Google “Non Sequitur”.
1 – There´s one single public comment about a suposed “Captor E” heli demonstration, and that was made by a Mig employee, it was never confirmed by any one in Selex, Eurofighter, EADS or the Indian Air Force, i am more than willing to bet that the chap confounded the sea spray work done by Selex with an AESA prototype for the “Phoon”.
2 – Even if it was test flown in an Helicopter what was there to make the underpopulated 680 TRM AESA Zhuk to be “still be more powerfull than heli born radar”?!
There are a bucket load of operational radars flying in helicopters, who are vastly more performants than the Zhuk prototype.
Being “Heli” tested is by no means any indication on capability.
3 – “and certainly pass the minimum range requirements as it was the only radar that full exploited weopons during tests”
What the hell does radar range requirements have to do with weapons release during tests?!
And i would imagine that you had access to Indian Air Force tests reports, did you?
I would imagine that in six contenders only the Mig proposal managed to “fully exploit weapons during tests”, because everyone else is incompetent, dumb, or daft. Undoutebly that the Boeing chaps, with their combat proven, widely used and with a bucket load of integrated weapons, AN/APG-79, didnt “fully exploit weapons during tests”!
your putting irrelevant old pix. even the Zhuk-M equiped MIG-29M from late 1990s have 130km range. now with more power supply and Zhuk-M1 and soonM2 . it is well beyond those numbers in MIG-29K.
that was in 2009. Show me Rafale AESA radar range in 2009?
http://vijainder.sawfnews.com/news/60169.aspx
The MMRCA tender calls for a minimum detection range of at least 130 kilometers (about 80 miles).“We have met this requirement of the Indian tender and built the Zhuk-AE active phased array radar with a proven range of 148 kilometers,” said Vyacheslav Tishchenko, the company’s general director.
The Zhuk-AE can detect aerial targets at ranges up to 148 km (head on) in both look-up or look down modes. Look-up tail-on detection range is 50km (40km look down). The radar can track 30 aerial targets in the track-while-scan mode, and engage six targets simultaneously in the attack mode.
There were nothing in the Mig-35 package that India doesn’t already has with the su-30 mki, so the mig had nothing interesting to bring on the Indian technology wish list.
RD-33MK engines are one generation beyond AL-31FP.
http://www.ums-gaas.com/about-us.php. (Very small revenues for the foundry) and it has partners in Italy/Japan. so i doubt it owns all the IPs.
MIG-35 AESA T/R modules are built by financially sound and multifunctional independent firm.
http://www.micran.ru/english/
India has PESA radar for Su-30MK and that is pretty old PESA.
MIG-35 has alot more upgrade potential interms of materials, larger nose, TVC engines. Even the Canopy of MIG-35 is fully treated unlike Su-30MKI.
The most striking difference between the older F-106 & MiG-31 is that the older F-106A has a whopping 1000 km range
Again provide real operation data with electronic phased array radar (which is the most crucial thing for interceptor otherwise who is going to pickup those stealth cruise missiles and UAVs), and long range missile load. and clarify the flight profiles. and whether ferry range is calculated with External fuel tanks or not. and the end provide data about engine life and upgrades.
Also take into account that light weight cheap engines may have shorter life span and may not even be suitable for 4 to 5 hrs patrol
advantage, while simultaneously costing ~30% to buy & operate, in effect you can afford 3 times as many interceptors,
30% to buy and operate?. Try to put 1.1m phased array radar into nose F-106 and see how its weight increases due airframe strengthenginng. and See IL-76 D-30 upgrades. We can safely assume similar upgrades to MIG-31BM for thrust and life.
and didn’t Good Ole Stalin state that quantity is a quality all by it’s own ?
In this case the quantity is the radar power, missile load, missile ranges, altitude,speed, internal fuel, engine life and engine power need to make it workable.
Amount of fuel is entirely irrelevant unless you also take into account how much it burn, and assuming same engine, the twin engine need twice as much fuel to keep up,
but that didn’t take into account the higher drag inherent of the twin engine design, so you need in fact more than twice the amount of fuel to keep up.
Twin engine does not twice the amount. There is weight, airframe drag and weopon load factors involved. I havent seen a twin engine fighter having twice the empty weight.
consider Su-35 and F-16E example. Two of the most powerfull twin and single engine fighters untill JSF/T-50 enter service.
Su-35 is atmost 17 tons and F-16E is 10 tons. but Su-35 can carry 11.5 tons of internal fuel. so if you load up F-16E with 10 BVR missile and Su-35 with 10 BVR missiles. The effectiveness of F-16E physical performance will degrade much more not mention lack of internal fuel capacity and shorter radar ranges will make it less desirable to combat patrol vast area.
Twin engine fighter is always better interceptor.
There is no logic that twin engines fighters have lower operational top speed and climb rates.
Sign In
