How could you possibly have the info to make these kind of statements?

Do you seriously believe the I.44 from the year 2000 had more capable avionics and propulsion than today’s Su-35? What could the 1.44 airframe do that the Su-35 aerodynamic design can’t do?

So let’s take those examples (acknowledged by Russia I assume?). Was this publicised at the time?

I don’t think so, it was still the Cold war after all, but in the Gorbachev era.

I am curious to know if the world knew that the SR-71 had impunity up till that point

Against an aerial threat, an interceptor – perhaps. Against a ground launched missile system, I don’t think the American military believed that the SR-71 had a chance against any of the latest Soviet air defence systems such as S-300.
The US army could probably have shot down the SR-71 with a Patriot missile, so there would have been no doubts what the Soviets were capable of doing.

This is probably one of the very first 5th Gen fighter:

[ATTACH=CONFIG]232174[/ATTACH]

I don’t see what that aircraft has to offer that coudn’t be provided by today’s Su-35, or even some other Su-30 variants. Even the MiG-35 could probably give it a run for the money.

I think we get into the world of the theoretical here, as I understand it both Russia and Israel both looked into and planned to use what was in effect a computer timed Ground Controlled Intercept (GCI).

Such computerised GCI has been around since the 1950s, F-102, F-106 etc, basically the interceptor pilot had his hands free – the computer on the ground automatically guided the plane to the pre-calculated intercept point. But it was always expected that the intercept target would be subsonic – significantly slower than a century series plane. USAF F-15s and USN F-14s had a hell of a time catching up with Iraqi MiG-25s in Desert Storm. Normally an interceptor is expected to fly at a faster speed than the target – an SR-71 could be up to Mach 0.6 faster than the MiG-31.

Here is an article from Ares discussing the first real world exposure of the west to the MiG-31:

http://aviationweek.com/blog/foxy-woxy-wows-paris-0

I found this bit particularly interesting, along with some of the comments after the piece:

“The MiG-31 had been primarily designed to stop low-flying B-1s and B-52s armed with cruise missiles, but — as Fink reported — it was still intended to intercept high-speed, high-flying targets. Officially, there were no such things by June 1991, the SR-71 having been retired the previous year. But oddly enough, a few years later, MiG pitched an export version of an improved MiG-31, the MiG-31FE, with the claim that it could defeat targets flying at Mach 6 and 140,000 feet -– and named that target Aurora.”

Does anyone have any thoughts or experiences similar to those contributors ?

Can the MiG-31 intercept and shoot down Mach 3+ targets? When was this proven?

What types of target drones capable of simulating aircraft flying at mach 3.4 were used when testing the R-33 missile?

Still operational: Slovakia. Poland, Bulgaria, Serbia, Czech Republic and Germany (now flying in Poland), Ukraine, Belarus
Retired: Romania (2003), Hungary (2010), Moldova (90s)

You might want to reconsider that statement..

Most MiG-29s delivered to Eastern Europe (not including the former USSR) in the 1980s and 1990s are certainly not flying anymore.
I presume most of these countries will continue to fly the MiG-29 until their engines have exhausted their operational hours or need major overhaul?

It is not common knowledge (except in your planet perhaps?).

There are many VKontakte and twitter accounts out there, some indeed represent the separatist regime in Eastern Ukraine, some even its leaders. It’s not like the separatists have their own official “Tass” style news agency. I suppose that in any official enquiry into the shootdown of MH17 it would be difficult to use such social media as evidence.

These have been proven to be false from months and months ago.

Who are these people who have proved the identities behind the various Twitter accounts – and how did they do it? Why should we believe them?

You’ve contributed nothing except an attack.

I wasn’t attacking you personally – just your logic.