Cargoplanes dropping supplies don’t fly at the altitude and speed.

Cargo planes used for surveillance missions by the Ukrainean side (the An-26 it seems) do fly high and one was shot down only days ago.

The altitude & bearing would’ve told anyone who knew what he was looking at that it was flying over, headed for Russia. If it was doing anything else, flying in that direction, it’d have been much lower.
Have you never been on an airliner? Not looked out of the windows or used the route tracker? Anything at 10000 metres & flying straight towards a border 60 km away is going to cross it.
The way I read it, the rebels probably shot it down. They probably did think it was Ukrainian, but had no excuse for thinking that. If they’d not been trigger-happy psychos, they’d have identified it as an airliner.

I think it’s naive to expect a similar level of professionalism as would be expected from e.g. the Russian Armed Forces. It’s not like the Russians integrated them into their IADS or anything.

But, IMHO, it’s surprising that the Ukraine ATC would leave the corridor over that area open after that An-26 was shot down flying at 6500 meters just three days ago on an surveillance mission and that the security experts of some of the airlines ignored that. Don’t know if the launcher was in fact captured from Ukrainean army or delivered by Russia, but in case of the latter they would be partially responsible.

I also have to add that some of the posts on this thread by seemingly pro-russian members posting their conspiracy spins are frankly appalling.

Or if Iran was so inclined airstrikes by their Fencers and Phantoms would be useful.

Or they could just repatriate the Fencers and other ex-Iraqi aircraft now that the regime is a friendly one 😉

In two posts you completely change ideas how target illumination works, once insisting that it’s tuned to a frequency then in the next talk about channels. And you add in a tail antenna for determination of Doppler shift. Someone is confusing command guidance with semi-active radar homing…
Coded signals simplify control, harden them from jamming, and give tighter granularity for picking out targets. The SARH missiles have been superseded by ARH because they are less likely to tip off the target before terminal homing. This SARH technology that you claim is unlikely to be implemented is rocket science from the 70’s and 80’s. It only got better with each variant. In your estimation time must have stood still.

Again, you’re not saying anything, but blowing hot air. Instead of providing any proof, after wireless phones, you switched into nitpicking. What’s the difference between tuning to a frequency which is a standard expression and setting the seeker’s frequency to a certain frequency channel except it being a more detailed explanation?

Doppler shift for command guidance? What are you talking about? The SARH missiles need it to distinguish the low target reflections from the ground ones. And that’s certainly not the main reason for ARH missiles introduction, but a side-benefit – they were introduced to allow multiple target to be engaged at once and to allow the launching craft not to have to follow the missile all the way to the target as IIRC test head-on engagements against aircraft equipped only with IR missiles (i.e. inferior aircraft) showed that doing that could bring it into range of IR missiles. With ARH missiles, the launching craft can disengage after launching and especially so after the missile goes active.

As for CEC, I’m skeptical of it being an operational capability of vanilla Su-27s and MiG-31, but it was demonstrated during a R-37 long-range test launch in the 1990s, where the missile was fired by a standard MiG-31 which was not capable of providing mid-course updates over such a large distance, so a Su-30 closer to the target took over. Again, probably not a normal capability, but certainly a concept the Russian military industry is no stranger to and has practical experience with.

That’s a different thing as R-37 has an active radar seeker and obviously a midcourse update datalink for inertial guidance datalink so in that case it would be a matter of sending the inertial guidance position updates “only”. The R-33 had no datalink for mid-course updates; it flew to a pre-launch calculated intercept course until its sensor started getting the SARH reflection. This could obviously be problematic for targets significantly changing course in the mean time, but the system was anyway designed for intercepting cruise missiles and bombers.

I’d suspect that another argument to why the Zaslon/R-33 system might be ineffective against maneuvering targets was that since it supports engaging 4 targets simultaneously with a SARH guidence, it just wouldn’t be able to provide target illumination fast enough needed for the missile to adjust to the rapid changes in target’s course very close to the target. With the R-37, that problem would be gone, but I’d presume they had to add mid course updates capability to R-37 and add this capability to Zaslon radars (if the information is encoded in the radar side lobes like on the e.g. the Su-27)?

Well within. R-27ET uses the MK-80 seeker same as original R-73 meaning it has same 45 degree off boresight capability. 15 degree is what is recommended in the manual for confident capture of IR seeker.

I like how you completely ignore the realistic seeker range argument and the requirement that the target keeps its present course and speed.

Old sensor of R-27ET you are referring to is MK-80. R-73 missile has some 40 km rated range, I believe 15 km lock from front is pretty reasonable. If you are referring to R-40TD, its reasonable to assume it does have some frontal hemisphere coverage. However purpose of launching two missiles at once is if target makes a quick turn and breaks the radar lock (disabling the R-40R but also silencing the RWR) it will be presenting its afterburners to the R-40TD.

I’m talking about the R-40TD sensor since that’s the main topic. R-73 has a 40 km range? This is ridiculous.. It has a claimed maximum range of 30 km (probably at a fast approaching non-maneuvering target) which is nowhere a realistic value. Regarding the lock on range of those small IR seekers, try well under 10 km from the front hemisphere more realistically.. The retreating target usecase would make sense, but then you’d have to be launching from e.g. less than 15 km max as the pursuit range drops considerably.

The problem is; when both sides using 70’s radars and 70s SARH missiles, both aircraft will achieve target lock long before missile launch. Pilot has same warning from the RWR from 70-80km away until missile hits. So pilot clearly wont start his evasive maneuvers the second his RWR beeps, as he would be losing his target lock an SA; he has to see the missile first. And by the time pilot actually sees the missile R-40TD would have acquired its target.

I won’t comment on those lock on ranges and why you would lock the target so early, but you missed the point I was trying to make. The pilot is not a drone, but is trained and informed on the possible opposition he might encounter on his mission. So, e.g. if he knows that that could be a MiG-25 locking onto him without the launch warning from a certain range, he also knows there could be a long range IR missile heading his way, so he won’t keep flying at a straight line towards the MiG.

By the way 60 km BVR range is pretty long range even by todays standards. R-27ET is not more draggy; it has lesser 52,5 max effective range (compared to ER’s 65,5), because it lacks command guidance, and cannot follow a ballistic path to its target.

Again, was talking about R-40TD missile. But, speaking of R-27ET, it is more draggy since it has a blunt front because of the IR seeker. The maximum range values are for the case where missiles are flying in a straight path at altitude, the inertial guidance has nothing to do with those values. Furthermore, ER doesn’t support lofting.

Utterly idiot way of thinking. So if west doesn’t use it, then it must be useless. Why its not the opposite? That if Russians use it, it has to be useful?? West didn’t copied High off-boresight missiles, helmet mounted sights, IRST, ESA Radars, GCI/interfighter datalinks from the Russians for at least 10 to 20 years. Do none of these features make any difference too?

I’m not saying it’s useless, but if it worked in the way it works in your imagination, it would be a game-changer and the West couldn’t afford not to put it in service.

But copied?? Funny.. None of that technology was exactly revolutionary at the time. For example, IRST was used on U.S. aircraft since early 60s. The helmet mounted sight the Soviets seems to have “copied” from the South Africans. Ground control datalink was present on the F-106A in the late 50s. By ESA, I suppose you refer to the PESA which the Soviets only used on the MiG-31 because their regular radars were rather bad and thus wouldn’t be able to satisfy the requirements for intercepting the low flying cruise missiles.. It’s also too big and heavy to be put on fighters (e.g. similar tech was present on B-1B) so the West waited for solid state AESA tech.

I don’t want to delve into this, but it’s a matter of operational doctrine, training, cost effectiveness, etc. For example, the Soviet side wouldn’t have to rely on their complex GCI that much if they were not lagging in technology (better radars and presentation to the pilot, better and more numerous AWACS aircraft, etc.) and pilot training, but that’s a result of their socio-economic system. The MiG-31s needed a group data link to share their targets because it is more cost effective than to make and operate sufficient number of AWACS aircraft to cover all that uninhabitable terrain, etc. You present all these as a sign of some clear technological advantage while they all were or could have been fielded by the West much sooner, but for various reasons were deemed as not necessary at the time.

it has to transmit its signal specifics through datalink. This is a necessity, because if aircraft#2 tracks target#2 at the same time, both aircraft must not disrupt their signals (ie, radar returns from target#2 must not interact with the tracking (or missile guidance) of aircraft#1). However, if aircraft#2 also locks on to target#1, it will also be on the same tracking specifics as aircraft#1. A missile handover is just that aircraft#1 cuts its radar lock to target#1 but aircraft#2 maintains.

So, how do any other aircraft with SARH missiles and no datalink intercept anything if the radar reflected signals get mixed? What you’re talking about? The missiles’ SARH seekers are tuned to the launching platform’s radar and cannot be re-tuned to another frequency. What makes sense to you logically is way beyond what was cost-effectively possible with the rather primitive technology of the late 70s/early 80s.

I honestly don’t know if R-40TD also has such ability, but as its primarily designed for long range missions in mind, I believe its safe to assume it does. Fire one R-40TD first and a R-33 later at 50-60km. R-33 will be in an effective kill range, and R-40 will surely acquire lock onto a maneuvering aircraft.

Ok, with the R-27T/ET you can override the launch authorization and launch it hoping that the target doesn’t change course and let’s say the R-40TD supports this too, then how will it acquire a distant maneuvering aircraft? If the target is maneuvering, it will change course and get out of the missile’s limited IR seeker cone. As the missile is flying straight and not to a calculated target intercept point, it is only useful in straight head on shots, but given the IR seeker limited range and cone, it’s still generally a rather low probability shot and I’d wager to say that this makes it practically useless.

Nonsense to you, but MiG-31s DO have this capability in both target illumination, and during command/mid-course update phase. Its not magic, even Su-27S can do it with R-27R/REs: it can even redirect missiles already in the air to different new targets. MiG-29 using the same R-27R missile possibly have this ability too, but I haven’t looked at its manuals about it.

No, it is nonsense. And saying that Su-27 can do it too indicates that you’re making all this up (where could you find this misinformation?). Ditto for the redirection of the missiles to new targets. If the target lock is broken during mid-course radio-command guidance phase, the R-27R/ER missile is lost as this radio-command link cannot be re-established. If the target lock is broken during the terminal SARH guidance phase, the missile might reacquire if the target is locked again quickly enough to still be within the missile’s SARH seeker’s view (as the missile has a monopulse seeker, not a CW one).

MIG-31BM primary missiles are not that big. only 510kg for RVV-BD. that’s not a lot. Su-35 has greater range and it has ET also. PAK-FA that will have even greater range due to its sleek profile. Range/Radar performance/data links is no longer an issue. it is the kinematic and altitude advantage of MIG-31 that other fighter lacks. and you don’t need that against cruise missiles/bombers.

That’s like more than 3 times the weight of AMRAAM which significantly influences the target max g-load limitation. Regarding range, I never said MiG-31’s range is extraordinary on its own, I (somewhat clumsily) said range/speed ratio with which I meant the range it achieves while flying at as highest cruise speeds as possible (like around or over Mach 2) which is something you’d want from an interceptor. The whole point of it is to get to the interception point as fast as possible when needed to. And you need that in case you want to have a chance at intercepting bombers/cruise missiles on time.

Being rather specialized, it has other advantages like the semi-recessed long range missiles it carries, a lot of space for fuel and a big nose for the radar – you get all that as you don’t care about weight and low-speed performance as you don’t need it to be very maneuverable at all. If the Su-35 and PAK-FA could perform like that, there would be little sense to modernize the MiG-31B fleet significantly, let alone talk about wanting to develop a successor.