star49Great but that’s not the point now is it? I said they fill different rolls and they do. An S-400 certainly isn’t going to be hitting an IRBM 250 miles away since it’s still in space now is it? No, it’s going to have to wait until it’s closer which means it can’t cover as large of an area. Certain versions of the S-300/400 family duplicate the PAC-3 but who knows if they’re as effective or if they are MORE effective.
how exactly is that different role? both systems have role of destroying incoming targets. it does not matter where they hit it and how they hit it. the point is how effective they are and how many simultaniously they can attack. mobility in battlefield is also an issue.
Who has access to (and can afford) BOTH sides and have chosen the R-73?
so do u think IAF and RMAF cannot afford wvr missiles from Israel and West?(each have more than $100B in reserves).
even baseline Fulcrum is enough. sparrow has similar range as AIM-120.
http://www.answers.com/topic/mikoyan-mig-29
The most recent event involving the MiG-29 occurred during the military exercise of nations under the Five Power Defense Arrangement, namely Malaysia, Singapore, New Zealand, Australia and United Kingdom. Malaysian MiG-29’s, upgraded with recent Russian and Western technology, fought mock air battles with Australia’s F/A-18A Hornets. The MiGs succeeded in downing all of the Australian Hornets during simulated air combat battles in both medium and short range combat. The Malaysians used AA-10, AA-12 and AA-11 missiles, against Australia’s AIM-9 and AIM-7 Sparrow missiles
The F-15E gained more thrust than weight with the -229s. Is it faster? Nope. It might be QUICKER but that’s not the same thing. Top end hasn’t changed.
havent u read the aerodynamics changes for Su-35BM like it does not need canards and tvc to produce the same agility as Su-30MKI. it is made of differend material. so there is not only increase in thrust but also reduction in weight which justfily higher performance vs baseline flanker. there is no such thing for F-15E vs F-15C.
star49Can they fly in space? No? I guess they have a different role huh? :rolleyes:
so what if current versions does not go into space. it does not reduce there effectiveness of purpose.
As the commander-in-chief said, the first S-400s will be deployed not far from Moscow to be used for defense of Central Russia. As for the combat potential of the new antiaircraft complex, I’m stone-cold confident that it leaves all analogs in the world way behind. What is really important that the complexes may be used to tackle the tasks of non-strategic ballistic missile defense as well as antiaircraft defense as such.
Potentially, the Special Assignment Troops are capable of killing up to 500 targets on high and medium altitudes and up to 400 on low altitudes with one salvo and one takeoff.
It was already reported that S-400s are designed to take out targets on the altitudes from 15 meters to the stratospheric heights and at the distance of over 250 kilometers. The complexes will be used together with the Space Force and A-135 systems to defend major industrial centers like Moscow, St.Petersburg, and the Urals Industrial Area. They are supposed to kill all inbound missiles approaching the objects in question. The antiaircraft complexes may also be used against the enemy ICBMs following disengagement of their warheads. Triumph crews will receive information on the incoming missiles at the final stage of their trajectories from satellites in orbit.
Everybody has access to the R-73. Hell they’d probably sell them to the US if we wanted them. Is everybody buying the R-73? No? Guess you don’t have much of a point then do you?
variant of R-73 depends on customer relationship. older and strategic customers gets better versions vs some one time buyers. but the point is there isnt anything better in west so some one has to switch to it.
Well “in the future” there are going to be lasers on US ships so I’ll put them against your millions of missiles. :rolleyes:
we have to wait and see.
How do you? Besides the latest Flankers have more power than the Su-27s did the speed go up? F-16 Block 60s have way more than Block 15s did the speed go up? Are the F-14Ds faster than the A’s? Are F-15Es with -229s faster than Es without? If you think your Flanker is going to be a Mach 3 aircraft now you need to put the pipe down.
the point is that F-16 and F-15 has gained weight almost equal to the thrust increase. that is clearly not the case with Flanker.
star49There are hundreds of PAC-3s operational. Proably a dozen or so SM-3s. Thing is neither are comperable to an S-300 because they fill different roles. An S-300 (or 400 for that matter) can’t do what an SM-3 can do and vice-versa,
still it is far less than S-300 series. and they dont have any different role. S-300 can be customized according to customer requirements.
I’d take any of the above (except the MICA) over R-73 any day.
the airforces which have access to both east and west are not taking western wvr over R-73 and there opinion carries more weight.
And they won’t have to- there aren’t any.
there are going to be in future.
Max speed of the Flanker is generally given as Mach 2.3 The F-22 is faster than that. (And please spare us a demonstration of your ignorance by babbling on about “fixed-intakes”).
how u deduce the speed of new flanker with much reduced weight and 4 tons more thrust to be the same as the old one?
star49more detail maximum speed is Mach 2.5 vs Mach 2 for Su-30MK. range increased to 3600KM with 2 BVR. new targeting system and IRST.
Source: Vzlet, No 10, 2005, pp. 10-15
Details of new Su-35
Several details concerning new look of multifunctional destroyer Su-35 were revealed. (…) Soon, it is to take its place in the line of Su-30MK on the world market of destroyers until it is changed by an export variant of a perspective aircraft complex of the fifth generation. (…)
New look of Su-35 was confirmed in May of 2005. Despite of one-seat multifunctional destroyers, which were promoted before under this very name, the renewed Su-35 does not have front horizontal empennage and the square of the vertical one was reduced. That let apply a new system of distant control, which provides characteristics of stableness and controllability on the level of the present model – Su-30MKI. (…) The length of the plane is 21.9 meters, the wingspan is 15.3 meters and the height is 5.9 meters. In order to increase the resource and the exploitation term, it was decided to apply new constructional materials (in several aggregates the aluminum alloys are replaced by titanic ones). The maximal take-off mass of Su-35 would be equal to 34,500 kg (the utmost is 38,800 kg), the maximal mass of the battle charge is 8,000 kg.
The flying-technical characteristics of the renewed Su-35 are as follows: the maximal speed of flight on high altitudes – 2,500 km/h, near the ground – 1,400 km/h, the absolute limit – 18 km, the actual flight range with a full tank and two missiles RVV-AE on a high altitude – 3,600 km, near the ground – 1,579 km. There is a system of in-flight refueling.
(…) New engine for plane Su-35 is a deeply modernized variant of serial AL-31F with the usage of technical solutions developed when creating the engine of the fifth generation. It has the increased diameter of the fan (932 mm vs. 905 mm at serial AL-31F), which provides the increased consumption of air, turbine of increased efficiency, new combustion chamber and digital control system. The take-off draught in the regime “complete afterburning” was increased from 12,500 to 14,504 kilogram-force. The engine resource was noticeably increased as well: when compared to the serial AL-31F, the turnaround time grows from 500 to 1000 hours, and the scheduled one – from 1,500 to 4,000 hours. The engine modernized according to the first stage was tested in Saturn (Rybinsk) in 2003, and in March of 2004, it was tested on board flying laboratory Su-27M (in June of 2005, it made its first flight with two “articles 117S”). (…)
The serial production of modernized engines would be run by Public Corporation UMPO: besides, the opportunity of revision the AL-31F manufactured before is foreseen – during the process of their major repairs (in this case only 20-35% of units are to be replaced).
There is a principal distinction of the renewed Su-35 and Su-27 manufactured today – that is the usage of high-concentrated complex of the board equipment of the new generation. (…) In the plane there will be used the multi-channeled radio-location control system Irbis with the rotary passive FAR, (…) which detects air targets (“destroyer” type) at the range of 400 km. Besides, Su-35 would be equipped with new optic-location station with optic, laser, television and thermo-visual channels. Effective and perspective devices of radio-electronic resistance would be applied as well.
Armament of Su-36 would include controlled and non-controlled devices of abolishing air and ground targets with various homing systems, which are in the armory lists of planes Su-30MK; perspective models of armament would be applied as well – those projected within the framework of creating a destroyer of the fifth generation. (…)
The first pre-production model of the modernized one-seat multifunctional destroyer Su-35 is planned to be constructed at KnAAPO next year. (…)
star49How does it lower heat signature? I hope this helps slightly
http://www.afa.org/magazine/aug1998/0898outfront.aspI was talking about the F-22 can easily fly out of the battle zone and out of the sight of enemy fighters if it needs to.
To Harry,
I was agreeing that that a larger plane can be more maneuverable than a smaller plane if it is well designed. But rather, it’s harder to design a larger fighter to achieve a level of maneuverability than a smaller fighter. It’s definitely surprising to see Canberra achieving F-15 maneuverability, but if you look at its measurements http://www.raf.mod.uk/equipment/canberra.html, its wingspan is still less than that of a su-30, so it’s no where near the size of a A-380. I’m saying that as you get larger and larger, it’s just harder to make the plane maneuverable. This is physics. You can expect an elephant to be as maneuverable as a tiger.
ur logic of big and small is funny. so F-22/JSF/EF/Rafale/MIG-29OVT/Su-30/F-15 are less maneourable than F-16 because they are big.
star49SAMs have been tested in different scenarios. Americans, Russians have all run their tests, I think we’ve all heard about S-300, PAC-3, SM-2 and such. What kind of tests have been done with 4 KS-172?
how many PAC-3 and SM-3 are in operational service? S-300PMU-2 has been exported to China. that should give u enough confidence that Russia has some thing better than this under its sleeves and quantity of S-300 are far mroe than any thing in entire west in this class. and have u ever heared of R-33S/R-37/R-77M/R-77PD/K-74 tests? or u are assuming that they are not improving those missiles because it does not come in media.
well, this is the condition they are under.
when they produced those things there nothing comparable in West for very long time.
IAF – it got Russian planes, so it uses Russian SRAAM
RMAF – uses Russian AAMs for Russian planes and American AAMs for American planes. What’s so hard to figure out?
When RMAF/IAF can put there own communication and Western avionics system in Flankers so dont u think putting wvr missiles will be not a big deal for them from sources other than Russia? so why they are not taking it?and how many IRIS-T/AIM-9X/MICA-IIR/ASRAAM/Python4 are in operational service.? china alone bought couple of thousands R-73.
http://www.deagel.com/pandora/?p=mn00021009
Let’s see whether the 400 KM missile for S-400 gets put in service before this or not.
u wont know it when S-400 is in operational service. u have to look what they are exporting now. that will be two step below what they can produce for themselves.
but yes, Mig-31 is used for the role of air interception. The Russians obviously have planes that do A2G missions and Mig-31 isn’t one of them, so why would they promote its A2G capabilities?
they advertize things for export. so emphasis is on those qualities only.
ESSM? Americans seem to have a lot of confidence in it again anti-ship missiles as well as different types of aircrafts.
because they havent faced a large enemy that can launch thousands of missiles round the clock.
Why would Russians or Indians or Chinese even use R-77 if R-27 has the bigger seeker?
where is Ruaf R-77? IAF will go towards the long range option.
China was offered su-35 though, so it doesn’t mater that it doesn’t have a MKI class fighter. You do realize that F-22 lowers its heat signature too, right? So, it’s hard to say what OLS-31E’s range will be against a stealth fighter like F-22. Also as I said in the beginning, if you are going to bring in AWACS, ground based radars, you should also factor in EA-6B and EA-18G.
OLS-31E is for current Su-30. I doubt it will go into even MKA as MIGs are using newer generation of IRST. it has nothing to with upgcoming Su-35.they are also buiding jamming version of Su-32.
I’m saying that SRAAM can go at mach2.5 and be effective at that speed. You don’t need to go at mach6 to be effective. You just need to be faster than the plane. And also, you can’t continue at mach6 forever, you will run out of fuel eventually.
Mach 6 intercept is for MIG-31 not KS-172. and wvr missile can also run out of fuel.
That was an example to show that as long as your faster than the target, the more important factor is how well you turn rather than how fast you are.
F-22 do a super cruise the other way and how long do you think Su-35 can lock on to F-22 if it goes the opposite way? Once it looses the lock, KS-172 will have to relie on inertia. And honestly, do you really think anything can detect F-22 from 300 KM out?
KS-172 type missile will have seeker range of 70km itself. top speed of Su-35 is faster than F-22 so it cannot run. aircraft speed+ missile speed is dangerous combination than any SAM.
star49Let’s see how many it actually guides in practice.
so now u are questioning the ability of guiding 4 long range missiles when the same can be said with medium range missile.
your examples are R-73 and Brahmos, that’s not saying much.
the era in which they were developed with limited resources it does tell some thing.
lol, man this is just sad. If you are using Russian aircrafts, you kind of have to use Russians AAMs too, right? And besides, the Indians got a lot of python 4 too. R-73 may have been good when it came out, but not anymore.
I think u should tell this thing to RMAF and IAF. they have equal access to east and west so why they are not placing orders for IRIS-T/Asraam/Pythons?
SM-3 has a range of 600 KM, I have no idea what you are talking about. And isn’t our entire argument about long range AAM is not that beneficial? So, why don’t you think of some other ones?
when it was developed?
Well, Mig-31 is an interceptor, it doesn’t have multirole capability, so why would he advertize ground attack capabilities if it doesn’t have any? su-27sm got converted from air superiority to a multirole fighter, so you are obviously going to talk about the ground attack capabilities.
I think u should better read about Zalson-M. it uses same technology as BARS but with 250KG antenna vs 100KG. there is nothing preventing it from not using long range A2G.
It’s just common sense, the smaller you are, the more agile you are. And why do you think they are always converting AAMs to SAMs? Especially with SRAAMs?
because they easily transpotable. they are mostly effective against slow speed aircraft.
hey, I’m just saying that if this super long ranged AAM can’t accomplish its task until within the range of R-77, you might as well just use R-77.
so why do u think MIG-31 uses R-33/37 for shoting cruise missiles. after all they have very small rcs? bigger seeker has its own advantages.
You can’t ignore the radar range. The idea behind of a stealth aircraft is that you can detect it until it’s close to you, so missiles like KS-172 would have no advantage over R-77. It is however more useful against AWACS and refuelers and such. And you seem to be intent on proofing that this thing gives an advantage against F-22. If this thing really is that important, China would’ve jumped at the opportunity to get su-35bm already.
again u are ignoring alot of things here. there AWACS/Ground based radars that plays part in situational awarness. and there has been new IRST installed for Algerian MIGs. so fighter radar is not the only factor involved. China does not even have MKI class fighter.
And I have told you that speed advantage is not that important. There is a reason why SRAAM normally have a maximum speed of mach2.5 and yet that is enough.
and how can u produce higher speed from there small engine and low fuel?
Think about it this way, you can imagine the fighter as a person, a SRAAM as a person on rollerblade and KS-172 as a slow turning truck. If the rollerblader and the truck both start 100 m away from the person, which one do you think will catch the person faster?
how u figure this out that it is a slow moving truck? bigger seeker/better prepositioning not last minute turnings.
Yes, it’s size gives it advantage in terms of larger seeker and such, but it will also be detected on the RWR/MAW earlier.
so what if it is detected from long range. If a fighter pilot knows that some thing is coming after him from 300 to 400km at great speed he will be in two minds from the begining. either fight out the missile or abort plans and leave the area.
star49Can launch/guide as many. You can only carry so many long range AAMs.
both of aircraft can guide 4 missiles and flanker can carry 5. a group of aircraft will be more aircraft effective than static sams considering the range of flanker much quicker response to emergin situation.
I’m saying that if it is advantageous, the Americans would develop such systems for their platforms too.
there alot of systems that Americans cant develop even if they want to. does my examples ring the bell.
Russia is not far ahead in missiles. Do you really think R-73 is better than AIM-9X or python 5 or IRIS-T? It didn’t go digital until 2004, PL-9C developer said that the ECM of R-73 is not great.
and when did R-73 entered operational service? and if the other systems were so great India would have been buying them left and right instead of sticking with R-73 as there premier short range missile. and there is difference between a down graded export model to certain countries and actual thing.
As for supersonic AShM, it just seems to be an area that the West has ignored due to a different doctrine.
they have also ignored long range sams and long range AAMs.
hmm, you put holes in my theory by quoting another Russian dude. It just says Mig-31 is still useful, that’s all.
It is more than useful according to his statement. even when they upgrade flankers to SM standard they advertize there ground attack capabilities not BVR in air.
how does it matter that it can go at higher speed if it can’t turn as well? Okay, explain using the predator/prey model why higher speed is so important?
from there u get this idea that it can turn as well? have u seen the weights of SAMs missiles?
That’s basically what it is, you have a predator (AAM) chasing a prey (fighter). you might be able to make up distance faster on a straight line, but if you can’t make the necessary maneuvers, the higher speed will just fly the missile further out of the area. You know what, let’s get out of the armchair QB situation. How about finding a real world examplere a long ranged AAM like KS-172 managed to down a plane that can make 9G maneuvers from 100 KM or more out.
and find me any real example of medium range missile hitting at even 30KM with 9G?
And again, since we were originally talking about F-22 vs su-35, explain again why KS-172 will be helpful against F-22 if su-35 can’t detect F-22 until F-22 is within the range of R-77? by that time, it would be more advantageous to fire the more agile R-77.
i have told bigger missiles have speed advantage give less reaction time to adversary and has more powerful seeker better resistance to jamming. and it is premature to put radar ranges at this point.
star49SAM can launch and guide multiple missiles, improve the chance of destroying the target. A fighter would not be able to carry and engage with as many long ranged AAMs.
Flanker/MIG-31 can also launch and guide multiple missiles and with much more advantageous position and energy. so whats the difference?
I’m saying that if long ranged AAM is that effective (super weapon as you seem to indicate), F-15/F-16 would also be carrying it. If something like KS-172 would improve the combat capability of F-15/F-16 by say 50%, would the Americans not equip F-15/F-16 with that?
how u came to this conclusion that F-15 and F-16 will also be carrying it?It is like saying that US should also produce German autos, French colognes, scandanavians cellular phones. each country in Europe has its own unique advantages. Missiles is one area in which Russia is far ahead than the rest of the world starting from R-73 and ending at Brahmos.
wow, from a RuAF commander. That really is a neutral point of view.
With the current USN doctrine, harpoon can do the job well enough. But in BVR combat, Americans obviously want to launch the first shot.
how is Ruaf commander not neutral.
here is statement from Commander in Chief that will further put holes in your theory.
Commander-in-chief of the Russian air force, General-Colonel Vladimir Mikhaylov has reported that the MiG-31 long-range interceptor will remain in air force combat ranks, will be upgraded and will be rearmed.
“The MiG-31 interceptor will remain in the ranks of the active elements,” he declared on Friday to Interfax-AVN.
V. Mikhaylov reported that “at the present time upgrade of the MiG-31 is underway along the way of expanding its combat capabilities.” “The interceptor will be equipped with the newest examples of missile armament,” the CinC noted.
He reported that “excess MiG-31 interceptors will be preserved so that they never end up being broken up for metal. These airplanes will be our mobilization reserve. In the event of need, we can inspect them instantly, evaluate the technical condition that has to be restored and send them into combat,” the air force CinC said.
The MiG-31 airplane reached the inventory in May 1981. In all more than 400 MiG-31 and MiG-31B airplanes were built at the Sokol aviation plant.
http://www.royfc.com/news/mar/0703mar10.html
As for AMRAAM over 100 KM and the meteor, they are still not huge in weight and size, so they can still maintain the maneuverability and not have huge RCS. You are increasing the effective range without dramatically changing the flight performance of the missile, that’s obviously a good thing. But when you talk about KS-172, it’s 4 times the weight of R-77.
rcs is moot point in future wars as any thing flying will be detected if equal adversaries meet in aircombat. it is the speed, energy, powerful seeker and range of long range missiles that will offbalance the rival airforce situational awarness, logistics. KS-172 is 4 times wait of R-77 but it has more than 4 times range, more than twice the seeker range and much higher speed. and that comes very handy in tail chase engagement when enemy fighters returning to there airbase short of fuel and u release this monster behind them.
star49yes, but they also don’t turn as well. The larger you are, the less maneuverable you are and also more easily detectable by RWR or MAW.
by that logic the long range SAMs which are twice as heavy as AAMs shall also not work against maneouring targets and can be easily deceived so whats the point of having them?
There is a reason why AIM-54 is getting retired.
It is because of F-14 got retired and unless mass produced F-15/F-16 carries them there is no commercial reason for the contractors building them. throughout 90s it was assumed that there will be large number of F-22 procured like 750 and than JSF. so there is not enough concentration on upgrading existing platforms for enhanced role.
If long range AAM gives such an advantage, don’t you think the Americans would develop something like that?
they may not have the need to develop it untill this point unless there future rivals have sufficient strenght of airforce just like they didnot develope Brahmos/Krypton like anti-ship missiles. and cost of building new system in west is very expensive proposition.
It is from russian airforce commander.
[Knysh] As distinct from the Su-27 or the MiG-29, for instance, which are manoeuvrable fighters, its own manoeuvrability is naturally not as good as that of many others. But I don’t think anyone is going to try and perform close air combat on this fighter plane. We will shoot down all our enemies with our long-range missiles.
star49What’s the point of having something like KS-172 if you can’t detect F-22 until it’s within the effectiveness range of R-77? Also, KS-172 probably would not be that effective against modern fighters that can pull 9G. I’d like to see KS-172 coming out before saying that it is this super weapon. On a side note, China is also developing a long ranged AAM. I’m guessing it will be similar to KS-172.
u cannot compare medium range like r-77 with much bigger missiles like R-37/KS-172. bigger missiles have much higher speed, bigger seeker, much better warhead. there is reason for MIG-31 upgrade Ruaf.and they can deal with any thing just like medium range bvr.
http://forum.keypublishing.co.uk/showthread.php?t=28264&highlight=KS-172
star49If second contract is signed. i have doubts about indigenous engine.
China to get its first RD-93 engines in 2006
MOSCOW. April 21 (Interfax-AVN) – The Moscow-based Chernyshev machine-building plant will send the first batch of RD-93 engines to China as early as this year, the plant’s Director General Alexander Novikov told Interfax-Military News Agency on Friday.
“We have no doubts that the contract will be implemented successfully. Moreover, we are going to sing more contracts on RD-93 engines for China,” he said. Novikov noted that the first contract on 100 engines was signed last April. “Now we have entered negotiations with the Chinese on the second contract for 100 more engines, ” he said.
China may require up to 500 such engines in total, the director general noted.
According to earlier reports, the first contract was worth $267 million. China is going to install RD-93s in its FC-1 light fighters. Last year, the first two such engines were sent to the customer, while this year’s plan envisages that 21 engines will be built and handed over, while the contract performance deadline is set for 2008.
The RD-93 is a derivative of the RD-33 engine powering MiG-29 aircraft. The main distinction of the engine from the baseline configuration is the accessory gearbox at the bottom, as well as an automatic control and adjustment system added.
star49add some EA-6B and EA-18G and things even out. Sure, there are stealth “detectors”, but there are also things that make Raptors even more stealthy.
KS-172 is supposed to be the decisive thing in Su-35 favor. If it works at advertized range (400KM). similar to R-33/37 of MIG-31 which is now claimed to intercept Mach 6 speed. the same is said with Su-34 destroying of incoming missiles. so it looks the same pattern.
http://www.rosprom.gov.ru/news.php?id=1457
“our American and European competitors have long since ceased to show on the exhibitions” living “models. In this there can be two reasons: either they fear to open some their secrets, or their heads disadvantageously look in the comparison with our. I think that second most likely. They are not ready to demonstrate the heads of new generation, and to show old them it does not be desirable “, said I.Akopyan.MNII “agate” today proposes to customers the new generation of radar homing heads, which will make it possible in practice to realize principle “fire and forget”. The advance active radar homing head OF 9B-1103M and its modification, for example, is standardized for the application both in the rockets “air-to-air” and in the rockets “surface- air” by caliber from 150 to 400 mm
star49this is interesting. and i think Russia possission of oil/gas and it selling of weopons and nuke technlogies to China and Islamic world from Algeria to Malaysia is bigger threat to West than the number of its nuclear warhead.
http://en.rian.ru/russia/20060422/46792049.html
Russian bombers flew undetected across Arctic – AF commander
13:40 | 22/ 04/ 2006MOSCOW, April 22 (RIA Novosti) – Russian military planes flew undetected through the U.S. zone of the Arctic Ocean to Canada during recent military exercises, a senior Air Force commander said Saturday.
The commander of the country’s long-range strategic bombers, Lieutenant General Igor Khvorov, said the U.S. Air Force is now investigating why its military was unable to detect the Russian bombers.
“They were unable to detect the planes either with radars or visually,” he said.
Khorov said that during the military exercises in April, Tu-160 Blackjack bombers and Tu-95 Bears had successfully carried out four missile launches. Bombing exercises were held using Tu-22 Blinders.
By the end of the year, two more Tu-160s will be commissioned for the long-range strategic bomber fleet, Khorov said.
Both new planes will incorporate numerous upgrades from the initial Soviet models, the commander said. The bombers will be able to launch both cruise missiles and aviation bombs, and communicate via satellite.
star49True , But as I have stated that High Power is a double edge sword if it helps you see further , it also helps the opponent in detecting your presence much in advance.
To minimise the fallout for an aircraft in formation , Only one can use its HP radar while it shares the information with other which in turn can use their weapon system , For a stealth aircraft it could work out quite well.
Where only a single transmitting aircraft presence is betrayed or known while the remaining can still remain invisible.
even if it is detected at very early what can its oponent really do about it. when u have 300 to 400 KM range BVR and long legs.
u can pretty much off balance enemy awacs and air refuellers and chase fighters right into there airbase.
Sign In
