Wrong, it got new engines to allow subsonic operations and stay at lower heights. It kept the propulsion system to keep the former high altitude speed capability. Mach 2.35 is not its normal cruise speed, just the max cruising speed. The economical cruising speed is Mach 0,85. 😉

if you are right , i doubt that mig-31 will have slower cruise speed than su-35

before proclaming that Meteor is used by such and such. why not show production standard orders for so many aircraft. Gripen radar range has nothing to do with Meteor?. how convenient excuse. Actually MIG-21bison has 75km range.
http://forum.keypublishing.co.uk/attachment.php?attachmentid=26667&stc=1
older R-77 didnot have 100km range. but around 80km maximum.

btw rafale , f-35 ,ef-2000 and gripen have strong radar too , and there is nothing wrong with prepare for future , your excuse is so dumb ” because gripen have short range radar now so meteor can’t have long range ????” and you also eliminate the use of AWACs for no reason

NOAR AESA (JAS-39 C/D PLUS, post-2013)

For RCS 0.0001 m2 class target: 10~11 km+
For RCS 0.001 m2 class target: 18~20 km+
For RCS 0.1 m2 class target: 56~62 km+
For RCS 1.0 m2 class target: 100~110 km+
For RCS 5.0 m2 class target: 150~165 km+
For RCS 10.0 m2 class target: 178~195 km+

Source: http://www.defence.pk/forums/air-warfare/94948-radar-ranges-different-fighters.html#ixzz2PJnVF22v

RBE-2 AESA (Rafale F4, post-2012)

For RCS 0.0001 m2 class target: 11~13 km+
For RCS 0.001 m2 class target: 20~23 km+
For RCS 0.1 m2 class target: 62~73 km+
For RCS 1.0 m2 class target: 110~130 km+
For RCS 5.0 m2 class target: 165~195 km+
For RCS 10.0 m2 class target: 195~230 km+

Source: http://www.defence.pk/forums/air-warfare/94948-radar-ranges-different-fighters.html#ixzz2PJnw6cf6

APG-81 AESA (F-35A/B/C)

For RCS 0.0001 m2 class target: 16 km+
For RCS 0.001 m2 class target: 28 km+
For RCS 0.1 m2 class target: 90 km+
For RCS 1.0 m2 class target: 160 km+
For RCS 5.0 m2 class target: 240 km+
For RCS 10.0 m2 class target: 285 km+

Source: http://www.defence.pk/forums/air-warfare/94948-radar-ranges-different-fighters.html#ixzz2PJoOUpKX

CAESAR AESA (EF-2000 Tranch3, post-2015 with 1,500 T/Rs)

For RCS 0.0001 m2 class target: 18~21 km+
For RCS 0.001 m2 class target: 32~38 km+
For RCS 0.1 m2 class target: 104~122 km+
For RCS 1.0 m2 class target: 185~216 km+
For RCS 5.0 m2 class target: 278~324 km+
For RCS 10.0 m2 class target: 330~385 km+

Source: http://www.defence.pk/forums/air-warfare/94948-radar-ranges-different-fighters.html#ixzz2PJt0I6Xz
btw these number are calculated by public figure + radar formular

This is your baseless assumptions. turbo prop AWACS are slow moving and have no future. I doubt Gripen/Meteor combo is based on AWACS. Rafale PESA is not exactly of higher range either. by the time other airplanes use Meteor. the missile will be practically obsolete.

AWACS power is in their radar , slow or fast doesnot really matter , and as i said before meteor is not only for gripen ,your execute is so nonsense you eliminate the Awacs from the equation for no reason ????
secondly the Gripen have AESA in future ( same for rafale , ef-2000 , f-35 ..etc )

There are alot heavier sams that can attack plane at 100k+ feet.

look at their weight compared to their length

Mach 6 intercept is figure from 15 years ago. Real ceiling of Su-35 is alot higher than Rafale. see this MIG-29 ceiling with two pilots.

15 years or 100 years ago doesnot matter , it nonsense to say your missiles can reach mach 6 when motor burn out , at such speed without thrust from engine the missiles will decelerate extremely fast
about the mig-29 : firstly dont carry weapon
secondly , it not just a normal mig-29
thirdly , the service ceiling is different from maximum ceiling that your aircraft can reach in a zoom climb (in a zoom climb even a f-16 can reach super high altitude )

Publish figures are for export advertisement.

the same can be say for rafale , meteor , ef-2000 ..etc btw if that is for advertising then it more likely an exaggerate

what do you know about aerodynamics. when i mention weaker engine it means relative to its weight/size.

you dont know their drag , thrust/drag is very important too

Interesting!

I don`t have record of any other nation doing similar test and for year 1994 such a feat is nothing short of amazing.
You have 4 small agile targets flying at different heights (5380m difference) that also have difference in range (20000m difference) with some of the targets in the ground clutter. They were fired upon from 90km which is mostly the maximum range for most of the MRAAM`s against non maneuvering targets in ideal conditions. The fact that the targets were destroyed ~40km from the interceptor lies in the fact that the Mig-31 must travel in “collision course” (he needs to guide the missiles for some time). Tracking, locking on and firing the missile on the single target high up in the sky is so much different from the things described here. Ranges would be far more greater for every single operation.
Regarding anti-missile maneuvering.
Mig-21 G-limits were increased from +7Gs in initial variants to +8.5Gs in the latest variants. We don`t have data on what version was used in the test, but when you say F-16 is the 9G class fighter that doesn`t tell the whole story. You need to know the max weight of the plane in the moment of the missile launch and the height. Higher the plane flies lower the G load he is going to pull. Another thing, missile avoidance is not only about pulling the max G`s in predictable manner. You need to apply specific tactics in order to defeat the missile with specific guidance. You think that the pilot is going to do something different because he “knows” that the incoming hypersonic missile with 60kg warhead is “only” 8G rated instead of 9G. No, he will apply the same tactics with max effort in order to stay alive and that is the point where we can say that the plane that sees and fires first has tactical advantage over opponent, whether missile is going to hit or miss the target. The one that fires first will find him self in advantageous position for second salvo of other, more maneuverable missiles when compared to opponent that burns a lot of fuel just to stay alive and without the possibility to fire back at the time.

1- target was fly at very very low altitude compared to mig-31 service ceiling => more potential energy for missiles => higher speed
2- mig-31 have cruise speed of mach 2.35 with improve missiles kinetic energy alot => more energy to maneuver
3- tell me what version of mig-21 was upgrade to 8.5 G exactly , was any of them even sold ????
4- R-37 small wing and heavy weight affected more by thin air compared to aircraft
5- the mig-21 was flying toward the mig-31 as well

It is not little bit experiance but alot more in manufacturing and testing. and with more money infusin now. it is highly unlikely EU created a wonder weapon. MIG-21 Bison has 57km range. which is sufficient for 1990s era R-77.
You dont bring AWACS in primary testing of new missile. i would say Meteor is under Gripen radar testing range.

lol Meteor is used by F-35 , EF-2000 , Rafale , Gripen and not to mention these aircraft have future version as well => their radar range is even longer , Gripen radar range now have nothing to do with the range of meteor , AWACs play very important role in war and they can give firing solution for fighter too
btw against normal target mig-21 bison radar range is less than visual range but it still equip with R-77 😉 which have range of 100 km => your argument is nonsense

Long range radar needs more powerfull engines. If Gripen with current radar can exploit Meteor. So it means its range is not that much.

what the hell ? what you mean by exploit here ?????? do you know how nonsense this is ????
i already said that gripen can get firing solution from AWACS as well , and Meteor was designed to be used by many aircraft like EF-2000 , rafale , F-35 , gripen ..etc , it range has nothing to do with gripen radar range alone ( what you say is like if a missiles is using by 5 aircrafts and if even one of them can’t use the range when flying without AWACs support then the producer solution is to reduce missiles range => sound really dumb if you ask me )

]AIM-54 is 4 decade old tech. i am not sure what it has anything to do with RVV-BD.

they are both heavy missile used to attack AWACs mainly , and old or not we both know that big , heavy missile will tend to be less maneuver ( due to physic )

Is Rafale rcs from top 0.1sqm as Su-35 is likely to find down below it. 400km plus range is for export. Rafale has limited fuel capacity and slow speed. it has very little chance against Mach 6+ missile and especially if launch from higher speed aircraft.

RVV-BD not going to fly at mach 6 , especially at max range , service ceiling of Su-35 is only 2 km higher than rafale you will not get much potential energy from that (higher speed of su-35 will not boost the missiles speed over mach 6 because at that speed drag is very very huge , do you even know how to calculate drag ?? )
Irbis-e 400 km range is not the export version ( there not even a export Irbis-e at the moment

As i said these technolgoies are 10 year away from operational service and Sukhoi is likely to get before anyone else considering the funding situation taken into account.

said before , with your logic then aim-120 will be superior in every singer aspect

ESM does not function as radar so even if some thing is detected what a fighter can do about it as there is no long range missile solution.

ESM will have a lot of trouble against LPI AESA radar => unlikely to use to get firing solution
but they can be used to get firing solution ( EX : asq-213 , ALR-94 ..etc )

Actually Rafale has zero advantage. its weak engine does not allow it to become an electronic attack aircraft and weak engines does not give the energy to BVR shot. Rafale is simply not a fighter but more compromised design for carrier operations.

nonsense , it have weaker engine but have smaller size + more aerodynamic + smaller RCS
and against deceptive jamming dont really require very high energy

Flight performance

T-50 may be better than F-35 in cruise speed but J-20 not likely
and as said before super agile can be solve by missiles

In other words, all the F-35 needs to have in order to prevail against future threats is 1. a new engine 2. new missiles 3. redesigned airframe

Why are we arguing, then? I think exactly the same..

no my opinion is that f-35 is fully capable of hold it own against T-50 or J-20 with what it have ..etc , but you say in future T-50 , J-20 can be upgrade with new engine , radar ..etc while F-35 will always stay the same => F-35 will be failure so i explained that F-35 can be upgrade as well if necessary