I didnot put a supposition. I put a news item of 1000 Km range.

Well that news from Russian source. You shoud take this with a grain of doubt. And yes, I think that it is possible for an AWACS (either US or Russian) to detect a target at 1000 km. But not a fighter-sized one! A Boeing 747 may be…

Later a refit of the Russian “AWACS’” electronic stuffing was carried out, and the complex became known as the A-50Eh in the improved variant. In combination with very fast operating computer equipment and special devices for suppressing noise being used, the improved radar is able to “see” cruise missiles and airplanes developed with “stealth” technology
Source: 02.02.04, Krasnaya Zvezda

Isn’t Krasnaya Zvezda the official Russian miltary newspaper by any chance? 😀
Well, it isn’t impossible for a radar (even a fighter radar) to detect stealth tagets. The problem is at what distance…In the metioned news (also from a military source, USAF site, I must admit 😮 ) the detection range was to short–the E 3 detected the Raptor after this one simulated firing the missile…

Apart from puting words in other guys mouth,did that amaze you?There are number of radars that can detect stealth targets at long range.And here you simply miss Garry’s point

The radars that alledgelly could detect stealth targets aren’t for sure, airborne ones.

As for putting words in someone mouth, cool down–It was a joke. I didn’t imagine that someone could say that a stealth target could be detected at 1000 km by a airborne radar :p !

Now in a more serious note. The reason I asked about the A 50 compared with E 3, it was not for bashing the Russian plane. Not that I would have any doubt that the American system is better, even by a slim margin–you simply can’t compete with hundreds of E3/E2 (not to metion their ancestors) delivered in the last decades. In this moment there are over 50 E 3s and over 100 E 2s operational around the globe.

But if we consider both planes comparable, and (as I already mentioned in a previous post) the F 22 already “shot down” an AWACS in recent exercise in Alska, it become clear that AWACS will have a dangerous job facing stealth planes.

Let me put it in another way: in your opinion, the A 50 has a bigger detection range than the E 3?

the question is how it can venture into the system and shoot things with medium range missiles without otherside knowing from where it is coming from. upgraded A-50 claimed to have 1000km range and wth enhance passive detection system. dual mode AAMs are entering service. now there is MIG-31 as effective as fifth generation fighter with long range bvr and having the fuel for supersonic cruise.

??? A 50 with 1000 km range??? Double than the last E 3 AWACS upgrade??? Double than the (AESA) Wedgetail??? If it is a joke, that’s not even a good one…

MiG 31 as good as a fifth gen. fighter??? :p

when MIG-31/Flanker radar has 400 to 500 range. so why not AWACS double of it.

??? Not even the Russians claimed such non-sense: for the Bars, the latest Russian radar, the manufacturer claim 120-140 km range… http://www.niip.info/main.php?page=raz_sky_bars

Back to the subject, in the last exercise in Alaska, a Raptor did “shot down” an AWACS… Oh, and most important–the AWACS did not “see” the Raptor!

“The Su-35 is a response to the U.S. F/A-18E/F. They boast similar equipment and combat employment principles, though, the U.S. aircraft is heavier. The U.S. has earlier won the race by fielding better avionics and armament, but I hope it will not be the case with the Su-35,” Klementyev said.

The SuperHorror weghts ~13.5 tons. I can’t understand how the Su 35 could be lighter , considering that the basic Su weights over 17 tons, not to mention that newer engines are heavier!

But I have seen mockups of the ramjet propelled R-77 in ground launch versions as a suggested replacement for the SA-17.

For a mockup contest, what about this: http://sistemadearmas.sites.uol.com.br/not/notjul05.html(3d photo)? :p

Smart submunitions like the BLU-108b SFW carried in the Wind Corrected Munitions Container ( A CBU like canister with something similar to a JDAM tail kit on it ( GPS assisted ) In the form of CBU-105.

Just a small correction: WCMD is not GPS assisted (http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/smart/wcmd.htm;http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/dumb/cbu-97.htm). It is using inertial guidance.

There is a kit developed by LM (http://www.lockheedmartin.com/wms/findPage.do?dsp=fec&ci=13776&rsbci=0&fti=126&ti=0&sc=400) named LongShot that can be attached to WCMD, as well as to dumb bombs, laser guided bombs and even torpedoes. This one is GPS assisted and it uses a very simple method to interact with the plane:

Since LongShot does not require MIL-STD-1760 interface, it is compatible with most fighter and bomber aircraft. No aircraft OFP modification is required to deploy a LongShot-equipped munition. Targeting information can be input via a laptop computer or through an in-aircraft knee pad device that plugs into the aircraft intercom. The knee pad device establishes two-way communication with LongShot via the aircraft’s UHF radio. This provides any combat aircraft without a 1760 smart weapons interface to have immediate, long standoff, and affordable precision strike capability.

That’s better than JDAM: it can be attached on many weapons, it provide long-range (over 50 Nmiles for a 1000 lbs. weapon) and precludes costly A/C modification.

IIRC, in a Textron video about the Sensor Fuzed Weapon (CBU 97), they claim it would leave a “clean battlefield”.