Inability of smaller missiles? have you looked at other products of ktrv and compared there ranges/weights with MBDA products. Start with newest Kh-35.R-73 lesser range is because it was deployed 12 years ahead of Mica. and there is no incentive to improve its range beyond 40km. there is no reason to do that.

the new R-74 have shorter range than mica too:)
BTW i dont think russian have anything equal to brimstone , jagm , SDB , SDB II , Spear , NSM , ..etc
however they do have superior supersonic anti ship missiles

1sqm standard?. never heard of that standrd. how about ships in the same pix. Irbis is target acquisition range. not just search.

1-use google
2-acquisition range = detection range # track range
3-ship in the pic of AWACs is a destroyer , in the pic of Irbis-e = aircraftcarrier
4-AWACs use L-band = target RCS is bigger than in case of Irbis-e use X-band

missiles are not as much draggy compared to raised second cockpit, exta weight of canards, 10% extra weight, 12% weaker thrust of Su-30.

the weight may be the same but the missiles clearly more drag than the raised cockpit and canards

5 years from now, both Su-35S and Pak-Fa will operate together. They will support each other on many different missions, just like we see F-22, F-35 F-15C/E does.

The Pak-Fa cannot carry such large awacs killer missiles internaly, hense, its better to mount it on Su-35S. And let the Pak-Fa follow in its wake with Passive sensors. It would be a nasty surprise for any other fighter wings escorting AWACS/Tankers/Bombers if they chose to intercept.

btw how much missiles can the t-50 carry internally ( also what kind of missiles will it carry internal ? ) , if iam not wrong i read some where that T-50 can carry KH-31 and KH-58 internally as well 😮 ( i know it sound strange but it really can )

It has been stated on this thread that R-37 was designed againist targets maneuvering up to 9Gs and will be integreted into Su-35 eventually. If you are talking about now, Rafale is not cleared to use Meteor either.

R-37 was never designed for target maneuver 9 G , stop making up number

. For example it has been tested up to 12Gs but its still a 9G fighter, with further peacetime limitations reducing it to 8.5 to 7.5Gs.

this doesnot really show anything :pairframe can stay 12 G but human can only stand 9G

An AESA can do that -in theory- by varying the frequencies on independent T/R modules, so each pulse will be below the threshold of EW. Care to explain how LPI works on RBE-2 *PESA*? In the end to get a higher resolution, radar will have to use more power from the *SINGLE* Transciever, and while reading/interpreting via multiple reciever modules is efficient, from RWRs point of view, its no different than a mechanically steered dish radar. I doubt LPI on a PESA will even work at extreme ranges againist Rafale or Su-35’s RWR.

i agree with this

You really have no idea how the jamming works. The second Rafale activates its jammer, even N001 on Su-27 (let alone Irbis) will know its being jammed and automatically switch to HOJ mode. This will give bearing (azimuth and longtitude) about where the source jammer is, but no range or vector data.

Su-35 pilot on this situation will activate his own jammer and he will simply blind fire a on HOJ mode. Even R-27RE is capable of this however this brings some drawbacks: on HOJ mode, missiles cannot lock and fly in a ballistic trajectory, as source aircraft cannot provide mid course updates (because it doesn’t know the range to target), pilot could either give an estimated range, which is highly unreliable, or could configure the missile to follow a linear path to target, rather than ballistic, trading perhaps 2/3 of the effective range.

However, as Su-35 has switched on his ECM, Rafale would be in same position. Irbis has far superior power output, and will likely to burn thruogh jamming more easily, and if Su-35 pilot happens to have a missile with 400km range, a simple, non-ballistic shoot would be pretty lethal as R-37 would be homing passively to the jammer, no RWR warnings until MAWS see it.

Lets say, relatively low RCS.

SPECTRA’s single jammer vs a radar with 6600 mm2 array area and 20kW power output,

2x KNIRTI SAP-518 jammer pods plus 1x SAP-14 centerline jammer vs 2800mm2 sized antenna and 3-4 kW power output.

If you really believe former has higher chances of success than you are alone in that assumption.

deceptive jamming ( different from noise jamming) is not very affected by different in power 😀 ( they can even use it to jam ground radar )

Ramjet is not a magical design, its just another type of engine. Kh-31s are ramjet, for example.

it have advantages vs normal engine in term of cruise , terminal speed and maneuver , however it much easier to be detect by IR , and i dont think it can operate in super high altitude like 100000ft

JSR: your argument is one of the most convoluted and nonsensical I’ve had the misfortune of reading. It seems entirely circular but diminshingly so and about issues that have nothing to do with the original points raised by you or the quite sensible responses to those points.

For example, Meteor was mentioned as an advantage for Rafale, you questioned the range, awacs support was mentioned and the fact the the range of the missile wasn’t representative of the testing done on the gripen, you mention the vulnerability of awacs, the ongoing usefulness of awacs was mentioned, you mentioned rcs, the lower rcs of the rafale was mentioned, you say but not compared to the awacs. None of your comments actually related back to the previous comment and we end up trying to nail jelly to a tree.

So congratulations, you have actually managed to make BlueWings seem like a sensible and coherent poster.

+1
totally agree