600-700 km now huh? Send it through a few more fanboys and it’ll be up to ICBM range. 😉

I hear that they’re voice activated and thought controlled too, so the AWACS will never know what hit them, as they don’t have any sensors to detect/jam thoughts yet.:cool:

ur google search is providing links based on old information and inaccurate assumptions. Mach 6 speed and 300km is unreliable. Mach 6 is the intercept performance of old R-37. that achieved 300KM range on unupgraded MIG-31 15 to 20 years ago. It has practically nothing to do with current MIG-31BM.
Export Su-35 is advertized with 300 to 400Km range missile and u can see from Sukhoi video AWACS destruction before fighters. Domestic upgraded MIG-31BM is different thing. and MIG-31 itself has better high altitude performance. add to that new engines and lighter avionics with better engine, lighter electronics of missile. Ur looking at 600 to 700 km range shot.

I keep hearing that, mostly from you. Can you provide some sources that back those claims up. I have yet to see any source saying that the KS-172 is an operational weapon, or that it has a 600-700km range against aerial target. As for the MIG’s high altitude performance- that’s not gonna give a missile a 300-400km increase in range over an SU-27/35 firing at a lower altitude. The S-400 doesn’t even have the kind of range you’re claiming for an air to air missile.:eek:

300KM range with missile was achieved 15 to 20 years ago by MIG-31. Now simply double that range. I have posted a link that MIG-31 can launch AAMs at twice the speed of any other aircraft. So that Mach 2.8 figure may not be accurate for enhanced MIG-31 with new engines and lighter avionics/radar.

AWACS will have hard time detecting MIG-31 at 600km. It is the MIG-31 that can detect AWACS at 600 to 1000km. MIG-31 is fighter that has flexibility of going higer or lower to the ground.

MIG-31 can has combat radius of 720km at 3000km/hr with 4 AAM with un upgraded version. It would have no problem in catching AWACS in the air or on the ground. upgraded version are multirole. So expect to see long range ground strikes on AWACS base or provide situational awarness to group of flankers.

You still haven’t answered the question of which air to air missile has a 600km range. You haven’t answered the question of how close a MIG-31 base is to any likely location that an AWACS would be orbiting. You’re assuming all of the optimal conditions exist for the MIG(that it actually can fly 3000km/hr for 720km with 4 AAMs that are large enough to fly 600km). You’re assuming that the AWACS, it’s escorts and EW assets won’t detect the MIG, jam it/shoot it down/etc…. the technical term that’s going on here is known as suspension of disbelief.

just a quick Google search yielded me the following stats, though I’d be happy to entertain any links that you can give me verifying your claims.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MiG-31

“The MiG-31M-, MiG-31D-, and MiG-31BS-standard aircraft have an upgraded Zaslon-M passive electronically scanned phased array radar (PESA) with larger antenna and greater detection range (said to be 400 km (250 mi) against AWACS-size targets)”

“The MiG-31’s main armament is four R-33 air-to-air missiles (NATO codename AA-9 ‘Amos’) carried under the belly. The R-33 is the Russian equivalent of the U.S. Navy’s AIM-54 Phoenix. It can be guided in semi-active radar homing (SARH) mode, or launched in inertial guidance mode with the option of mid-course updates from the launch aircraft and switching to SARH for terminal guidance. A more advanced version of the weapon, the AA-X-13 ‘Arrow’, which is the replacement for the older R-33, features folding stabilizers to reduce its stored size.”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vympel_R-37

“The Vympel R-37 (NATO reporting name: AA-X-13 Arrow) is a Russian air-to-air missile designed as a weapon for the Mikoyan MiG-31M interceptor aircraft. It is a further development of the R-33 (AA-9 Amos). The missile is designed to operate over extreme ranges, in excess of 300 kilometres (185 miles). It is intended to shoot down an AWACS airplane from well-outside the range of any aircraft would be guarding them.”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Novator_KS-172_AAM-L

“The KS-172 was first shown as a mock-up at an air show in Abu Dhabi in 1993, but the poor financial situation of the post-Soviet CIS meant that it was not funded, although flight testing was reportedly done.”

” The KS-172 may have been based on the airframe of the 9K37M1 Buk-M surface-to-air missile. It used a two-stage rocket engine with a flight speed of about Mach 4 and a claimed maximum range of 400 km (250 mi).”

I realize Wikipedia isn’t the end all and be all of research, but if you can provide any links showing that these(KS-172) missiles are now in service, and have a range in excess of 400km, I’d love to see it. Additionally, that range would be in a head on shot under optimal firing parameters, not in a tail chase. I’d also like to see a source citing how far a MIG-31 can passively detect and engage another aircraft. That missile would require mid course guidance updates if it was flying passively, and the AWACS would stop emitting were a missile to be inbound. The missile would most likely have to get within 10-20 miles of the AWACS before its onboard radar could go active, and that’s assuming the AWACS hasn’t changed course, or that significant jamming isn’t occurring.

AWACS is not Gripen or MIG-31 it can be stationed in remote disparesed bases. As it needs proper location which is known. So it is a sitting duck for BM/Cruise missile. MIG-31/Su-34 does not need specialize EW aircraft for strike missions. Electronics for EW have now become compact enough to do the job. E-3 will give huge advantage against third world power but not against first world where every concievble long range missile will be thrown around with much better accuracy and situational awarness. MIG-31 is the only aircraft that shoot hypersonic vehicles. so it is called 5th generation competitor. Better invest in newer ground based radars, UAV, Satellites that has lower overhead cost and massive investment in fighter radars.

Do you seriously believe that a stationary ground based radar is less vulnerable to attack than a mobile airborne radar? An E-3 can use any airbase(or airport for that matter). Any asset is vulnerable if an opponent is lucky enough. What is the maximum effective range of any CURRENTLY fielded missile, that the MIG 31 carries, and how close does it have to be to still ensure a kill, if the AWACs stops emitting? What happens if the MIG is taken out while still on the ground, by a missile?

MIG-31 is equiped with much higher speed and longer range missile. It does not need to get close to AWACS for hit. and when u put friendly aircraft for constant protection u already lose half the battle against equal adversary. It is the high flying UAV, Satellites, and 5th generation avionics in high flying, high speed jets coupled with ultra long range missile that will decide the battle. the same is true for greater than 300km range air to ground weopons that fighters can launch now. and AWACS is much bigger target on the ground airbase it can be hit by next genreration BMs quite accurately. u cannot start or move around like fighter force once it is detected on ground.

An AWACs would always operate in a permissive environment, and with escorts(both fighter and EW most likely). It’s not gonna fly into hostile territory, and it would see the MIG long before the MIG could fire(you’re not gonna see any Foxhounds over Western Europe). What the E-3 does do is give friendly aircraft a huge advantage in situational awareness over an adversary. The volume that the E-3’s radar covers, is immense compared the to much narrower search volume of any fighter. Even if the missiles that you’re alluding to were in service, what is their range if the E-3 stops emitting? You’re also assuming that the MIG is invulnerable while on its mission. It’s not impossible to shoot an E-3 down by any means, but it’s not a sitting duck, if it’s used properly.

AWACS have many times bigger RCS, it is slower and operates at altitudes which makes it vulenerable. AWACS are not needed for 5th generation class fighters. MIG-31 with datalinks is also force multiplier. Every serious airforce is looking because they have weak fighters. for example it will greatly help for Su-24/Su-25 in providing airpicture but no so for Su-34/MIG-31.

I think the problem here is that you have a fundemental misunderstanding of how AWACs are used, and the relative abilities of sensor detection ranges, or the speed/altitude of the AWACs relative to the fighters. No MIG 31 or SU 27/30/35 is gonna sneak up on the AWACs, and if they do manage to get danger close, they’ll have their hands full dealing with friendly fighters, while the E-3 is flying away(and not emitting).

You don’t believe “Defence today” ?

All right. See this:
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/f-22-f119.htm

The fact is that the sevice version design has far more drag than prototype, which achieved 1.57 Mach dry.

The service version has 1.8 Mach max afterburner speed, but it is often mixed with dry thrust speed.

You have to understand the principles of high pressure ratios in jet engines.

Here are a few other links you might want to peruse-

http://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/f22/

http://www.af.mil/factsheets/factsheet.asp?id=199

“The F-22A engines produce more thrust than any current fighter engine. The combination of sleek aerodynamic design and increased thrust allows the F-22A to cruise at supersonic airspeeds (greater than 1.5 Mach) without using afterburner”

” Speed: Mach 2 class with supercruise capability “

Seeing as how you’re willing to use Wikipedia as a source, I’ll post a link.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F-22_Raptor

“Maximum speed, without external weapons, is estimated to be Mach 1.82 in supercruise mode; as demonstrated by General John P. Jumper, former US Air Force Chief of Staff, when his Raptor exceeded Mach 1.7 without afterburners on 13 January 2005.[34] With afterburners, it is “greater than Mach 2.0″ (1,317 mph, 2,120 km/h), according to Lockheed Martin; however, the Raptor can easily exceed its design speed limits, particularly at low altitudes, with max-speed alerts to help prevent the pilot from exceeding them. Former Lockheed Raptor chief test pilot Paul Metz stated that the Raptor has a fixed inlet; but while the absence of variable intake ramps may theoretically make speeds greater than Mach 2.0 unreachable, there is no evidence to prove this. Such ramps would be used to prevent engine surge resulting in a compressor stall, but the intake itself may be designed to prevent this. Metz has also stated that the F-22 has a top speed greater than 1,600 mph (Mach 2.42) and its climb rate is faster than the F-15 Eagle due to advances in engine technology”

wiki references-
http://www.af.mil/news/story.asp?storyID=123009594

Novator KS-172 AAM-L

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Novator_KS-172_AAM-L

Is this missile actually in service though?