Point is that the article excerpt you quoted nowhere justifies F-15s/F-16s being hapless and gunned down by Raptors as a given, which your statement seemed to support, as compared to the skeptical vein in which I had first raised it.

By the standards referenced above, I could show you many cases where “X” type got gunned down by “Y” type, in some cases wherein Y was inferior to X. A Su-30K gunned down by a MiG-21 Bis..does this imply that the Su-30 is hapless?

My simple point is that if a F-22 closes in to WVR, its an indication something got messed up or the F-22 force is fighting with their backs to the wall. The obscene cost of the aircraft is entirely for its stealth, high flying and long range BVR battle capability. Not for creating the most nimble dogfighter, because in WVR, “everyone dies at the same rate”, as the saying goes.

I agree the if the Raptor is flown correctly/smartly, then BVR is where the main fight will be. Where I disagree is that it isn’t deadly in the WVR too, though it’s assuming greater risk by getting into that realm. I don’t think it’s a huge assumption to think that late model F-15/16/18s with their avionics, would not provide reasonable indications of performance vs. Russian aircraft.

that was MIG-31 performance 30 years ago. no one knows exact MIG-31BM performance. Russians are very good in airframe improvements. just like they did with flanker. u have no evidence of Mach 2.42 for raptor.

That claim came from the chief test pilot, and I suspect he has a better understanding than you or I. The only evidence you provide me is your opinion. You’re not a Mig-31 pilot by any chance are you?

MIG-35 is weight class of EF with increase fuel capacity. u cannot challenge official Sukhoi statments.

Where did the weight savings come from? They didn’t just shave 10,000lbs off.

F-18E/F
Empty weight-30,564lbs
Loaded weight(in fighter configuration)- 47,000lbs
Max Takeoff weight-66,000

SU-35
Empty weight-38,600
Loaded-56,660
Max Takeoff-76,060

So if weighing 4 or 5 tons more is in the same weight class, I could see how they might claim such a thing.:p

Why u put outdated links from 90s. the new BM program started from 2003 just like Su-35 program from 2003. (nothing to do with old 90s Su-35). There is no such thing as multirole in operational sense.

Well then provide me with some links to current information, if every link that doesn’t legitimize your claims are invalid.

Apparently your definition of speculation is any claim made by someone other than yourself, whereas you’re merely making reasonable assumptions.:rolleyes:

That whole “6th Generation” business by Boeing; Boeing’s advertising is so hilarious they might as well just send spam mail to everyone’s emails.

I sincerely doubt Boeing even has a clue what a “6th Generation Aircraft” means when the 5th generation just came out.

If I’m not mistaken, the “6th Generation” aircraft is supposed to have stealth against a wider band of radars frequencies and other types of sensors, as well as a 1000+ mile combat radius, among other improvements over 5th Generation.

So a gun kill against “one” F-16 translates to some kind of uber capability in WVR?

For all we know the F-16 pilot wasnt checking his six as he ought to have. And what was it, a Block 25 Viper?

Not exactly a Super Flanker either.

And yeah, the latest bunch of digital receiver equipped RWR’s/ESM gear could have the ability to detect LPI. Given the RMA in COTS tech thats been underway, its only likely that the Raptors LPI radar is not going to give it a Romulan screen forever.

That was just an example, not the only occurrence during exercises. I’m not sure what Block variant the F-16 was, but I have no reason to assume that it was a -25 vs. a -40/50/52. My point was that it got close enough for a gun kill, undetected. We can speculate about the LPI, but were I a Flanker pilot, I wouldn’t want to take it for granted that I’ll know the Raptor is present. I also wouldn’t take for granted that every F-15/16/18 that the F-22 has trained with has less than the latest gear on board. Maybe some don’t, but I wouldn’t make any sweeping generalizations, or assume that a Russian pilot would have any more situational awareness given the same conditions.

At least the Fullback is currently being equipped with a phased array radar. . .

The -Es are gonna get AESAs at some point, along with 173 -Cs.
Even in it’s current configuration though, I haven’t seen any complaints about the performance of the APG-70.

Again the supersonic performance gap between F-16 & F-22 is less than what is between Su-27& MIG-31. (which is exactly twice for non-upgrade version of MIG-31) can luanch missiles at speeds& altitudes. And there is law of increasing returns in missile case. heavier missile has bigger motor and fuel & it is more likely to be doulbed in range than lighter missile. Here we are considering Very long range missile not long range or medium range missile.

– you’re assuming that the F-22 isn’t using afterburners to reach it’s top speed, in which case that supersonic gap isn’t significantly different between F-16/F-22 and SU-27/MIG-31 is negligible. The F-22 can fly faster the the -31 with a combat load of missiles(Mach 2.42 vs. Mach 2.35) and at similar service ceilings.

-you’re still making claims that not even the Russian missile companies are making, and with no evidence other than your opinion. Show me a link where they claim 600-700km in range.

-heavier missiles are also usually slower, less manueverable(the Sparrow was several hundred pounds heavier that the AMRAAM, but with half the range or less).

No one has published performance of upgraded MI-31. Sukhoi was improving drastically performance of Su-27SM with lighter avionics and new engines which gave it 4000km range. So the same is sure done with MIG-31BM. so no need to extrapolate 3 decades old figures.

Is the Flanker faster now, or just more efficient? Again, you’re making assumptions that aren’t supported by anything that can be verified. Avionics weight isn’t gonna have any significant effect on the top speed or range(note I said significant).

F-15C cannot have greater top speed as it does not have fuel to sustain that speed. external fuel tanks/CFT increase weigth and put limitations on performance. Which is not the case with MIG-31. F-15 airframe has hit the law of dimiishing returns in terms of performance. even TVC will add substainial weight to it. It aint Su-35 with 3D TVC and increase internal fuel but less weight than original Su-27.
u can see clearly the difference. Missile for export aircraft is shown but not for MIG-31BM. only people are speculating. ur looking at missile which easily can exceed range of S-400.

Internal fuel increase weight too. CFTs don’t hinder the top speed, as they’re not draggy like a drop tank.

The only person I see speculating here is you. I can’t clearly or easily see the range increases that you’re claiming.

Note the key words. here only MIG-31BM can engage hypersonic missiles and smallcruise missiles. before it was cruise missiles. Radar performace has been enhanced to different level.

I didn’t see any claims with the word hypersonic. It said “successfully engaging missiles including an enemy’s small cruise and supersonic vehicles.”

– the enhancements are that it has air to ground capabilities too

this clearly show MIG-31 upgraded started later than Bars. Antenna is 250kg vs 100kg for Su-30.

The fact that the MIG-31 has a heavier antenna/radar than the SU-30 is relevant how? You’ve been making a big deal about how the -31 is lighter now than earlier variants so its missiles obviously have twice the effective range as a result.

The KS-172 has never been fielded(and it never claimed the ranges that you’ve been saying), so you can leave this out of the discussion. Let’s deal with equipment that is in production and operational. I haven’t seen any sources saying that the R-37 has been operationally fielded either for that matter, only that in test firings it engaged targets at 300km.

where i said 100s of km. AIM-120C from F-22 will produce double range of F-16 at high altitude.

I dont pick and chose. I am providing u correct context. In 90s Su-27 could at most fire 120km range missile when MIG-31 was approaching 300KM. Now it is Su-35 with 300 to 400KM. So why Missile of MIG-31 should have the same range when MIG-31 performance is drastically improved due to engines and lighter avionics. Only Russian aircraft have lost weight. F-15E is not likely to be better than F-15C as it is heavier. S-400 missile is alteast 300KM for 1800kg weight but it takes enormous resources to take into height above 22km where MIG-31 can launch missile at those heights with Mach 3 energy.

I’m not sure that the AIM-120 from an F-22 will be able to travel 2x the distance that it would from an F-16, but even if it can, you can’t extrapolate that increase in the manner in which you’re doing. Let’s just say for the sake of argument that the AIM-120 from an F-16 can reach 50km, and from an F-22 100km. That is twice the range, but……you’re seeing a 50km improvement. You can’t then use that to say that an R73 will increase from 300km(from a Su-27) to 600km (from a Mig 31). Realistically you might get 350-400km(a 50-100km improvement), but not a 2x increase. The take away is that you can get another 50km or so increase by flying higher and faster, not that you can get 2x the range.

As for the R73 vs. S400/500, it is true that it is advantageous for a missile to be fired at Mach 2+ at 60,000ft(the -31 isn’t flying at Mach 3 or much higher than the figure I gave) vs. from the ground, but let’s look at the size of other aerial weapons that have a 600-700km range, and the size of the R73 vs. an AIM-120, Meteor, AIM-54, etc… when trying to establish a realistic figure. You still have yet to show any source other than your opinion for the ranges that you’re claiming, and I’m not gonna accept as valid.

I never mentioned the F-15E. I said C vs. A(the air superiority versions). I’ve never heard any claims that the C has a higher top speed just because it has newer and/or more powerful engines. All the BM variant adds is that it is more flexible, having both A/A and A/G capabilities.