Well he knows ****** all about antenna gain, radio frequncey power absobtion by water vapour for higher frequency’s, pulse lengths or anything about drag curves v engine power at transonic and supersonic speeds (that’s what the engine power in the Foxhound is mainly for, make the thing fly very fast) or the fact that the E-3 had an upgrade a few years back to track low RCS targets…Wouldn’t call the Mig 31 Stealthy by a long shot especially if its tanking in at supersonic speed. Though of course having never seen the difference in size of a Radar return of an aircraft at subsonic speed and the Radar return of the same aircraft when it was supersonic (much, much bigger) he wouldn’t known this. I on the other hand having watched Concorde going supersonic (and vice versa) over the Western Approaches on an old style CRT PPI radar display have seen a big return suddenly become a small one as the Concorde dropped to subsonic speed inbound, and the opposite going the other way (supersonic shockwave will reflect radio energy quite well, and there is ****** all you can do to stop it). Humm, Tomahawk, other cruise missiles and Stealth aircraft may be subsonic for a reason (though the F22 and F35 have to be supersonic to allow them to get from point A to point B in rapid order, but I can never see them entering a fight above Mach 1).

First it does not make E-3 stealthy and even if it see MIG-31 same time as MIG-31 what can it do anyway. The altitude, speed, range & missile power of MIG-31 is such that E-3 will have no chance to escape. 9.5 tons of non-afterburning thrust in old models.

Russia developing means of “unavoidable” nuke retaliation

MOSCOW. Sept 11 (Interfax-AVN) – Russia is developing means of retaliating against a nuclear strike from a foreign nation without being noticed by the latter’s early warning systems, the commander of Russia’s Strategic Missile Forces said on Wednesday.

“In order to forestall the potential resources of visual and radar reconnaissance of foreign states, we are already taking measures to further develop sophisticated stealth resources of prospective missile systems. All this makes it possible to maintain the required level of survivability for mobile missile systems and ultimately make the mobile group of the Strategic Missile Forces invulnerable and enable it to carry out an unavoidable retaliatory strike against an aggressor,” Col. Gen. Nikolai Solovtsov told a briefing.

Several studies carried out in recent years have confirmed the effectiveness of the Strategic Missile Forces’ current stealth equipment, he said.

The AWACS has a larger spread of its modules and more modules overall for more granulation in its search. Its not even remotely comparable to a MiG-31. Add in the electrical power available to the E-3 and its on a whole different level. This thread has turned into around 50% posts just of star49’s opinion and its mind numbing to say the least.

AWACS have bigger power but it has far bigger RCS and operate at altitudes far easier to detect from some thing above. And two engines of MIG-31 are producing almost same power as 4 engine E-3. they clearly stated that when aircraft operates at higher altitude the horizon becomes greater. So the same thing applies to MIG-31 radar.

http://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/e3awacs/
The USA and NATO E-3 AWACS aircraft are powered by four Pratt and Whitney TF-33-PW- 100/100A turbofan, 21,000lb-thrust jet engines, mounted in pods under the wings. The E-3 AWACS aircraft for Saudi Arabia, UK and France are powered by four CFM International CFM-56-2A-2/3 turbofan engines, developing 24,000lb thrust. The higher power CFM-56 engines allow aircraft operation at higher altitudes, extending the horizon for radar surveillance

Do you honestly think that the E-3 has relatively less power in its antenna than the MiG-31? The E-3 will see the MiG-31 at a longer range than the latter can see the E-3 it in any search mode. The whole premise of this MiG-31 can see the E-3 first conversation is just idiotic.

For conveince if E-3D has same RCS as B-52. It will be still be acuired at twice the distance of fighter 5sqm RCS. So if Su-35 radar can acquire 3sqm at 400Km. 5sqm at 500KM should not be a problem which translate into 1000KM for AWACS size target. MIG-31 capabilities are alot more than this. MIG-31 can go way higher than AWACS normal operating height.

http://www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~dheb/2300/Articles/PG/PGSA.htm
The base radar formula used is (RCS1/RCS2)^0.25. So the F-16C reduced RCS is 1.2 m2, standard fighter is 5 m2. (1.2/5)^0.25 = 0.69. Therefore the F-16C can be detected at 69% of radar range as compared with a standard fighter.

B-52 Bomber 100 m2 bomber range x1

Talking about it as an invaluble asset does bring to mind an exercise involving RAF tornado F3’s and the RAF’s awac assets in which the kill to loss ratio (againt F-18/16s?? I think) was something like 400-1. It was posted on here or somewhere else, I’ll try and find it……..

If its correct, it certainly doesnt suggest they are not worth the risk 😀

here it is http://forum.keypublishing.co.uk/showthread.php?t=34648

u mean this exercise. It is irrevelant in MIG-31 case. First MIG-31 exchange two way information with ground based radars but also with group of MIG-31. So it has complete air picture. And if it has to attack it will go to speeds and heights where F-16/F-18 are practically hopelss. F-18 top speed is Mach 1.6. It is can barely go supersonic with weopons. when E-3D is painted by MIG-31 radar the fear of unknown missile will turn it away from battlefield.

The scene is the North Sea airspace. The date is 28 July 2004. Nine Swiss F-18s are taking part in Exercise NOMAD as the offensive counter air fighter sweep ahead of an offensive package. The defending team was four Tornado F3s with AMRAAM (Advanced Medium-Range Air-to-Air Missile) and ASRAAM (Advanced Short-Range Air-to-Air Missile), four French Mirage 2000s and four Swiss F-18s. The F3s were on a full JTIDS link (Joint Tactical Information Distribution System) with the E-3D. None of the other defenders had this facility. The offensive F-18s were decimated, principally by the F3s and their modern air-to-air weapons who needed to make only three radio calls during the twenty-minute engagement. Why was it like that? Because the offensive package had just met Network Enabled Capability for the first time. Marshal of the Royal Air Force Viscount Trenchard would have approved.

MiG-31’s are often found patrolling at 70,000ft are they Star?. Would seem a rather curious posture to adopt if one was seeking to engage ‘aerial targets, including stealth ones at small altitudes and long ranges’ wouldnt you say?.

nope. MIg-31 optimal performance is at high altitude. from high altitude it can see further and act as AWACS. there is no need to stay lower.

6 minutes flight time is 6 minutes flight time and that adds up, for an E-3 at its listed maximum speed, to about 70km travel – presumably on a reciprocal course to the threat bearing. Understand the difference between a missile fired in tailchase and one fired at a closing target. The only confirmed missile flight is the test earlier mentioned that used a local designator Flanker to CEC in a longe range missile shot from a MiG-31.

6 minute burn time does not equal to 6 minute flight time at maximum speed. missile takes time to accelerate to its maximum speed and can still fly for distance when every thing is burns out. for lighter and medium size missile tail chase vs head on makes a difference but not very long range missiles. Why do u think R-73 can intercept at Mach 2.5 and R-77 is closer at Mach 3.6 but long range missile is double of that. and Certianly Russians are not obliged to publish there tests. Have u ever heared of publishing of long range missile tests for Past 10 years. the answer is no. but it does not mean that further tests havent been done.

Nothing in that article about missiles. It also doesnt say ‘intercept’ it says “The upgraded aircraft can detect aerial targets, including stealth ones at small altitudes and long ranges”.

The article is about engine upgrade. which will effect the physical performance. They dont need to put missile in the same article.

So Star you accept that the 300km shot was head on and not tailchase now do you?.

U also have to accept the fact that MIG-31 was flying at only 8000m and certainly not at full speed. and missile is modification of old R-33.

So, if our targetted AWACS where, perhaps, to turn and try to put as much distance between it and the Zaslon ‘illuminating’ it you’d accept that a 300km ranged missile might just fall a little bit short?!.

AWACS speeds have nearly constant since 1970s. there is no supersonic platforms. while newer missiles have been introduced in 2008 that fly faster and further with much bigger FOV seekers and very fast processing power than anything Soviet Union can produce. So physical performance of AWACS to run is pretty much meaningless. It can hardly move 80km or during 360 sec burn time of latest Vympel very long range missiles.

Very true….but how many 600km missiles are there?! :rolleyes:.

This should be alot each MIG-31 should carry 6 of them. New feature of MIG-31 is two datalinks with ground control over hundreds of kms. it can guide missiles till the end. no need for missile seeker to become active.

I’m not confusing anything- you haven’t given me one link showing the “new and accurate” information, to contradict my “old” info. I’ve seen all sorts of cool prototypes from the Russian aviation industry, in the attempts to get some export orders, or wow spectators at airshows. How many of these aircraft are in the operational inventory? Are you saying that every time there’s an advance, the whole inventory is modified to the new standard(to include weight reduction)? The fact of the matter is that most of this equipment will never be deployed, because the Russian air force can’t afford it. How much of the Russian Navy is sitting and rusting right now as further evidence, that the money to buy all this new stuff in any number just isn’t available?

As for performance- I’ll take a pilot’s word, who has flown the aircraft over somebody who merely admires an aircraft. You can do whatever you wish.

Again more assumptions. why u dismiss when i clearly put links and caculates weight for You?
They fly regulary and update regularly and they dont need to reveal inventory.
It is clear that 280Km range missile went into invetory in 1999 MIG-31BM and that is directly from Manufacurers. which is different than MIG-31BM upgrade that went into feb, 2008 because it started in 2003.

http://www.airshow.ru/expo/111/prod_777.htm
The Dopier impulse method of radar signal processing was used while creating the radar and allowed to detect low – and high – flying targets without the radar range loss. Chief designer V.K.Grishin, who took part in solving principal techni-cal problems, put a lot of personal strength, skills and knowledge into elab-oration of the system.
The airplanes and arming system were updated. As to the aircraft, the number of measures was taken, allowing to extend the distance of the flight owing to the increase of the fuel reserve and inflight refueling, . A.I,Fedotchenko was appointed chief designer of `Zaslon` system modernization. The work on the weapon control system consisted of the updating of the semi – autonomous actions of the cover aircraft group with the pro-vision of information transfer to the ground – based autonomous automatic control system, which, with the help of the received data, carried out the target intercept by the fighter, together with the other arming systems. Besides, the problems of autonomous control of the aircraft in the line flight, aircraft control on attack exit were solved; the simultaneous attack regime of one target by the two airplanes was tested; means of crew training were updated. The methods, which allowed increasing launch range, were realized in the system of missile guidance at a target. The modernized aircraft MIG – 31E with the `Zaslon` system was accepted for armament in the Army of Russia in October 1999