star49That claim came from the chief test pilot, and I suspect he has a better understanding than you or I. The only evidence you provide me is your opinion. You’re not a Mig-31 pilot by any chance are you?
Pilots opinion should be taken with grain of salt. As any aircraft can be boosted for limited of time for high Mach numbers. It does not mean it can sustain it for considerable distance. old MIG-31 is Mach 2.35 for 720 Km combat radius with 4 heavy weopons. One weopons weight is almost equal to 3 AIM-120.
Where did the weight savings come from? They didn’t just shave 10,000lbs off.
F-18E/F
Empty weight-30,564lbs
Loaded weight(in fighter configuration)- 47,000lbs
Max Takeoff weight-66,000SU-35
Empty weight-38,600
Loaded-56,660
Max Takeoff-76,060So if weighing 4 or 5 tons more is in the same weight class, I could see how they might claim such a thing.:p
ur putting old Su-35 figures. newer one 34.5 tons maximum with 8 tons weopons and 11.5 tons fuele. which gives it weight of 15.5 tons. quite reasonable compared to 16.5 tons of Su-27SK from which airframe is derived.
how come F-18E is 30,000lb empty. when it can carry 6.5tons fuel and 8 tons weopong. which if 14.5tons. which is equal to 32,000lbs. so empty weight is 34,000lbs= 15.5 tons. I have mathematically proved that Su-35=F-18E weight almost exactly.
http://www.knaapo.ru/eng/products/military/su-35.wbp
Well then provide me with some links to current information, if every link that doesn’t legitimize your claims are invalid.
I have clearly given link that new upgrade started from 2003. I have given link Two new MIG-31BM went into inventory in 2008. U can even logically deduce if It was the same old 1999 upgrade wouldnt there would be introduce much earlier just like there are 40 Su-27SM which is more difficult upgrade as it needs strike weopons integration.
Apparently your definition of speculation is any claim made by someone other than yourself, whereas you’re merely making reasonable assumptions.:rolleyes:
Because ur clearly confusing old MIG-31BM with new one. Ur confusing old R-37 with newer one which is never shown. Ur confusing old Su-35 with new Su-35. so all ur assumptions are unreasonable.
star49I said nothing about the F-16/Su-27 carrying weapons at Mach 2, nor did I say anything about an F-22 reaching Mach 2.8 with weapons. I seem to recall saying Mach 2.42(internal carry so no speed tradeoff )vs. Mach 2.35(the speed that a Mig 31 can reach with weapons).
that was MIG-31 performance 30 years ago. no one knows exact MIG-31BM performance. Russians are very good in airframe improvements. just like they did with flanker. u have no evidence of Mach 2.42 for raptor.
A Mig 35 might be in the weight class of an F-18E. Sukhoi is smoking crack if they’re claiming the Su-35 is that light, as is anyone repeating such nonsense.
MIG-35 is weight class of EF with increase fuel capacity. u cannot challenge official Sukhoi statments.
Does Russia have secret technology that causes their planes to not gain weight when they’re also carrying more fuel?
why not. No one can produce aircrafts in airframe performance at prices where China cannot produce.
As for CFTs, an F-15E can still reach Mach 2.5(clean).
It needed uprated engines to achieve this. try F-15C engines on F-15E.
Do you understand what the word speculate means? It means that you discuss something when you don’t really know what the actual facts are. In otherwords, it means guessing. If you don’t have information regarding performance specs, it’s absurd for anyone to accept the claims at face value.
“They must be able to…..” is not sufficient evidence.
Its very reasonable assumption just F-22 rcs.
http://www.aeroflight.co.uk/types/russia/mig/mig-31/mig-31.htm
“MiG-31BM Proposed upgrade program to add a surface-attack capability to MiG-31 interceptor models, includes radar upgrades for ground mapping and better resolution plus the ability to carry advanced air-to-surface missiles like the Kh-31, Kh-59, Kh-59M, and Kh-29T/L as well as more capable air-to-air missiles. 1 prototype converted by 1999.”
and if you were referring to the -31M model
“MiG-31M ‘Foxhound-B’ Significantly improved production interceptor with cockpit enhancements, refined aerodynamics, IFR probe moved to starboard side, uprated D-30F-6M engines, increased fuel capacity, improved Zaslon-M radar, two additional weapons hardpoints under fuselage, and the ability to carry the improved R-37/AA-9 missile; 7 prototypes were built but further development appears to have have halted due to funding cuts. [Izdelye 05]”
You’re trying to compare prototypes, and non-production equipment, as well as guessing as to what capabilities an aircraft or missile(that’s not even in service) might have. That’s not gonna fly with me(no pun intended).
Why u put outdated links from 90s. the new BM program started from 2003 just like Su-35 program from 2003. (nothing to do with old 90s Su-35). There is no such thing as multirole in operational sense.
No, but you were making a big deal how the lighter avionics on board the Mig 31, allowed the missiles to fly an additional 300-400km.
And increase thrust engines, newer missiles not the 90s missiles. why do u think range of KH-31PMK more than doubled in 21st century?
-this isn’t the cold war. Russia wants hard currency and the export models aren’t akin to what the Warsaw Pact client states, or Arabs were recieving.
Why do so many users of Fulcrums and Flankers put Western avionics on board the planes if the standard kit is so superior.-theory is not reality, when one speaks of operationally deployed weapons. If a weapon has been tested, and deployed in operational numbers, then we can talk about it. Otherwise it’s merely a weapon on paper.
Russia takes national defense very seriously. they dont need hard currency. they have surpluses for past 10 years. and they are not going to share EW tech with anyone. Only the LCD displays are western. which is not even case with newer MIG-29K/Su-35.
Radar and weopons/IRST are still russian.
star49star49, the cost of MiG-35 is also likely to be in the ‘range’ between F-16 and F-18 only, as it is also a 4.5 G plane. Thus, it has no advantage regarding costs, as compared to it’s competitors.
F-16 is as expensive as F-18E. Just from looking of recent export contracts. $120m system price is not out of question and that without weopons. what i read about MIG-35. It is at most $60m plane.
I agree with the above view. It is further established by the statement of the chief of Boeing, that no ToT of AESA radars will be provided to India under the MRCA contract. At the most, only some peripheral (non-critical) components of AESA may be allowed to be manufactured locally.
Of late, in most Indian contracts, nowadays new definitions, terms, and paradigms are being “conjured” to justify what are clear purchase agreements. Examples are PAK-FA and MRCA for which “50% joint co-development” and “ToT by offsets” were come up with.
Just as India will not provide ToT to manufacture Tejas’ composites, or Rajendra radar to other less advantaged nations, regardless of their “friendly” status, in the same manner, ToT for sensitive equipment will not be provided to India under the MRCA contract.
Except for F-18E/MIG-35. The rest are planes with small nose. i doubt AESA will be even effective in them to make difference. Gripen/Rafale/F-16 will be among the worst. EF is good but is priced in 5th generation class.
star49– you’re assuming that the F-22 isn’t using afterburners to reach it’s top speed, in which case that supersonic gap isn’t significantly different between F-16/F-22 and SU-27/MIG-31 is negligible. The F-22 can fly faster the the -31 with a combat load of missiles(Mach 2.42 vs. Mach 2.35) and at similar service ceilings.
Ur seriously wrong about F-16/Su-27. Both of them cannot reach Mach 2 with weopons. infact Su-27 is limited to Mach 1.7. With new engines they tested it reach Mach 1.9 in 2004. Neither can F-22 reach Mach 2.8 with weopons.
-you’re still making claims that not even the Russian missile companies are making, and with no evidence other than your opinion. Show me a link where they claim 600-700km in range.
Why would they make claims about product which is not for export?
-heavier missiles are also usually slower, less manueverable(the Sparrow was several hundred pounds heavier that the AMRAAM, but with half the range or less).
heavier missiles are slower? show me a single heavier missile that is slower than lighter missile. u can see this from Supersonic Ashm which are several time heavier than subsonic antiship.
Is the Flanker faster now, or just more efficient? Again, you’re making assumptions that aren’t supported by anything that can be verified. Avionics weight isn’t gonna have any significant effect on the top speed or range(note I said significant).
I am not making any claim or assumption. Sukhio themsevles said Su-35 is in weight class of F-18E. when u have such low weight with 9tons afterburning engine u achieve supersonic cruise and top speed at low altitude. Mach 2.25 at 36000 feet. http://www.knaapo.ru. click Su-35.
http://www.flankers-site.co.uk/mos2005_day02.html. . here u can see data for Su-27SM. 4000km range on internal fuel. 2480km/hr top speed. interesting figure about height.
Internal fuel increase weight too. CFTs don’t hinder the top speed, as they’re not draggy like a drop tank.
they are offcourse draggy. and increase weight too. why to u think late model F-16 weighs 9 tons.
The only person I see speculating here is you. I can’t clearly or easily see the range increases that you’re claiming.
I havent speculated a single time.
I didn’t see any claims with the word hypersonic. It said “successfully engaging missiles including an enemy’s small cruise and supersonic vehicles.”
– the enhancements are that it has air to ground capabilities too
Nope. they are not going to use in air to ground role for that Su-27 upgrade is there. show me any fighter that can engage small missiles with AAMs.
The fact that the MIG-31 has a heavier antenna/radar than the SU-30 is relevant how? You’ve been making a big deal about how the -31 is lighter now than earlier variants so its missiles obviously have twice the effective range as a result.
Do u think that heavier and bigger antenna is for fun.
The KS-172 has never been fielded(and it never claimed the ranges that you’ve been saying), so you can leave this out of the discussion. Let’s deal with equipment that is in production and operational. I haven’t seen any sources saying that the R-37 has been operationally fielded either for that matter, only that in test firings it engaged targets at 300km.
They will not show or discuss what they are putting in domestic fighters. u can only assume that 300km happened in past. So 600 km is now reasonalbe since even export Su-35 is alllowed 300km missile. KS-172 is not a big deal for firm like Novator. check there antiship missile capabilities.
star49I’m not sure that the AIM-120 from an F-22 will be able to travel 2x the distance that it would from an F-16, but even if it can, you can’t extrapolate that increase in the manner in which you’re doing. Let’s just say for the sake of argument that the AIM-120 from an F-16 can reach 50km, and from an F-22 100km. That is twice the range, but……you’re seeing a 50km improvement. You can’t then use that to say that an R73 will increase from 300km(from a Su-27) to 600km (from a Mig 31). Realistically you might get 350-400km(a 50-100km improvement), but not a 2x increase. The take away is that you can get another 50km or so increase by flying higher and faster, not that you can get 2x the range.
Again the supersonic performance gap between F-16 & F-22 is less than what is between Su-27& MIG-31. (which is exactly twice for non-upgrade version of MIG-31) can luanch missiles at speeds& altitudes. And there is law of increasing returns in missile case. heavier missile has bigger motor and fuel & it is more likely to be doulbed in range than lighter missile. Here we are considering Very long range missile not long range or medium range missile.
As for the R73 vs. S400/500, it is true that it is advantageous for a missile to be fired at Mach 2+ at 60,000ft(the -31 isn’t flying at Mach 3 or much higher than the figure I gave) vs. from the ground, but let’s look at the size of other aerial weapons that have a 600-700km range, and the size of the R73 vs. an AIM-120, Meteor, AIM-54, etc… when trying to establish a realistic figure. You still have yet to show any source other than your opinion for the ranges that you’re claiming, and I’m not gonna accept as valid.
No one has published performance of upgraded MI-31. Sukhoi was improving drastically performance of Su-27SM with lighter avionics and new engines which gave it 4000km range. So the same is sure done with MIG-31BM. so no need to extrapolate 3 decades old figures.
I never mentioned the F-15E. I said C vs. A(the air superiority versions). I’ve never heard any claims that the C has a higher top speed just because it has newer and/or more powerful engines. All the BM variant adds is that it is more flexible, having both A/A and A/G capabilities.
F-15C cannot have greater top speed as it does not have fuel to sustain that speed. external fuel tanks/CFT increase weigth and put limitations on performance. Which is not the case with MIG-31. F-15 airframe has hit the law of dimiishing returns in terms of performance. even TVC will add substainial weight to it. It aint Su-35 with 3D TVC and increase internal fuel but less weight than original Su-27.
u can see clearly the difference. Missile for export aircraft is shown but not for MIG-31BM. only people are speculating. ur looking at missile which easily can exceed range of S-400.
http://forum.keypublishing.co.uk/showthread.php?t=74257
War on Two Fronts for Russia’s Missile Builders
Aviation Week & Space Technology
09/10/2007, page 68Douglas Barrie and Alexey Komarov
Zhukovsky, RussiaFunding tap turned back on for Russia’s guided-weapons sector, but hurdles remain
Printed headline: Family Affair
While an upgraded MiG-31BM Foxhound was on view at the show, Tactical Missiles’ ambitions to display the aircraft’s long-range air-to-air armament was thwarted. The upgraded Foxhound is meant to carry an improved long-range missile rather than the R-33 (AA-9 Amos). This missile is likely the K-37M, a further development of the K-37 (AA-X-13). Again, this weapon is said to be in flight test.
While Tactical Missiles Corp. was unable to display its latest long-range AAM, a further iteration of Novator’s KS-172 was shown with the Sukhoi Su-35 prototype.
Note the key words. here only MIG-31BM can engage hypersonic missiles and smallcruise missiles. before it was cruise missiles. Radar performace has been enhanced to different level.
http://www.royfc.com/news/mar/2008mar01.html
Two upgraded MiG-31BM fighters entered the inventory of the Lipetsk Center for Combat Application and Cross-Training of Flight Personnel on Thursday.“As a result of the upgrade, the airplanes were equipped with a long-range detection system and a satellite navigation system which allows determining the coordinates of aerial and ground target with high precision and successfully engaging missiles including an enemy’s small cruise and supersonic vehicles,” the aid to the air force commander-in-chief, Aleksandr Drobyshevskiy, said.
He reported that the airplane’s upgrade was carried out at the Nizhniy Novgorod Sokol aviation plant.
“They will be studying the combat capabilities of the MiG-31BM at the Lipetsk aviation center and also cross-training flight and maintenance personnel on this upgraded airplane,” A. Drobyshevskiy said.
Source: 20.03.08, Gudok
this clearly show MIG-31 upgraded started later than Bars. Antenna is 250kg vs 100kg for Su-30.
http://www.royfc.com/news/sep/1003sep02.html
Upgraded Aircraft Radar Being Created for MiG-31 FighterThe upgraded “Zaslon-AM” aircraft radar (BRLS) is being created at the Tikhomirov Scientific Research Institute of Instrument Building, the general director of the Tikhomirov NIIP, Yuriy Belyy, reported to Interfax-AVN on Wednesday.
“The Tikhomirov NIIP has an assignment in accordance with the state defense order line item to upgrade the ‘Zaslon’ BRLS for MiG-31 fighters. The upgraded BRLS has received the designation ‘Zaslon-AM’,” Yu. Belyy reported.
According to him, the Tikhomirov NIIP has 30 years of experience in the creation and development of radars with electronic scanning (the “Zaslon”) for fighter interceptors of the MiG-31 type.
Yu. Belyy reported that the Tikhomirov NIIP plans to begin bench tests in the near future of the upgraded BRLS.
“An agreement has been concluded with the St. Peterburg Leninets Holding Company for the development at this enterprise of a special bench for the overhaul and upgrade of the BRLS,” the NIIP general director declared.
He noted that the upgrade of the “Zaslon-A” radar includes, in particular, the replacement of the digital processing components ((VYCHISLITEL’NYE SREDSTVA)). “The program for the creation of the ‘Zaslon-AM’ BRLS is at the experimental design work stage,” the agency source reported.
In the opinion of experts, in the upgrade of the “Zaslon” BRLS with electronic beam scanning, the aging A-15A central processor is exchanged for the more modern “Baget-55” which allows the introduction of several new mode of operation for the “Zaslon-AM” BRLS for the upgraded MiG-31BM fighters while keeping the B1.01M antenna.
The “Zaslon” BRLS technologies have served as a base for the creation of the N-011M “Bars” BRLS for Indian air force fighters of the Su-30MKI type. At the same time, the “Bars” radar antenna’s weight is 100 kilograms versus the weight of the B1.01M antenna on the MiG-31 of 250 kilograms.
Source: 10.09.03, Interfax-AVN
star49As regards operational costs, it is likely that per hour operation costs, and maintenance costs of the F-18 are likely to be much higher than the Su-30 MKI despite being run by engines of lower max. thrust, because the former has much higher purchase costs and costs of maintaining electronic equipment like AESA radar etc.
Thus, in terms of operation costs also, the F-18 has no advantage over the Su-30 MKI.
It is increasingly clear that the MRCA proposal serves no purpose in the IAF, except to benefit vested interests only.
Except for MIG-35. Acquisition of MRCA will be twice as expensive as Su-30MKI project. India cannot buy 230 MRCA for $8 to $9B. Most likely 126 MRCA for $12B to $13B with very slow induction rate. and that is even lower end of the cost figure. I think USN order of 440 F-18E for some thing like $44B & that is 2003 figures. No industrial concern will share advance composites knowledge for aerospace. Russians tried to buy it from Japanese but failed so they have developed by themselves for $3B. so these TOT/offsets is meaningless.
There is no 18 Su-30K example that can quickly be supplied & wait for Indian version of MRCA to be developed.
star49AIM-120 range from F-16 vs. F-22 doesn’t increase by 100s of Kilometers.
where i said 100s of km. AIM-120C from F-22 will produce double range of F-16 at high altitude.
How is it that you can pick and choose which parts of articles to use as support, yet anything that doesn’t validate your assertions must be an old missile, or out of date fact? You have yet to produce a link showing any claims of a 600-700km missile(that’s a longer range than a S-400/500, and those are huge compared to any AAM). Whether the Mig 31 was a BM or not is irrelevant, as it’s airspeed and altitude aren’t gonna be any different(i.e. are F-15Cs faster than F-15As? they’ve got newer engines and avionics right, so they must be able to using the newer=faster, higher, longer logic.
I dont pick and chose. I am providing u correct context. In 90s Su-27 could at most fire 120km range missile when MIG-31 was approaching 300KM. Now it is Su-35 with 300 to 400KM. So why Missile of MIG-31 should have the same range when MIG-31 performance is drastically improved due to engines and lighter avionics. Only Russian aircraft have lost weight. F-15E is not likely to be better than F-15C as it is heavier. S-400 missile is alteast 300KM for 1800kg weight but it takes enormous resources to take into height above 22km where MIG-31 can launch missile at those heights with Mach 3 energy.
star49That article from 2006 says this-
“Today in Russia were created new R37 missiles with 280 km launch range.”
This is talking about the Mig 31, not the SU-35. Even your sources are at odds with your claims.
There was no upgraded MIG-31BM in 2006. First two were delivered iin feb 2008. That 280km missile referring to old 90s inventory.
You’re still not gonna get an extra 300km range without a significantly different propulsion system, just by firing at Mach 2.4 vs. 1.2.
how is AIM-120 range from F-22 at 65K vs F-16 at half its height and speed.
When they announce that export Su-35 is going to carry missiles more than 300KM ranges. there is no reason to doubt 600km from MIG-31BM.
star49http://www.rbcnews.com/free/20080912195851.shtml
More money for space and GLONASS programs
RBC, 12.09.2008, Moscow 19:58:51.Russia’s Prime Minister Vladimir Putin has signed a decree to enlarge the financing of the Global Navigation Satellite System (GLONASS) by another RUB 67bn (approx. USD 2.6bn). According to the government’s press office, Putin told Deputy Prime Minister Sergei Ivanov that he was also about to approve an extra RUB 45bn (approx. USD 1.75bn) to fund the space program.
In turn, Ivanov elaborated that the allocations would be used to build and launch new satellites. This year, six new GLONASS satellites will be put in orbit, making the total number of satellites 22. By 2012, GLONASS will be covering the entire Earth.
As for the space program, the extra amount will be used to finance the design of a new Russian cosmodrome in the Amur region.
star49Your own link shows that the speed of the Mig hasn’t changed- Mach 2.83(3000km/h) as the top speed. The new engines may be more fuel efficient, or durable, but I’ve yet to see that the speed has changed.
New engines are alot more powerful just like IL-76 and Su-35 engines are alot more powerful. And they dont need to disclose the performance enhancement just like F-22 RCS is classified. All they say it is 5th generation competitor.
As for the missile ranges, why should I “simply” double the range since it’s now 2008. As for the platform, how much slower will the SU-35 be travelling than the MIG-31? A few hundred km/h difference isn’t gonna double the range of the missile.
You still haven’t answered as to what missiles are actually IN SERVICE vs. prototypes.
Old MIG-31 can launch AAMs at double the speed of other jets of those era like Su-27. So it is not few hundred km difference. rather like launching AAMs at Mach 1.2 vs Mach 2.4. twice less. Meaning if Su-27 has to decrease by Mach 1.2 due external weopons. MIG will decrease by Mach 0.6 with similar weopons load out.
http://www.aviapedia.com/video/mig-31-foxhound-video-smotr
Mig-31 can reach huge speed level. And during the design process it was very important to lower down carried missiles resistance to the incoming air. Mig designers succeded in this task – missiles are placed in the way to slowdown plane twice less then all the planes before.
star49Because the MIG-31 isn’t flying any higher or faster than it did 10-20 years ago for one. Secondly a missile with a 600km+ range is gonna be huge, and I doubt any fighter is gonna carry 4 or more of them at anywhere near supersonic speeds.
Why it cannot fly higher and faster when Su-35 can to it vs Su-27?
3000 km/h is the MIG’s top speed(which it can’t reach with a combat load). It can get up to Mach 2.35 with 4 AAMs(R33/R37) with a combat radius of about 390 miles.
that was performance 30 years ago. Nothing to do with lighter avionics with LCD, radar and upgraded engines.
How big is the R-37 vs. R33? How big is the motor and propellant load on each of the missiles? There is a law of diminishing returns in terms of performance increases. You can’t continuously get 100-300% increases in range without going with a much larger missile. This then limits how many missiles that you can carry, and how fast/far that you can carry them.
Law of diminishing returns? contrary it is law of increasing returns. Old R-37 at most is 20% heavier but 300% performance boosts. u have to understand the stronger the motor, the higher the speed and greater the range from higher speed. missile accelerated to Mach 10 has different range than missile accelerated to mach 4 even if they have similar fuel. i am not going into decrease weights of new missiles with composite construction.
It is clearly written 320km range vs fighter size target. 280km hypersonic intercept from 1999. In 2008 simply double that figures just like Su-35 double that figure on Su-30MKI of 2001. And that aircraft does not have enhanced performance of new engines.
http://www.testpilot.ru/russia/mikoyan/mig/31/bm/mig31bm.htm
star49Wrong! The evidence is most certainly not pretty strong for any of these claims. Assumptions on the otherhand are myriad. You have offered no tangible evidence to a single claim that you have made.
-how is it relevant whether or not the MIG-31 has newer engines or lighter avionics, in terms of the range of it’s weapons? Are you suggesting that the old engines and avionics onboard the aircraft was a hindrance to the kinetic performance of a missile? If so, please explain for the rest of us. Using your “logic” the latest variant of the MIG must be able to fly Mach 6 at a cruise altitude of 160,000 feet, as older MIGs could fly Mach 3 at 80,000.[/quote]
Lets compare Su-27 with SU-35. Su-35 carries alot more avionics and weopons load but can supercruise and has far better performance it is due engines and lighter avionics with more fuel. Why can MIG-31BM can do it. and it share engine with IL-76 upgrades? how can range increase from 120Km R-33 to 300KM R-37 20 years ago but it cannot increase to 600km now when even platform is better.
-as for the range of missiles, is it your assertion that the export models have a 100 percent performance downgrade from the Russian models(i.e. export=300km thus the Russian model must be able to reach twice as far)? Are the Indian Flankers inferior to those that the Russian Air Force is flying?
Additionally, the range that you’re asserting is greater than that of any long range SAMs(and getting into the range of IRBMs). Even if we’re gonna assume a range of 300km, that’s the outside range against an opponent heading towards you(which means by the time the missile hits, the target will be much closer). As was pointed out earlier, that 300km range was achieved by midcourse guidance info that had been handed off by an SU-27 that was closer to target. There is no fighter radar that can lock onto a target at 700km, and guide a missile to impact. At that range, if the target changes direction, the missile won’t have much energy left for manuevering.
I have never said export models have 100% performance down grade. Sukhoi merely stated that they are equipming Su-35 with 300km class missile. so likely Su-27SM2 will be 400KM.
MIG-31 missile ranges will be further than this at its high altitude performance is far better. non upgraded MIG-31 can do 3000km/h while export Su-35 is 2500km/h.
-please explain why only Russian AAMs seem to have 100% range increases every few years, but no one else seems to be able to accomplish this feat.
You like to use the word logic, but by definition you must provide proof to support your premise. It’s your job to show us that you’re correct, not ours to prove that you’re wrong.
Please explain how R-37 has 300% range increase vs R-33 20 years ago with non upgraded platform.
star49The S-300 was tested to 400 kilometers in the 1980s. By your logic it should be around 1000 km now, and it isn’t. The S-500 is irrelevant as it is a wholly new system.
400Km in 80s is almost impossible to lock on fighters on those ranges flying at speed and altitude..u can say they same about S-200.
But now with new radars, processing powers, and upgraded launch platform. Very long range AAM is entirely possible. infact it is part of Su-35 for export.
star49I think this Ukranian president is second Shakasvilli. get afford gas for his tanks/ships and talk big.
Tymoshenko opposes decrees on Black Sea Fleet’s ships border crossing
KYIV. Sept 10 (Interfax-AVN) – President Viktor Yushchenko’s decrees regulating the crossing of maritime borders by the Russian Black Sea Fleet’s ships conflicts with the Russian-Ukrainian agreement on the Black Sea Fleet deployment in Ukraine, said Ukrainian Prime Minister Yulia Tymoshenko.
“I am categorically against those decrees signed by the president,” Tymoshenko said on the Svoboda Slova (Free Speech) program on the ICTV television channel on Monday evening.
The president’s decree bans Black Sea Fleet’ ships from entering their base waters, she said. “I would like to ask: how, in what way will they be banned?” Tymoshenko said.
At the same time, it is better to avoid repeating Georgia’s sad experience, “when we provoke a conflict with our own hands only to see someone giving us a disproportionate response, as the EU Parliament wrote in a statement,” she said.
Tymoshenko also opposed attempts to compel Crimeans to unite in sign of protest against “impossible conditions” set by Ukraine for the Black Sea Fleet.
“This is the first step that makes them [Crimeans] want to go and get a second passport in addition to the Ukrainian one,” Tymoshenko said.
star49Time to move beyond Nukes. Nukes will become obsolete.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article4734450.ece
Mr Putin also showed a more conciliatory side. Asked about nuclear weapons, he said that the time might come when they could be phased out. “There are technological developments in conventional weapons that could make nuclear weapons obsolete,” he said. “We should close this Pandora’s Box.”
Sign In
