JSR

Russia can throw alot of money into single projects if its necessary to acclerate things. If they found that Meteor is more effective. they are going to spend boat load of money in a there own missiles which no one in EU can match on project by project basis.

Right so we’re now hearing from you that Meteor cant be as effective as claimed as, if it was so good, Russia would have had it first?. I think I’ve just caught on, a bit late, to why no-one else is responding to you.

It is unlikely that Metor gets 50% more range than R-77SD with identical weight.

So your answer is now to simply deny what every source, including manufacturer and objective references, state is the general range for the weapon?. What do you base this on JSR?.

RVV-BD has been in tests with MIG-31 upgrades for long time. The same maker of radar for both Su-35 & MIG-31.
IRBIS has another feature of guiding 4 semi active radar missiles at ranges greatert than 300km. so there is presumption that autonomous seeker will not be effective against counter measures. and since RVV-BD with large motor will have higher speed along with higher speed/altitude of Su-35 so it can reach the target much faster. that gives flexibility to Su-35 turn around much faster from incoming missiles at great ranges. bottom line is there is more likely hood of Rafale shot with Meteor being missed if it is launced from ranges greater than 100km. so Rafale cannot do much even if it knows Su-35 location.

So what you are saying is that semi-active missiles guided by Irbis are needed to defeat defensive EW and Meteor is going to be useless for the same reason. At the same time though the active seeker RVV-BD will be capable of outranging Meteor and downing Rafale before it could release.

Those two comments do contradict each other you are aware of that?.

Paralay

Missiles for the PAK FA should be ready in 2013. Probably missile for the Su-35 are ready, but we are still not reported.

So your view is that there is a ‘secret’ missile, that will be production ready this year, ready to offset the BVRAAM NEZ advantage enjoyed by the Meteor shooter?.

To me I’m afraid neither of the comments seem very convincing and the summary of this thread, to date, seems to be that, to stand a chance against a Rafale/Meteor combination, the Su-35 has to:

a) carry the large and expensive RVV-BD and be willing to expend them on tactical fighters. Even then the question remains as to what the limits of RVV-BD actually are and, using R-37 as a guideline, there is no certainty that in direct flight profile it actually has a significantly superior NEZ to Meteor.

b) rely on its EW capabilities to defeat incoming Meteors while hitting maximum velocity to close to RVV-SD NEZ.

c) attempt to manoeuvre pull/push Rafale into depleting its fuel so that it can try and race in to RVV-SD range when the Rafale turns for home/tanker. Hopefully doing so before the Rafale turns and shoots it in the face with the superior BVRAAM.

I’m afraid that none of those options do much to impress me as to the colossal superiority of the Sukhoi.

Indeed Trident I’d not disagree that the weapon, RVV-BD, would be noteworthy. I just have some hesitation believing that such a weapon would be stocked and deployed as a standard loadout weapons system akin to the way a service stocks and deploys R-77, AIM-120, MICA etc. It seems a bit more silver bullet at cursory glance.

I look forward to hearing a bit more about the weapon in due course as well. I understand R-37s extreme range performance was loft-profile burn and coast. The direct flight mode range limit was much more in the Meteors range bracket. I do wonder whether RVV-BD can do 200km AND 8g terminal phase angles and dangles at the same time or if its 200km+ loft and 8g terminal in direct mode.

Jo

Either way, the Su-35S is still going to spot the ‘dirty’ (RCS compromised) Rafale @ ~300km, which will give the former valuable time to impart kinematic performance to its RVV-SDs

Fair enough. I’m not sure you can make the assumption that lack of ramjet development in the US/Russia means that the weapon provides only marginal advantage. The Americans, for example, had LO to allow them to close to AIM-120’s NEZ and had little official interest in a weapon that could give a non-stealth type a similarly decisive edge over a similar adversary. The Russians were meant to have tested a ramjet variant R77 but funding seems to have been a challenge?.

I’m not quite certain that the ability of the Su-35s radar to detect Rafale at 300km, Spectra allowing, is any kind of advantage when, as stated, its hard to conceive of the merge that isnt AWACS directed on both sides. The merge should be a case of who gets into the correct missile firing position first and with a far superior NEZ Rafale has to fire first. I’m not sure I can conceive of tactics that allow the Su-35 to get RVV-AE/SD shots in first?. If Su-35 is in the Meteor NEZ at kinematic max range for RVV shots it is in trouble.

Su-35S would get first look- the Rafale would be in a whole heap of trouble out to a range of 300km, but the Rafale would get the first shot with ‘Meteor’ (at least until the next gen. Russian missiles reach service)

Interesting Jo. Anyone who operates a type as advanced as either of those mentioned has AWACS. Certainly the current and purchasing nations of Rafale posses airborne surveillance radar platforms.

First look should therefore go to the side with the smaller RCS fighter (or, to be balanced, the stronger airborne radar I suppose!)….wonderful as I’m sure Su-35 is its undeniably bloody huge!. Whilst size doesnt necessarily describe RCS it is, without significant design attention, a principle factor. Is there any reliable detail about signature attenuation efforts employed on the Sukhoi design that might mitigate its size disadvantage?.

I accept the point that the Su-35 will have a significant EW suite (as does Rafale with Spectra of course) but we have to accept that, if the only thing that the Su-35 driver can do is light up his jammers and pray he gets to RVV-SD range, then advantage is very definitely with the French jet in the BVR merge isnt it?.

Little to do with the fighter of course. Put Meteor on the Sukhoi and RVV-AE/SD on the Rafale and the tables turn, but, thats not the reality of the situation is it?!.

Looking at this one the old axiom that ‘better bullets win’ seems relevant. The mantra, simplistically, being first-look, first-shot, first-kill, plugging these types in it seems hard to get round the Rafale/Meteor combination getting first shot in any plausible merge.

Is there a Russian air-air weapon that offsets the French fighters BVRAAM edge?

Until the ‘official’ announcement today, the mob could just as easily have had nothing, so it would be better for them to have this in mind before grumbling about what they have got.

No the important part, to their Admiraltynesses, was always the ships…get the ships and the planes bit can always be fixed later. If F-35B tanks and we end up STOBARing Sea Gripen or whatever I’d doubt they would be at all mindful of the difference!. Provided overall cost to deploy the capability doesnt exceed the current budget and start to cut into T26 it’d be neither here nor there I’m sure!.

Am I right in thinking that there are a lot less hangarage facilities at Wittering in comparison to Marham, in fact the whole site is smaller is it not?

Smaller site indeed but are we looking at a large force of F-35B’s(?) and some sizeable fraction of their number are going to be elsewhere for much of the time. To reverse the question could it be optimism that Joint Force Dogs-Breakfast will be able to fully replace Tonka force at Marham?.