Then Russia should also deny selling the system to Turkey, given they are a NATO country.
Their concern is related to the friendly attitude of Turkey towards Russia or against the S-400 exactly? Your point would mean that Turkey is not a trustworthy ally.

Yes currently, they clearly don’t seem as trustworthy as Israel or UK or Japan..etc
The buying of S-400 could mean a start of friendly relation between Turkey and Russia

they are perfectly ok with them buying Patriots and the rest of the hi-tech catalog, as far as they don’t buy the S-400. So the problem is the weapon itself it seems. A system they were also bitching about in regards of India, even when they buy countless other weapons systems from Russia.

Patriot isn’t Russian made, so obviously it won’t help strengthen the bond between Russia and Turkey. Besides, Russia was also bitching when US put missile defense system around Europe, it kinda common practice for both sides to limit the influence of their rival.

To me modern Russian SAM systems are perceived as a threat of first order to the Western interventionism and hence both fought by US and sought after by countries that feel threatened. But we can pretend all is normal regarding US reactions to this system

It is a normal reaction, you just prefer to think otherwise
It is not like Russia have a different reaction when the situation is reverted

MOSCOW — As American and allied officials celebrated the opening of a long-awaited missile defense system in Europe with a ribbon cutting and a band, the reaction in Russia on Thursday suggested the system had raised the risks of a nuclear war.

Russian officials reiterated their position that the American-built system imperiled Russia’s security. But the public discussion in Russia was darker, including online commentary of how a nuclear confrontation might play out in Europe, and the prospect that Romania, the system’s host, might be reduced to “smoking ruins.”

“We have been saying right from when this story started that our experts are convinced that the deployment of the ABM system poses a certain threat to the Russian Federation,” the Kremlin spokesman, Dmitri S. Peskov, told reporters in a conference call.

“Measures are being taken to ensure the necessary level of security for Russia,” he said. “The president himself, let me remind you, has repeatedly asked who the system will work against.”

The United States has asserted that the anti-ballistic missile system would protect only against “rogue” states, particularly Iran, and provide no protection for either Europe or the United States from Russia’s far larger arsenal of nuclear missiles.

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/13/world/europe/russia-nato-us-romania-missile-defense.html

Russia Warns Czech Republic, Poland On Missile Defense
Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov today reiterated Moscow’s concerns.
“We are seriously concerned about plans to deploy elements of a U.S. missile-defense system in Europe and the critical situation that threatens the Conventional Armed Forces in Europe Treaty,” Lavrov said.
“NATO’s enlargement, which is undertaken despite the assurances we were given previously, does not help strengthen trust either. We are also concerned about the advance of the alliance’s infrastructure toward the Russian border.”
Nikolai Solovtsov, the commander of Russia’s Strategic Missile Forces, said on February 19 that Russia may withdraw from a 1987 treaty with the United States limiting short- and medium-range missiles in Europe if the U.S. plan goes ahead.
Solovtsov also warned that hosting the U.S. shield could make the Czech Republic and Poland targets of a Russian missile strike.

https://www.rferl.org/a/1074816.html

Russia cries foul as Nato activates missile defences in Europe
Tensions between Russia and the West rose still further on Thursday when Nato declared that a missile defence site in Romania had become operational.

A battery of American SM-3 interceptors, designed to shoot down incoming missiles, was activated at Deveselu military base. A similar facility is due to become operational in Poland in 2018.

Only a handful of interceptors will be deployed at the two bases, enough to protect Europe against attack from a country possessing a small arsenal of nuclear missiles. The missile shield would be of minimal use against Russia, which has about 300 inter-continental ballistic missiles on land and scores more deployed on submarines.

Nonetheless, Russia claims to sees the missile defence plan as direct threat to the deterrent power of its own nuclear arsenal.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/05/12/russia-cries-foul-as-nato-activates-a-missile-defence-shield-in/

E

are those missiles 700kg class and single fighter can carry multiple of them to Mach 1.5 speed. there is no point of carrying high speed missileif it inhibit fighter from going supersonic.

Funny that you would say that since Flanker can’t carry multiple Brahmos nor can it reach mach 1.5 with multiple Brahmos light
about your question
AARGM-ER is small enough to be put internally
[ATTACH=JSON]{“alt”:”Click image for larger version Name:tB9BC16DF-4D74-43BE-BD41-269030BF0780.jpeg Views:t1 Size:t53.9 KB ID:t3847158″,”data-align”:”none”,”data-attachmentid”:”3847158″,”data-size”:”medium”}[/ATTACH]
ASM-3 is pretty small also

[ATTACH=JSON]{“data-align”:”none”,”data-attachmentid”:”3847159″,”data-size”:”medium”}[/ATTACH]
Rampage:
[ATTACH=JSON]{“data-align”:”none”,”data-size”:”medium”,”data-attachmentid”:3847161}[/ATTACH]

sparrow series are bigger but they have far longer range and better speed than Brahmos and KH-31

already show you current warhead size is sufficient so they are making bigger warhead.

You haven’t

the largest single missile system programeme for strike called Brahmos only interested in increasing speed not making it slower.
with current technology Brahmos can fly upto Mach 5 in newer version. but higher speed than that will need new materials and engine.

hypersonic Brahmos hasn’t finished developement yet and it isn’t the biggest missile program either

Sure its not used used as a firing solution but the information provided from OTH radars can be provided for classification purposes

.
The point is the resolution of OTH is simply too low, you can’t even distinguish individual aircraft in a formation, let alone classify individual missiles/decoys
even with a beam width of only 2.5 degrees, at 2000 km, your resolution cell is a circle with 87 km in diameter, pretty much only useful for early warning

True that there is a blind range but there are multiple hops at different angles that will provide coverage for those blind spots. See attachment.

.
There is a limit to how close you can hop (because otherwise your wave can’t bounce back), it called the skip zone, when you have a blind spot 800-2700 km in front of you, even if you magically classify and distinguish decoys and missiles before that, it is pointless.
[ATTACH=JSON]{“alt”:”Click image for larger version Name:tOTH radar.PNG Views:t1 Size:t164.4 KB ID:t3847005″,”data-align”:”none”,”data-attachmentid”:”3847005″,”data-size”:”full”}[/ATTACH]

Provide me a source that shows the MALD has low altitude capabilities like the Tomahawk. Your telling me high and low altitude like “”””””any”””””” cruise missile is also wrong. The Delilah missile is considered a cruise missile but has absolutely no characteristics of it being low altitude..

.
Do you understand why Tomahawk fly at very low altitude while Delihah doesn’t?
It has nothing to do with the aerodynamic or engine of either missiles but rather the fact that they added an altimeter on Tomahawk so that it won’t fly into terrain while fly hugging the terrain while Delilah is a search and destroys loiter munition so flying extremely low doesn’t benefit it, because you want sensor coverage.
As for source on low altitude flight and MALD

.MALD-X is a new version of the MALD-J missile developed by Raytheon. The collaborative project aims to demonstrate an improved electronic warfare payload, low-altitude flight and a datalink that will allow the weapon to communicate with other net-enabled systems.

.
https://www.shephardmedia.com/news/d…d-x-completed/

.
the MALD-X will have an improved electronic warfare payload, the ability to carry out low-altitude flight and an enhanced net-enabled datalink. Raytheon was awarded $34.8 million by the USAF to develop a new version in 2016.
SCO says it plans to conduct additional tests on other enhancements to the MALD-X next year.

.
https://www.flightglobal.com/news/ar…l-flig-451403/

The Navy said in April it is aiming for early operational capability of the MALD-N on the Boeing F/A-18E/F in 2021, and initial operational capability in 2022. The turbojet-powered, jammer-equipped decoy is able to fly for 90 min. or 500 mi. after launch to draw fire away from the fighter and suppress air defenses.

MALD-N is expected to have some or all of the advanced capabilities demonstrated in two flights of the MALD-X conducted in August by the Pentagon’s Strategic Capabilities Office (SCO). The flights tested an improved, modular electronic-warfare payload, data link and low-altitude flight capability

.

http://aviationweek.com/electronic-w…jammer-us-navy

Even original basic MALD can fly down altitude of only 600 meters above the surface
[ATTACH=JSON]{“data-align”:”none”,”data-size”:”large”,”data-attachmentid”:3847007}[/ATTACH]

[USER=”77292″]LMFS[/USER]

if US had more to win than to lose through the operation of both systems together, they would not be bitching so much, whatever the reason they don’t feel comfortable at all, despite gaining access to S-400 intelligence.

Except they don’t have more to win, no one wants to give tech sensitive equipment to an “allies” who appear that they will have a good relation with your rival. Their concern is easy to understand.

is also remarkable how several “allies” of US try to get access to an anti intervention insurance in form of the S-400, and the lengths they go to buy it, essentially pissing off US as hard as it gets… really remarkable indeed

such as?

the Tu-160 is fast it’s also very large and easy to detect and track. As a matter of fact the US and NATO would know the second they take off and track her the whole way. Which, means they’re in a very good position to intercept them. While, the Russian Bomber is unaware…

Irrelevant, since Kh-102 range is allegedly longer than combat radius of F-35, like i said, modern interceptor can’t intercept bomber before they launch their missiles

That would depend on the profile and many other factors. Nonetheless, that would also apply to any fighter not just the F-35.

yes, that why i said speed and fast take off time is not as useful to interceptor is they used to be, since you can’t catch the bomber before they launch their missiles

[USER=”37608″]JSR[/USER] The only correct part in that is slow speed, the rest is incorrect.

relatively small payload

Brahmos warhead is 300 kg
LRASM warhead is 450 kg
JASSM-XR warhead is 450 kg
KEPD 350 warhead is 481 kg
Storm shadow warhead is 450 kg BROACH

predictiable flight profile of 1000km missiles

On the contrary, subsonic missiles have ways more unpredictable flight path since it is easier for them to change direction and they can cruise at lower altitude.

make them easy intercept

Unless if they are stealthy which pretty much a common feature for modern long range cruise missiles
Besides, a single strike aircraft like F-35 can carry 6 subsonic cruise missiles or more, while even a Su-30 only carry 1 Brahmos

cant used against real time targets.

Unless if they have 2-way datalink, which is available on LRASM, JSOW-ER, JSM and many others cruise missiles

only Brahmos has high speed S curve high speed dive feature so India implementing it on Su-30.

S curve is not a unique feature of Brahmos, it is quite common on anti ship missiles
and if you want high speed, you can also use aargm-er asm-3, rampage, silver/blue sapprow

[USER=”64730″]Marcellogo[/USER]

At cost to be pedantic,comparison was between the max AB speed of the F-35 with the maximum supercruise speed of F-22,, so almost in case of the Typhoon and Gripen the same didn’t apply.

Typhoon top speed is Mach 1.8, or barely 42 km/h faster than f-22 supercruise speed, you can pretty much apply the same argument about F-35 top speed for Typhoon top speed, yet it is still used in interception role
https://www.raf.mod.uk/aircraft/typhoon-fgr4/

And the mine’s own was to remind you that similar high load arrangements, highly debatable also when it comes to A2G missions make absolutely no sense at all in an A2A one, in any of such missions, so let’s imagine on an interceptor that as a general norm took off with a very limited payload in order to reach its own mission quote and speed a.s.a.p.
Because it seems me that the thing that somewhat is missing there is a certain dose of historical memory: on how such missions were performed, what were the real performances requested to an interceptors (of better said to the different forms such formula has took as time go by) compared to a standard fighter, on how and why a tail-on engagement was always the preferred form of approaching bandits, of how A2S missiles work and so on…

It depend on the requirement of the mission, in the 50s-60s, you need your interceptor to take off quickly and fly fast so they can reach and intercept bombers before they can drop their nuclear bombs, then in the 70s you want your interceptor to have very long range missiles so they can shot down bombers/strike aircraft before they can launch their own missiles. Nowadays when even fighter can launch missiles from 1000 km away, these requirements become rather questionable.