A source for 1m2 at 600 km please? All I have seen is 1m2 targets get picked up at 400 kms.

There won’t be one, but of course it’s a reasonable assumption since just a few years ago they could see targets at shorter ranges.:cool:

The Su-35BM is better than F-18’s APG-79 and ANY F-15/16 but not the F-22 although it’s not FAR behind at all: http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-Flanker-Radars.html

The reason for the 35BM is because the west is NOT going to be purchasing 1000 5th Gen Fighters like many think, so about 300 PAK-FA’s and 2000/2500 Su-27/35’s will be what Russia needs to deal with NATO.

Any F-15? APG-63 (V)3 or 4 AESA? These allegedly can see further than the APG-77 due to the number of modules/antenna size.

The Iraq’s downed a couple back in 91.

Not in A2A. Those were lost to ground fire.

MIG-31 also works in group action mode. Couple of BVR missiles for shooting at E-3 and next couple at destroying incoming fighters & AAMs/SAMs. 500KM AAM is not some odd thing when lauch platform has speed & altitude. 300Km has already been demonstrated 15 years ago and that was agianst much smaller target and far lower altitude of launch platform. thats why they are so confident of LRAAM for Flanker now. and there is Project 810 for ultra longe BVR. (almost 3 times of R-37M). so if they could not do 500 to 600KM BVR they wouldnt be attemptiing of building 900KM BVR missile for PAK-FA.
If E-3 is far away than it has no influence over battlfied. So it will not see the battle picture while MIG-31 can go in & out from radar survellence zone much faster. MIG-31 trains with S-300/A-50. it knows how deal with it.

900km A2A missile?:eek::rolleyes::cool:

Wait till the Russians find out about our intercontinental range AAMs, that can be fired while the aircraft is still on the ground.:D

Flanker can also carry R-77 in conformal way. Infact Su-35 can carry 6 R-77 underbelly and still 2 wing tip jamming pods. Saturn has tested 117S engine to Mach 1.9 in 2004 on older heavier Flanker airframe. There should not be any doubt of Su-35 launching BVR missiles at Mach2 plus. It did supercruise in first flight. I would not be surprized if it reaches Mach 2.5 in final analysis as Su-27SM is rated at over 2400km/hr.
EF does not have capability of quick turn around from head on to tail chase and again head on like Su-35 which has FBW controlled 3D TVC and is not hindered by external fuel tanks. u need surplus fuel to reach to get to required heights and speeds for sustain period of time. As far as BVR missile is concerned Vympel representative have left no doubt from recent airshow intervie that there BVR missile will be chosen which is already developed. So expect 300 to 400km shots.

300-400km shots against large targets like AWACS, Tankers, not against Fighters.
TVC isn’t the only means of getting high maneuverability, so the fact that an aircraft doesn’t have it, or has 2D vs. 3D doesn’t reveal the entire picture.

I find it hilarious that everyone seems to forget that F-35 is primarily a STRIKE aircraft, not designed for A2A superiority, i regard it as a stealthy A7 Corsair II rather than a F8 Crusader or F4 Phantom.

Let’s look at FACTS:

What makes F-22 so superior is lacking in the F-35; supercruise, hypermaneuvrability, high dash speed, high altitude ceilling.

These are fundamentals of the USAF STEALTH conceipt as defined for the Air Supremacy role together with EM and IR stealth (F-35 EM stealth being nowhere near that of the F-22 levels and the latest ALSO lacking in F-35), more to it, the USAF never intended to use F-35 on its own.

All in all i am not surprised than F-35 can loose to a more performant 4th generation air superiority design equiped with 4.5 or better, 5 generation systems, which BTW includes long range/all weather IRSTs…

Part of its requirements though were performance superior to F-16/F-18 in maneuverability, range, and most likely speed. A2A capability was supposed to be second only to the F-22. The A-7 analogy isn’t what they were going for.

Again more assumptions. why u dismiss when i clearly put links and caculates weight for You?
They fly regulary and update regularly and they dont need to reveal inventory.
It is clear that 280Km range missile went into invetory in 1999 MIG-31BM and that is directly from Manufacurers. which is different than MIG-31BM upgrade that went into feb, 2008 because it started in 2003.

http://www.airshow.ru/expo/111/prod_777.htm
The Dopier impulse method of radar signal processing was used while creating the radar and allowed to detect low – and high – flying targets without the radar range loss. Chief designer V.K.Grishin, who took part in solving principal techni-cal problems, put a lot of personal strength, skills and knowledge into elab-oration of the system.
The airplanes and arming system were updated. As to the aircraft, the number of measures was taken, allowing to extend the distance of the flight owing to the increase of the fuel reserve and inflight refueling, . A.I,Fedotchenko was appointed chief designer of `Zaslon` system modernization. The work on the weapon control system consisted of the updating of the semi – autonomous actions of the cover aircraft group with the pro-vision of information transfer to the ground – based autonomous automatic control system, which, with the help of the received data, carried out the target intercept by the fighter, together with the other arming systems. Besides, the problems of autonomous control of the aircraft in the line flight, aircraft control on attack exit were solved; the simultaneous attack regime of one target by the two airplanes was tested; means of crew training were updated. The methods, which allowed increasing launch range, were realized in the system of missile guidance at a target. The modernized aircraft MIG – 31E with the `Zaslon` system was accepted for armament in the Army of Russia in October 1999

I never disputed a 280 or even a 300+ Km range. I do dispute claims of 600-700km which haven’t been claimed in any of the links that you’ve provided. Even with a 300km range, that’s in a head on shot, at high altitude, with a high closure speed, which means that the target will be considerably closer by the time the missile hits it. If it’s a tail shot, and the missile has to chase it down, or changes altitude significantly, that’s gonna reduce the range significantly. If the missile is fired passively, it’s gonna rely on the target to continue emitting, as no fighter radar is gonna lock on at 600-700km, and guide a missile the whole way. Which puts us right back where we started. The AWACS will stop emitting if need be, and change direction and altitude, as well as use self protection jamming/escort jamming, and the Mig will have to get past the escort fighters(which if they’re F-22s, won’t likely know that they’re around, until it’s too late). Thus it’s my assertion that sitting duck isn’t the correct term.