Russian engines also operate in harsher conditions and have a wider operational envelope, ie F-16 = mach 2, F-18 = 1.8, Su-27 Mach 2.3, Mig-29 mach 2.3, Mig-31 mach 2.83, Mig-25 Mach 2.83… B-1B mach 1.2, Tu-160 mach 2, Tu-22M3 Mach 2 etc etc.

Yeah sure… :p

The same engines (P&W F 100) that can drive the F 16 A/B at “only” could drive the F 15 at over M 2.5…The same engines (either P&W 229 or GE 100/129) of F 16 C/D can drive the F 15 E and F 14 at M 2.4-2.5 . The lower speeds on your exemples are imposed by the aerodynamics of those planes, not by the engines…

The SU-30 MKI has entered service in 2004, and will be remembered as first in service fighter with TVC

😮 😮 Wow! Another Russian aviation first! :p :p

The F-22 is not yet in service.
It will enter inventory at the end of this year, if no further delays occur.

I highly doubt that the F 22 (27 of them, not 40;27 is the official number according to http://www.afa.org/magazine/may2005/0505structure.pdf at equipment chapter) are less “operational” than the Indian MKIs. The US have the strictest test norms in the world. As I said in another topic, there were many weapon systems that were “operational” de facto, yet their IOC (Initial Operational Capability) was officially a few years later. In the Gulf war (1991) at least two such systems were used 1-2 years before IOC: AMRAAM (carried, but not used) and Lantirn (this on used extensively)

Compare these two flight control technologies, both with Thrust Vector Control:

-F-22 with 60 degrees angle of attack capability, and
-SU-30MKI with 360 degrees, unlimited angle of attack.

This represents two entirely different classes.

What do you mean? The Raptor can sustain a 60 deg AoA. The MKI can execute a full rotation at very low speed, but I don’t know for sure what is the max. AoA that it can sustain. Certainly is not 360 deg. Because 360 deg AoA means, in fact 0 deg!

yes…

Letting aside Flex’s Anti American rethoric, I must agree with Sfferin; against tanks columns, the most efective weapon is the CBU 97 (Sensor Fuzed Weapon), as shown in 2003 in Iraq. And the F 15 E(K) can carry 12 of these…

By the way Flex, from your posts i see that you don’t know too much about NK threat: let me point that the most dangerous weapons those idiots have are not tanks (Mavericks, CBUs 95, Apache/Cobra-fired Hellfires could handle them) but thousands of artilery systems, MRLSs and ballistic missiles. Against these ones, JDAMS should be very effective…

Tu-22M3.

You can’t be serious for once? 🙂 Tu 22 ?:p

I was talking of fighter bomber!
By the way, in what way is going the Tu defend itself, if attcked by ennemy fighters?

SU-30MKI is the only in service fighter with 3D nozzle. It entered Indian Air Force service. The Russians achieved to perfect them.

IIRC the Su 30 MKI has 2 D nozzles, but they are mounted somehow oblique so the effect is that it has some limmited 3D (yaw).

Your question was why F-15K won in Korea. Due to high prices Americans have to push the things politically. Southern Korea is definitely largely dependant on US help and I could guess that Americans were so kind to ‘politely’ remind this to Koreans prior to their decision. Call it help, call it blackmailing, sometimes these two things become unexpectedly similar.

SK did not request a fighter; they wanted the best fighter-bomber. As far as I know the F 15 E(K) is the best in its class. Name me another plane that can (right now, not in some future “tranche”) carry 11 tons of precission (that means GPS) munitions, to 1000 Nmiles, to defend itself against air & ground threats.

Well, the Russians have been by far less aggressive in the past fifteen years than Americans, same goes for India, Peru and Ukraine, so there is no real career behind the R-77 yet.

By operational cereer, I did not mean usage in war. I meant just this operatoipnal carrer. People tend to overlook the difficulties of implementing a new (and totally different from its predecesors) weapon system like the AMRAAM/R 77.

This has no logic. R-33 is a big and heavy device, not suited for operational use with lighter and smaller aircraft like Su-3x

Su 3x a small aircraft? That’s a good one!.Yes, compared with the MiG 31 the Su is some 4 t.lighter, but the Su is supposed to carry the Yakhont, the KS 172 and other huge weapons, so there would bee no problem to carry the R37.

Why haven’t you stopped missile development after AIM-54 came?

:confused: I am not American, so i don’t know the reason they continue missile developpment after AIM 54 introduction.
QUOTE]1) possibly, got any range figures for comparison of Pirate and latest KOLS version?[/QUOTE]
The Pirate, AAS 42, OSF that use LW sensors can detect a “cold” target from ~100 km. The ATFLIR , Sniper that use MW sensor can do this at ~ 60-70 km (but the advantage is that a MW sensor is less disturbed by moist, smoke etc.). The figure for KOLS is 50 km for a “hot” target (the target seen from behind); the figure for a cold target is far less.

5) good point, certainly an advantage, even if probably seldom used

You must be kidding. If the pilot is not 100 % sure that the target is an ennemy ,he is not allowed to fire!

6) I do not quite understand. What does it mean target ranging in your post?

Target ranging means just that-the range to target is measured.

…says nothing.. AMRAAM’s start of the career was not exceptional, as well. 3 of 4 missed, IIRC

Let’s be serious.Maybe this happened in the test & evaluation period. If 3 of 4 would missed, the AMRAAM would not passed IOC (initial operational capabilty).And IOC was in 1991 and already in 1992 it was fired in anger and smashed a MiG 25 in OSW…

… means nothing in couple of years..

But it means a lot.A logical comparison could only be made between contemporaneous systems. Otherways the comparison would be meaningless; I could say that an F 22 would beat the crap of a mig 15. This is true but it would mean nothing…

… semi-active, so what? if the range is sufficient, where is the problem? what advantage does active have if you cannot shoot?

The advantage of an active missile is that you fire, break, run, return to the target for a minor mid-course correction (if needed); basically you put separation between the incomming ennemy missile and your plane, while the other guy comes straight towards your missile…

… cancelled? really? I wonder what your proof is…

Neither R37 or R 37M is in service.

What really interests me is the end effect. Is the enemy shot down or not? Optical system or imaging array, all unimportant.

But all very important: 1) an imaging array sees at longer distances, 2) it rejects clutter, 3) image enhancing algoritms could be used, 4)tracking function is more accurate, 5) target recognition software could be implemented. Should I continue? OK, if you insist :p : 6) better boresight stabilisation, 7) A-G function as good as A-A function (optic IRSTs like KOLS are useless for A-G bombing). You may add 8)that the last IR sensors come with diode pumped lased, compared with CO2 laser used in KOLS (this means, aside laser designation in A-G, target ranging up to some 40-50 km away compared with 5-10 km as in KOLS).

Wonder why. I got several books at home explaining in detail principles of stealth shaping techniques, principle of RAM materials, how to avoid reflection corners etc. etc. There is nothing really classified in it except exact manufacturing techniques, blueprints etc. If Raptor really had some groundbreaking IR signature suppression features, their principle would be generally widely known today.

basic priciples are known for both RF and IR signature, but this means nothing…