And the A 50 range is? :diablo:

go figure out true range of A-50 :diablo:

Video with the report showed aircraft of the MiG-29 and A-50 types on the runway and in the air, as well as radar installations and inside a control room in Moscow Region “They can see everything not just from above but also from the ground, to be more precise from sea level to 40 km high, from Europe to Central Asia and from the North Pole to Transcaucasia.”

Rivet Joint, Compass Call, ALR-94 and Prowler. If you still don’t understand, go find out what they are supposed to do.

And how the platform for these will come near to AWACs?.

You are smoking something, or the Russians are having too much vodka.

when MIG-31/Flanker radar has 400 to 500 range. so why not AWACS double of it.

The A-50 itself does not engage the enemy. As it detects it at an enormous range, of up to 1,000 km, the AWACS vectors fighter jets towards the target
NTV Mir’s “Aviators” programme on 5 November

And how many countries have the MIg-31? THe Mig-31 has only speed and altitude, not stealth or advanced avionics. A very good interceptor no doubt (performance wise), but not survivable in the way the F-22 is.

this thread about F-22 impact on russian/chinese AWACS. other countries are irrelevant. and how is F-22 more survivable than MIG-31 in this kind of hostile environment. MIG-31 has speed no on can chase it and have very long range missiles.

oh so if they can do that how come they don have F-22 or Typhoon or JSF with Su-35UB or Leopard2A6?

when they have MKI which is built for IAF requirement why they will need anything else especially when it will get Brahmos/KS-172 kind long range weopons. they have t-90/arjun(with MTU engine).

the guy up above you say the british will not sell them Radar?

when british is ready to sell them typhoon. so what preventing an obsolete radar. the probable cause is that India may not pay extra for radar and upgrade is time consuming and expensive process.

even if they will sell them it, it do not mean India will always make the right purchase. how come they are buying LCA? is it the best fighter in the market? :rolleyes:
maybe your indian pride make you blind.

LCA hasnt been bought yet. and where India made wrong purchase considering price/capability/customization/Indigeniousation/timeline consideration.

With the advent of the F-22 and forthcoming F-35. Aren’t AWACS type aircraft fielded by countries like Russia and China in extreme danger? :rolleyes:

FLY NAVY 😎

I dont think F-22/F-35 is relevant to Russia/China. first no country close enough will allow stationing these fighters for attack against them. as they can premptively destroy that country. UAV/UCAV are more usefull than AWACS in war on terror. they cannot carry 18 to 20 ton equipment of full size AWACs and operational costs are lower.

Vremya Novosti, September 06, 2006
GENERAL DESIGNER OF THE ALL-RUSSIAN INSTITUTE OF RADIO TECHNOLOGY YURY KUZNETSOV ON SITUATION IN MILITARY RADIOLOCATION
Question: In the past, very much was written enthusiastically about stealth technology making an airplane invisible. You have told me that only radars of the meter bandwidth can detect the stealth airplanes. What has changed by now in the struggle against these airplanes?

Kuznetsov: It is impossible to create an invisible airplane in principle. However, in the short-wave bandwidth the effect of reflection can be reduced by a hundred times with assistance of stealth technology.
Twenty years ago and now Russia has priority in manufacture of long bandwidth radars with a wavelength of up to 1.5-2 meters. There are also radars with wavelength of 4-9 meters. However, in this case there are problems with dimensions of radar arrays because they grow proportionately with the wavelength and with the detection accuracy. A radar of one meter bandwidth cannot guide an air defense missile. To home it to a target a short-wave radar is needed and for it stealth technology is sensible. If the stealth technology is combated not by the meter bandwidth but by the potential there will be a need for a very big power of emission of a radar. Creation of phased arrays where the signal amplifiers are placed right in the array helps in this aspect. We have long-wave radars including new models. They are produced, although in limited quantities. The Chinese have such radars too

Question: Given such requirements to radars you probably need a good element base. Is it domestic or foreign?

Kuznetsov: We try to make everything related to the super high frequency equipment that forms a signal on the domestic element base. So far, it is satisfactory. In elements of computer equipment that are developing rapidly we lag behind seriously and hence we use foreign components. Simultaneously either counterparts of foreign products or original products are developed in Russia. At any rate, purchase of a foreign element base for the entire life cycle of our radars is allowed sometimes.

According to separate components of radars (array, receiver, transmitter) we cannot compete against the West yet but according to complex technical solutions Russia is on a very good level and sometimes even outruns the West. For example, despite big weight a radar for S-300P is deployed after a march in five minutes and is folded in the same time. It detects a target having reflecting surface of only 1 square meter at a distance exceeding 300 kilometers. There is nothing like this in the West. It is possible to say approximately the same about Kasta. The West underestimates such characteristic of radars as mobility. Our radars are more survivable and are on a good level according to technical characteristics, which is why they are bought. They are bought not only by those to whom nothing else is given. For example, Greece bought both Kasta and air defense missile system Tor. Well-known designer Veniamin Yefremov told me how they tested Tor: Americans arranged jammin! g and electronic countermeasures but detection radar of Tor performed perfectly well

It is technically imposible to gauge what the F-18E/F would weight if it was to be MAGICALLY converted into a FLANKER . The F-18C to E/F jump was different as the E/F wasnt made with the purpose of increasing the weight by X % and size by X% but was made according to a mission , payload and range . To say that we can simply use that % increase to predict the next % increase as we transition to a FLANKER isnt all that wise for obvious reasons .Secondly the F-18E/F cannot be compared to a LAND BASED aircraft as it has many FEATURES that increase weight therefore must be compared to a SEA BASED Version of the FLANKER . Does the original -33 have TVC? Canards are a part and parcel of the design therefore can be taken as a gimme even then we cant just Scale up or Scale down weights by using % ages as the resultant values will be grossly inacurate in addition to being totally pointless.

but for achieving that mission, payload and range u have to increase the size by some percentage. the designer know what size is required but here we are not comparing mission, range and payload. but putting bigger engine with bigger fuel capacity and bigger nose. and F-18E has already used its material technology. so i dont know where u can put weight savings. and sea based are not that heavy at most half a ton difference like MIG-29K to MIG-29M.

Which means that if we were to put the Flanker’s engines (make design changes obviously to accomodate them with size and similar range/payload performance) onboard a F-18E/F the resultant E/F would be heavier then a flanker ! I wonder how you reached that conclusion ! Bear in mind that you have to compare the navalized version of the flanker as the normal version is land based while the E/F is carrier based !

i have already put the example of F-18C versus F-18E. the larger fighter more weight. and F-18E fuel capacity is i think 33% more than F-18C with 20% more weight what would happen if u increase that fuel capacity by 60% over the top of it. and F-18E already uses alot of advance material. so u cannot improve on that front. so bigger engines will create alot of weight problems. Naval Flanker Su-33UB is 18.4 tons but that is bigger fighter with canards, tvc etec.

Whatever, composites they would put on the Su 35, I doubt that it will weight less than 4 tons than the basic Flanker!

so whats the point of putting composites if it does not make a difference? 4 tons is just about 25% of flanker weight.

And a more powerfull engine means a heavier engine. For the evolution of ingnes weight, check the sites of P&W (F100 < F 229) or GE (F110 < F129 < F 132).

more powerful does not automatically means heavier unless they are of the same generation like AL-31F, FM-1, FM-2 etc.

So unless the Russians came with some miracle technologies in airframes as well as in engines, the Flanker can’t be lighter than the SuperHorror…

Flanker weighing 16.5 tons is itself a miracle. u put flanker engines into F-18 with that increase fuel capacity. F-18 will weigh more than Flanker despite all the composites.