Soviet solid-fuel rocket technology lagged significantly behind the US. The R-39 solid-fuel rocket which arms the typhoon is 16 m long, 2.4 m in diameter and weighs 90 tons! Compares poorly against the Trident D5 (13m, 2.1 and 58, respectively, if I remember correctly).

Hardly fair – The R-39 was test firing nearly 10 years before the Trident D5…

Wrong conclusion. The military are clever enough to have the boundaries of present or future technology in mind. For the simulations it is no problem to add the missing percentages in performances. Maybe some simulated SAMs have surpassed the real thing, which entered service right now or in the coming years.

Don’t forget, things like the S-400 will have been designed with the F-22 in mind. Its a never ending cycle of meeting and beating the other guys innovations.

I’ve no idea which would ‘win’, but I do know that its easier to upgrade the radar and fire control on a SAM than it is to further reduce the RCS of the F-22. Simple design limitations say that, so it might not be unreasonable to expect SAMs to progress faster than the aircraft they are facing up against.

I wonder do they use a kind of enamel to protect the actual surface itself?

Would kinda make some sense, but I’ve no idea about RAM.

I am not for the guarantees but against it!! What i am trying to communicate is that the S-300’s and 400’s have not been tested against the raptor and JSF like jets let alone the B-2 etc etc..

Yet you lot are perfectly happy saying:

“oh, F-22 + F-35 + B-2 will happily fly along, drop their bombs on the baddies, who all die and then fly home to van halen”

It works both ways. F-22 etc hasn’t been tested against S-400, nor has S-400 been tested against F-22.

One thing is for sure, its easier to upgrade a SAM platform than further reduce the radar cross-section of an in-service aircraft (especially one designed for low radar returns from the outset). So if the F-22 etc have an advantage, it can only be eroded over time, the F-22/F-35/B-2 will never get “more stealthy” (for want of a better term) but the S-400 can have processor upgrades etc to enable better discernation of aircraft among clutter.

That smells like a rather major redesign to me.. The only question would be – does such feature attract more export customers in the extent that it’s worth putting money in? The answer is loud and clear – no.

It would only need an extension to the duct length I think, to allow the trailing edge effects of the ‘spiral plate’ to dissipate into the flow before the compressor/fan face.

Ah ****, just realised, the ramps for variable shocks would need fixed – damn… well, I suppose they could use the same bleed idea that the F-22 has.

But I thought the Su-37 was for Russia as an interim until the PAK-FA comes about. :confused:

Range of SDB is more like 40-60 miles.

Fair enough, but a gliding bomb from 60 miles?

Depending on what the radar filters are set at it might not achieve much surprise, and the fragmentation cone of a pukka SAM is bound to remove alot of them.

1. You lot are assuming they can get close enough to launch SDBs while remaining undetected – doubtful to be honest.

From here:http://www.af.mil/news/airman/0106/00_PDFs/48-49_Bombs_and_Missiles.pdf

I’d guess at 20-30 miles, do you want to be within 30 miles of an S-400 or equivalent? If they cannot get close enough to launch, no SDBs.

2. The systems that ‘counter’ the SAMS have been designed, and are flying (F-22 and F-35), their radar signatures are dictated by their shape and internal structure, which is now fixed. I don’t see how they are going to ‘counter’ SAM development without jamming support and its questionable whether that would work within 30 miles. There are also home on jam missiles for that kind of threat.

3. Due to fears over casualties, it would come back to the normal – saturate and overload the defence with low-level tomahawk cruise missile strikes.