This decision, if it is actually a decision and what we are seeing is a float of the decision in the media before anything official is announced, is very much in favour of F-35 for the long term replacement of the Hornet in Canadian Service. After all, the Libs won’t be in power when that decision needs to be made anyway…
It wasn’t libs in power for past 10 years . And certainly not libs made Canada basket case. what prevented them buying F-35 among the first?.
It is also the best way to alleviate the risk posed by the obsolescence of their classic hornet fleet. The 35 won’t be available in time without a drastic reduction of flight hours. Imagine them willing to commit to a large coalition. They would have to balance the homeland security on a tricky manner.
This is a mature decision (realistic) given the past history records of that country (procurements). We can be glad this happens now before being too late. Also, this will certainly boost the relations b/w Bombardier and Boeing at a time when tighter relations b/w them on the civil market for example can enhance both their positions.
I don’t think however that this is the end for the 35 in Canada. As said above, it will all depends of the size of their initial order. If moderate, it will pave the way for Canada to operate a dual fleet: part for foreign interventions (SH and later 35) and part home defense (18c with reduced fleet hours and then SH). A high and low fleet.
Obviously, we don’t know for sure, but anything new will be very well welcomed by their aircrew. A wild guess only!
Once Canada knows the export price of F-18E it will practically abandoned it.
this programme is too late for F-22.
fighting these with Su-24 alone is not very effective. high altitude bombing for disepersing them and than 8 to 10 attack choppers to pick individual targests with guns/rockets.
Iraki has mastered it.
With respect to R 77 (RVV-AE) if will be carried out a comparison of this early 90’s with those new generations about the max range:
width: 700 class: grid align: left [tr] [td]Missile[/td] [td]Range(Km)[/td] [td]% Increase[/td] [/tr] [tr] [td]R 77[/td] [td]80[/td] [td]*[/td] [/tr] [tr] [td]R 77-1[/td] [td]110[/td] [td]37,5[/td] [/tr] [tr] [td]K 77M[/td] [td]200[/td] [td]150[/td] [/tr] In fact between the first generation from R 77 and the third generation K 77M it has been increasing the max range in 150% since 1994, when it came into operation the first R 77.
However just a detail that may be important in this increasing range could be obtained by the replacement of the lattice fins for the delta fins , once this system were introduced in the first R 77 and it has been keeping with R 77-1 in order to increase the maneuverability like I had explained in the other thread on these posts bellow:
The ARH R 77-1 has been equivalent in range as R 27ET/ER/EP, while the first R 77 from 90’s had been equivalent in range with R27T/R/P.
However there are some information that R 77-1 will be introduced in MiG 31BM, then I have presumed that if the same will be fired by MiG 31BM in high supersonic speed and high altitude the max range of R 77-1 could have been increased to something like 160km or even 180Km.
Anyway there are some reports that the new K 77M will enter in operation with the MiG 31BM, as well as there are different information that even the R 77-1 also goes into operation with T 50 (PAK -FA) along the new K 77M.
Just it could be such possibility that one version of R 77-1, for the Su 30SM and Su 35S or even the MiG 31BM, as those lattice fins will be replaced by delta fins with less aerodynamic drag like the new K 77M , then its new modification maybe increasing the max range from 110 Km to something like 160 km, but this will reduce the capability in maneuverability if will compared with the legacy R 77-1.
Anyway there are some information’s that the new K 77M will go into operation with the MiG 31BM, as there are different information that even the R 77-1 also goes into operation with T 50 (PAK -FA) along the new K 77M.
This can be quite confusing in the fist view, however the fact is that: there are such huge difference between the concept of the standards it has been adopted by the US and the system adopted by Russia.
While the West countries has been standardized into single range from BVR missile since the decade of 80 like the AIM 7M and others, and it has been keeping this concept with the AIM 120 and others until today. The former Soviet Union had been introduced a complete family of BVR missiles like the R 27 in two versions with short-range and long range, and it appears that Russia has been keeping this concept since the end of the Soviet Union.
these are all export R-77 missile ranges so your numbers are not accurate.
this is the indirect hint of missiles ranges Su-35 is designed for more than a decade ago. 4 AAMs at ranges greater than 300km guidance. I will estimate this R-77-1 is atleast 180 to 200km for Su-35 performance aircraft.
http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php?topic=622.0
RLSU “Irbis-E” can locate and simultaneously track up to 30 aerial targets with the retention of the continuity of the survey of space (track while scan), ensure the simultaneous fire of two targets with two rockets with semi-active RGS and up to eight targets by eight rockets with active RGS, in such cases to four targets at the distance of more than 300 km.
It’s the lighter electronics and more fuel capacity. Lighter materials in manufacturing. I fully expect R-77-1 range between 160 to 180km. After all tmc managed to double range of kh-35/kh-31 while maintaining same weight.
From where you got R77-1 range?.
It’s the official manufacturer’s claim, nothing more I can add. There is no mention about export model..
These are all export models. R-73E/R-33E/RVV-AE. no one put those figures for domestic models.
what they say about Su-34.
http://www.uacrussia.ru/ru/aircraft/lineup/military/su-34/aircraft-specific/
RVV-MD has a maximum firing range (front hemi-sphere) of about 40km, that is quite similar to IRIS-T, ASRAAM, Python-5 or AIM-9X
That is published figure for export model just like RVV-BD is truncated to 200km for published figures.
more relevant here. the missile is practically a medium range AAM.
http://sputniknews.com/russia/20160602/1040652483/russia-military-air-to-air-missiles.html
Hmmm?
The chaps at Piagio, the Italian and the UAE Air Forces might disagree.[ATTACH=CONFIG]246252[/ATTACH]
These things are not cheap considering there unreliability. low payload, slow response time and certainly not autonomous. Pilotless does not mean autonomous. and without autonomous these UAV/UCAVs have very low operational value. They cant be developed on shoe string budget.
http://www.defensenews.com/story/defense/policy-budget/industry/2016/06/01/piaggio-aero-drone-uav-mediterranean-crash/85241316/
Piaggio Aero Drone Prototype Crashes in Mediterranean
In March, the United Arab Emirates signed a €316 million (US $352 million) contract to purchase eight of the UAVs, which are based on Piaggio Aero’s manned P180 twin prop business aircraft
I think the emphasis is more on killing the right guys, Avoiding collateral damage and immobilizing only the right amount of resources…
you are assuming Ruaf is not hitting the right guys /avoiding the collateral damage. Any Russia intervention whether in Irak /Afghanistan will be a lot more successfulll as they created the weopons / training and credibility built over decades. and certainly not bogus GDP that make decisions dysfunctional.

This is nonsense comparision. No one was competing with Nato in Afghansitan. In Syria-Irak theatre US led coalition has to perform otherwise all the groups will move to Russia. ISSI will either be eliminated or dump on Turkey/Saudi lap but that is 2nd phase of fight.
https://www.middleeastmonitor.com/20160517-iraq-demands-more-kornet-missiles-from-russia/
Iraq demands more Kornet missiles from Russia
2nd phase bargaining is still left.
http://sputniknews.com/military/20160601/1040590153/russia-military-defense-syria.html
Russian Military Puts Syrian Experience to Use Upgrading Planes, Missiles
Wrong!
The UK requirement for a new BVRAAM missile was not issued until the early 1990s, and industrial bids were requested in December 1995. The development contract was not issued until 23 December 2002. So Meteor is the youngest BVRAAM missile.
when UK was inducting Tornado Russia was inducting Fulcrum/Flanker that can land on carrier. UK requirements make it by itself obsolete.
I already pointed out using the most aerodynamic efficient EW pods on Flanker with most powerfull electric.
Full-scale development of AMRAAM started in 1981.
Work on the R-77 series started in 1982.
Development of the Derby started in the early 1980s.
Full-scale development of MICA started in 1987.
Development of the Izdeliye 172 started during the 1990s.
Development of the Tien Chen II and PL-12 (SD-10) started during the 1990s.
Meteor may not be a ‘magic weapon’, but it is unique in that it remains under power all the way to impact, burning the last of its propellant as it reaches the target. This maximises its manoeuvrability.
development time line has nothing to do with how the end product will perform 30 years later. The counter measures against Meteor will be the same what ever is against anyother missile. firing it from aerodynamically weak platform take away all its paper advantages.
http://sputniknews.com/russia/20150615/1023369522.html#ixzz3taQpP8qa<