I just re-checked my archive and more acuretly basic PAC-3 has range about 15km; MSE has about %50 percent more and MSE’s range is about 22 km. PAC-3’s max speed is 1700 m/s and MSE’s will be definetly more (because of more powerful engine) which means better ABM capability.

But inorder to hit Low Orbit Satellites the missile must reach at least 300km!

Sorry that wasn’t Aviation Week but Jane’s..

Here is what they say:
“An unconfirmed report in 1992 stated that the Russian Federation had converted some MiG-31 ‘Foxhound’ aircraft to carry and launch an anti-satellite missile, similar in concept to the US ASM-135 system, but based upon the AA-9 ‘Amos’ missile. It was reported that this system had been tested since 1987 and that several MiG-31 aircraft were modified with wing leading-edge extensions and tip-end plates to improve stability at high altitude. It is assumed that this programme will be held pending any future ASAT tests by the US. A further unconfirmed report in 1996 suggested that a number of AA-9 missiles had been modified for use from the MiG-31 aircraft as a ballistic missile Boost Phase Interceptor (BPI). However, further reports in 2000 indicated that this project had been terminated as no adequate performance could be achieved. In 2004 an unconfirmed report suggested that modifications were being considered to existing ICBM and SLV for use as an ASAT system in an emergency. In addition, a separate report indicated that the Russian Federation were researching fast burning solid propellant motors to use in a new interceptor missile, that could be used as a boost phase interceptor against IRBM and ICBM. This would be similar in concept to the US Kinetic Energy Interceptor (KEI), which is planned for use from ground and ship launchers. In 2006 Russian reports stated that proposals had been made to re-start the development of the KS-172 and R-37M (K-37M) long range air-to-air missile programmes, and that these missiles could be fitted to upgraded MiG-31 and the new Su-35 aircraft. In November 2006 Novatur displayed a K-100 long-range AAM, which was stated to be an improved K-172. This missile had a length of 6.0 m, a body diameter of 0.4 m, and a launch weight of 700 kg. It had a 50 kg HE focused warhead, inertial navigation with a datalink, a two-stage solid propellant motor, and an active radar seeker. K-100 was reported to have a range of 400 km, and to be able to intercept targets at up to 30 km altitude. Whilst there was no mention of this missile being used as an ASAT or BPI, the capability would appear to be there, if required.

“

RS-24 with MIRVs is going operational next year.

Russian design bureau eyes 2009 for RS-24 ICBM service

David C Isby Correspondent

Yuriy Solomonov, director and general designer of the Moscow Institute of Thermal Technology KB (Design Bureau) for ballistic missile development has outlined an accelerated programme to get the multiple-warhead RS-24 intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) into the hands of the Strategic Rocket Forces as early as 2009.

In a late-June interview with the Russian weekly Voyenno-Promyshlennyy Kuryer (Military Industrial Courier), he identified the two upcoming RS-24 flight tests scheduled for the last quarter of 2008 as the “the most important stage of research and development work” on the programme. If these flights are successful, development trials will be concluded and “our new job will be in the framework of the arms programme: transferring what we’ve worked on into the troop units, beginning next year”.

In the interview, Solomonov stated that the RS-24 was designed to be able to operate even if opposed by “full-scale employment” of missile-defence systems, including space-based systems, kinetic-energy systems and laser weapons.

He made no reference to the controversial Bulava (SS-NX-30) submarine-launched ballistic missile (SLBM) also being developed by his bureau. Bulava is undergoing an accelerated test programme that has resulted in a number of failures.
© 2008 Jane’s Information Group

I think the aircraft that had first true beyond visual range attacak capability (I mean air to air) must be ground breaking fighter. By the way which aircraft was first in true BVR engagement?

Think a moment that American government or military decided to naval F-22, so what would have left for Boeing? Nothing… Russians make mistake while they always support to Sukhoi. Competetion makes innovation.

There is nothing magical about Link-16. Link-16 is quiet simple, slow data-link, but European-American fighters may enjoy worldwide SATCOM network via SATCOM terminals; I think Russia have similiar capability but I am not sure the network is advanced as Western ones.