, I’ll be able to detect an F-22 further away than 90km?:rolleyes:

TVC can change front end attack into tail chase rather quickly. When pilots have the confidence there jets can dodge long range BVR shot they will be more agressive in there tactics. Ruaf cheif has alot more credibility than anyone else when it comes to fighter matters. Just look at idea behind hight altitude/high speed/Conformal LRAAM carrying MIG-31 (It is not F-14/F-15 with limited fuel capacity). And that was fro 1960s. similar look at space program. and those were from times when they were far behind in computer and industrial technology. Now no such hinderance interms of money or equipment to pursue the most outrageous ideas.
Russians are very good in managing big things effectively and efficiently for very long time.

This makes no sense at all. TVC helps at low speeds, and high angles of attack, when the wings can’t produce enough lift. It’s also helpful in maintaining optimal trim at high speeds. IT IS NOT for high G supersonic manuevers, and doesn’t add additional ability to outmanuever a missile at BVR. It most certainly doesn’t help you get into a tail chase at BVR.
Why does the RuAF chief have more credibility than anyone else?
I suggest you look up the words subjectivity and objectivity, and learn the distinctions.

we were told by iraqi engineers who trained in russia that a 45 second mach 3+ flight would mean a re-engine so flight was limited to 2.8 i personally never seen 3 my best was 2.75 chased by 2 jordanian f-16s and guess who won!

Don’t let Firebar hear you talk such crazy talk, as he’ll do his best to convince you otherwise.(i.e. Mach 3 for 30-40 minutes):D

I highly doubt EF has 0.1sqm RCS and It wont be getting Meteor untill 2015.
Meteor is 100Km to 150km class weopon. Nothing on scale of 400KM that Su-35 is getting. It can guild 4 semi-active missile at ranges greater than 300KM. 400KM IRBIS is for Export Su-35. Su-27SM2 is more likely to be in 500 to 600KM class lock on range. Just like difference betwee Su-27SM & SK.
It will even able to shoot hypersonic missiles just like MIG-31BM so incoming AAM will be shoot down. It is radar power that will make lock on almost anyting flying in air possible no matter what , RCS, height and speed. Radar raw power is the key. Su-35 has standard wingtip ECM system. It is much larger aircraft so large amount of electronics can be fitted inside it. It has 3D TVC and very extensive used of titaniums as compared to aluminium/composites. so supermanevorability at any height and speed is possible without breaking airframe It has higher top speed, fuel so it can engage and disengage from battlle field at will. EF is not in that league and it was duly mentioned by Test pilot of Sukhoi that only MIG-31/F-22 can be compared to Su-35. F-18E is close competitor but not equal. the rest does not matter.

Assuming the AAM has a 400km ballistic range, the NEZ will be considerably less, especially against a manuevering target that’s using ECM. It doesn’t matter how long the range is though, as what’s important is how far away the host fighter can detect its target. This determines the optimal effective range of a missile, as you can’t shoot what you can’t see. The fact that the SU-35 has 3D TVC is irrelevant in BVR, and only moderately relevant in WVR. It has a higher RCS than 2D, which is why the Raptor wisely went that route.
I wouldn’t want to bet the farm on shooting down incoming AAMs, especially if there are multiple incoming AAMs, assuming that the Flanker is even aware of them. Lastly, I don’t think that you can (ass)(u)(me) that the RuAF Irbis will have a detection range increase of 200-300km, unless the standard of proof is that “anything” is possible. You also have to take into account that the LO/VLO is supposed to be effective against ground based radar as well as fighter radars, and the ground based radar has considerably more power, and antenna size, than any fighter.