There is most certainly a reason not to believe it and it’s what many here have been trying to get across to you, but you won’t listen. It’s the same reason that there is no reason to believe that a T-rex evolved with gills and flippers and lives at the bottom of the ocean…there’s no evidence to support it. It doesn’t matter how little we no about it, how much the deep ocean (or Russian aerospace) remains a mystery to us, we can’t just come up with an idea about gremlins living on the dark side of the moon and assume it to be true unless someone can disprove it. The burden is on you to prove it exists, not on the sensible minds of the world to prove that it doesn’t.

The only 600km air-to-air weapon that exists (to my knowledge) is American. That’s the Boeing YAL-1 Airborne Laser. Right now, I honestly believe that the F-22 Raptor and the ABL represent the two surest ways to quickly and decisively engage and destroy an airborne AWACS platform operating at altitude.

The other methods involve either swarming (with the associated losses), very low (undetected) flying by fighter aircraft equipped with long-range AAMs, or being lucky enough to have the AWACS come in range of your ground-based air defenses. As it is, however, no ground-based platform could chase down an AWACS, so you have to hope it will come to you.

The easiest way to take out an AWACS remains a commando or mortar attack on the base it’s operating from or–the most likely–a successful MANPAD launch against the aircraft on takeoff or landing.

Being that none of those are easy to accomplish and many of them are just as easy (or easier) against ground-based radars with much smaller radar range, I think that AWACS is–at the moment–the most survivable way of getting a major radar and command and control asset that close to the battlefield, regardless of terrain.

Logan Hartke

ur confusing past with future. Range of Antiship, crusie, SAMs is increasing. whats preventing AAMs ranges?. Abolutely nothing. Incase of AAM not only missiles are boosted but platform is also.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_YAL-1
If the ABL achieves its design goals, it could destroy liquid-fueled ICBMs up to 600 km away. Tougher solid-fueled ICBM destruction range would likely be limited to 300 km, too short to be useful in many scenarios, according to a 2003 report by the American Physical Society on National Missile Defense. [5]

It is not long range missile it is a very long range missile

http://www.janes.com/extracts/extract/jalw/jalw3600.html
Many test and development firings were conducted with the K-37 missile prototypes during the early 1990s. In more recent years Vympel sources have commented that work on the K-37/R-37 programme had ceased. Vympel cited the excessive cost of the missile and the small number of host platforms (MiG-31 ‘Foxhound’) available for it as the main reasons for dropping its development. However, in late 2006 it emerged that the R-37 was under active development once again, as an integral element of the MiG-31BM ‘Foxhound’ upgrade programme. Russian sources have also identified the R-37 as the R-VD (Raketa-Velikaya Dalnost, very long range missile). In November 2006

You still haven’t answered the question of which air to air missile has a 600km range. You haven’t answered the question of how close a MIG-31 base is to any likely location that an AWACS would be orbiting. You’re assuming all of the optimal conditions exist for the MIG(that it actually can fly 3000km/hr for 720km with 4 AAMs that are large enough to fly 600km). You’re assuming that the AWACS, it’s escorts and EW assets won’t detect the MIG, jam it/shoot it down/etc…. the technical term that’s going on here is known as suspension of disbelief.

ur google search is providing links based on old information and inaccurate assumptions. Mach 6 speed and 300km is unreliable. Mach 6 is the intercept performance of old R-37. that achieved 300KM range on unupgraded MIG-31 15 to 20 years ago. It has practically nothing to do with current MIG-31BM.
Export Su-35 is advertized with 300 to 400Km range missile and u can see from Sukhoi video AWACS destruction before fighters. Domestic upgraded MIG-31BM is different thing. and MIG-31 itself has better high altitude performance. add to that new engines and lighter avionics with better engine, lighter electronics of missile. Ur looking at 600 to 700 km range shot.

Is your MiG-31 capable of supercruise Star?. To get to a 300km launching range for your AAM (if that really is 300km in tailchase) from the AWACS the MiG is going to need it.

300KM range with missile was achieved 15 to 20 years ago by MIG-31. Now simply double that range. I have posted a link that MIG-31 can launch AAMs at twice the speed of any other aircraft. So that Mach 2.8 figure may not be accurate for enhanced MIG-31 with new engines and lighter avionics/radar.

Modernized MiG-31 test flights successful – company
16:59 | 08/ 11/ 2006

http://en.rian.ru/russia/20061108/55463701.html
NIZHNY NOVGOROD, November 8 (RIA Novosti) – Russia has successfully conducted test flights of a modernized MiG-31 Foxhound interceptor equipped with improved engines and electronics, a defense company said Wednesday.

Russia plans to modernize its whole fleet of MiG-31interceptors, which have been in service for 25 years, and extend their service life with the air force until 2015.

“Successful tests confirmed that the MiG-31 has strong potential,” the press service of the Perm Engine Company said, adding that the interceptor’s unique maneuverability and combat characteristics are largely based on the capabilities of a modernized engine developed by Russian designers.

The AWACS passive detects the fighter radar at 600km according to you. It then speeds up to max, 800km/h give or take, then turns on an escape heading, to minimise the closure rate to the greatest extent possible. Starting at 600km distant the AWACS will be 1400km from the MiG-31 initial detection position after 1hr.

AWACS will have hard time detecting MIG-31 at 600km. It is the MIG-31 that can detect AWACS at 600 to 1000km. MIG-31 is fighter that has flexibility of going higer or lower to the ground.

That means that the MiG has to cover 1100km in that hour to be near a position in range to fire a 300km air-air missile at the end of the chase. Sustaining mach 1 for an hour (or M2 for half an hour) will seriously tax most airframes. From a quick scan of net resources I’d say that it would tax Foxhound just as much!.

MIG-31 can has combat radius of 720km at 3000km/hr with 4 AAM with un upgraded version. It would have no problem in catching AWACS in the air or on the ground. upgraded version are multirole. So expect to see long range ground strikes on AWACS base or provide situational awarness to group of flankers.

waiting for, not getting it. We’ve already covered this, with AWACs, other fighters around and ground stations networked together. The performance of an individual fighter’s radar is not as important. 5th generation birds offer the element of stealth that 4th generation birds don’t have.

there is no guarantee that Stealth wont be detected. Su-35 offers superior performance, range and integrated avionic system across the board. Just BVR shoot capability with high altitude perfomance, fbw control 3D TVC will give it edge in any combat.

lol, believe what you must. Consider this, N-001 vs 3sqm targets is listed by Chinese sources as having a search range of 80-100km, tracking range of 60 km and lock-on range of 40 km.
and you can check here http://www.aeronautics.ru/archive/vvs/su30-01.htm

1980s era 100km search is very good. Considering MIG-31 was at most 200km at that was using PESA.

you are basically saying that Irbis will have 10 times the lock-on range of N-001. I’m speechless.

APG-73 from late 90s atleast has 160 km range and RMAF considered BARS superior to it from 2001 almost equal to future APG-79.

an interesting case to consider is Zhuk-MSF.
Designed to have a peak power of 8 kW and average power of 2-3 kW
Against a fighter size target (I’m presuming 5 sqm here)
velocity mode search range is 245 km
RWS mode, detection range in lock-up face on is 180 km, tailing is 90 km, look down face on is 130 km, tailing is 60 km.
TWS mode detection range is 150 km.
Vs large targets like AWACS and tankers, the tracking range is 300 km.

I would think that you can do some estimation of Irbis’s performance based on this. If we base it on the brochure data, then the power of Irbis is 2 to 2.5 times that of Zhuk-MSF. If we take the quadric root of that, you get about 1.2 to 1.25 gain in range.

there is nothing wrong with Zhuk-MSF range as it wast fully developed. and 180km is not a bad range considering it is decade old technology.

Do you seriously believe that a stationary ground based radar is less vulnerable to attack than a mobile airborne radar? An E-3 can use any airbase(or airport for that matter). Any asset is vulnerable if an opponent is lucky enough. What is the maximum effective range of any CURRENTLY fielded missile, that the MIG 31 carries, and how close does it have to be to still ensure a kill, if the AWACs stops emitting? What happens if the MIG is taken out while still on the ground, by a missile?

mobile ground based radar is far difficult to hit. And u can create dummy radar and missile sites. u can increase protection. The same can be done with MIG-31 on ground as it is far smaller than AWACS.
It is far difficult to fly dummy AWACS or creating on ground with that huge antenna. Due to MIG-31 speed and height. missile ranges will be far higher than any other aircraft. 400 to 500km is reasonable guess as long range test were done decades ago.

I think the problem here is that you have a fundemental misunderstanding of how AWACs are used, and the relative abilities of sensor detection ranges, or the speed/altitude of the AWACs relative to the fighters. No MIG 31 or SU 27/30/35 is gonna sneak up on the AWACs, and if they do manage to get danger close, they’ll have their hands full dealing with friendly fighters, while the E-3 is flying away(and not emitting).

MIG-31 is equiped with much higher speed and longer range missile. It does not need to get close to AWACS for hit. and when u put friendly aircraft for constant protection u already lose half the battle against equal adversary. It is the high flying UAV, Satellites, and 5th generation avionics in high flying, high speed jets coupled with ultra long range missile that will decide the battle. the same is true for greater than 300km range air to ground weopons that fighters can launch now. and AWACS is much bigger target on the ground airbase it can be hit by next genreration BMs quite accurately. u cannot start or move around like fighter force once it is detected on ground.

For the benefit of the others, the processing power for an AWACS is several times of all fighter-types in service. When that is not enough, they are data-linked with the strongest ground-based systems. So even small AWACS can work as data-relays and gap-fillers. The term force multipler does not com from nowhere and every serious air force is looking for that capability.

AWACS have many times bigger RCS, it is slower and operates at altitudes which makes it vulenerable. AWACS are not needed for 5th generation class fighters. MIG-31 with datalinks is also force multiplier. Every serious airforce is looking because they have weak fighters. for example it will greatly help for Su-24/Su-25 in providing airpicture but no so for Su-34/MIG-31.

If Su-35 came out in 2004 and was delivered to China starting in 2006, it would be a different story, but by 2011, China will be waiting for a 5th generation fighter rather than a glorified 4th generation fighter. No matter how many + they add to the end of 4, it’s still a 4th gen fighter.

I would love to see Chinese 5th generation in 2011. Advance 4th generation makes alot of difference from Superior acceleration, altitude, range, weopon stations flexibility, 150 sensors on airframe, long time for engines and hence better uptime.

don’t just use that number from the face of it. Other than my previous assertion that Chinese testing determined it didn’t achieve that kind of range. A lot of the maximum detection range you read for these radar are for the so called velocity search mode. The tracking range in RWS mode is less than that and the lock-on range is even less.

it is certainly not velocity search. these are old data. Irbis can guide 4 semi-active BVR at range greater than 300Km. lock on range may well be above 400km.