So Star if I understand you right you think that, instead of detecting a Su-35 at 300km on its APY set actively, it will, actually, detect it at 400km passively. Also that an AWACS will get a passive detection against a MiG-31 at 600km?. Makes you wonder why the Su or MiG would turn its radar on doesnt it really!.:rolleyes:

AWACS is not a fighter like Su-34 that it can achieve supersonic crusie at tree height nor it has high altitude performance. It operates at altitudes where it is will be detected by any modern ground based radar system at thousands of kms. on other hand ultra long range high speed BVR missiles give choice to fighter aircraft to make AWACS operate far away from battlefied it would normall would be and use greater resources for its protection.

Unloading of reactor sectors from heavy cruiser sub will be completed by November

SEVERODVINSK. Sept 5 (Interfax-AVN) – Teams from Sevmashpredpriyatiye shipyard and from the White Sea naval base are preparing for the unloading of active sections of reactors of the nuclear powered heavy missile cruise ship Admiral Nakhimov.

“The so-called operation No. 1 that has been put off many times over financial problems will take place before November this year,” a source on the naval base team told Interfax.

“The financing of the unloading and the transportation of the spent nuclear fuel by train to the Mayak facility has begun. Money for the repairs of the ship will be included in next year’s budget,” the source added.

In the framework of the repairs and upgrading of the cruiser outdated radio-electronic equipment will be replaced. New computer equipment will be installed upgrading the cruiser’s radio electronics to 21st century standards. In addition, the Granit (Shipwreck) missile system is expected to be changed for a newer system. The new system is ready for installation in the Russian Oskar-II nuclear submarines, the same will be installed in the cruiser.

The heavy cruiser Admiral Nakhimov (until 1992 the Kalinin) was commissioned in 1988. It provides the capability to engage large surface ships and to defend the fleet against air and submarine attack.

Ground based/Naval and AWACS is AESA not big deal. It is the fighter radar thats the most difficult part with wide variety of weopons and modes in compact structure.
There are certain things that EU cannot do. Like reusable space shuttle, 5th generation fighter (In all qualities). The integrated defense, economic and project management structure is not there.
When u compare US/Russia/EU arms industry. EU is the slowest and costliest to implement various projects in same generation.

that doesn’t say what you claimed it did.

At what heights future hypersonic flight vehicles will travel. offcourse no one is going to disclose exact capabilities but there was Vympel statement from 2006 of hitting targets above 40km.

Weapons System Upgrade Will Allow Heavy MiG-31 Fighter to Destroy Hypersonic Flight Vehicles

A weapons system upgrade will allow the heavy MiG-31 fighter to destroy hypersonic flight vehicles, chief of the 30th air force central scientific research institute federal state foundation, Colonel Yuriy Balyko, announced to journalists today.

“The domestic line of aircraft armament requires a definite upgrade right now,” he said. – Russia’s primary aerial weaponry improvement is the development and realization of a long-term state program which includes, in particular, the creation of a new generation of air-to-air guided missiles.

In Balyko’s opinion, “the upgraded MiG-31 will be able to use air-to-air guided missiles from a great launch distance.”

“Its capabilities for the destruction small airplanes and cruise missiles will grow, and also for future hypersonic flight vehicles,� the institute’s leader emphasized. – �On the whole, its combat effectiveness can grow 1 1/2 to 4 times in comparison with the basic airplane.�

“The Su-34 ((sic)) airplane will be able to destroy ground, surface and aerial targets effectively using a whole range of aerial weapons which do not depend on weather conditions and time of day in any geographic region,” Balyko concluded.

What the hell does that mean ?

u have no chance of fighter radar when u cant make top of the line AWACS.

http://www.royfc.com/acft_news.html
Radio Construction Concern Vega Continuing Work on Upgrade of Russian Federation Air Force A-50 AWACS
As V. Verba noted, “the upgraded complexes will be at the level of the best worldwide achievements in this area, and in some parameters the Russian complexes leave the Western counterparts behind.”

2020 ? Would you be kind enough to give us explanation with that figure ?

whe u look at time scale of RDY-2. There is little prospect of supplying AESA equiped fighter with full functional capabilities. So i doubt French will be suplying AESA to IAF M2K (the cost and timelineof upgrade justify AESA) let alone to some MRCA fighter.

http://www.kommersant.com/p-13161/Amphibian_aircraft/
Russia’s Navy to Have New Amphibian Aircraft
The RF Navy will have the first amphibian A-42 in 2010, RIA Novosti reported September 5 with reference to the statement of Naval Aviation Deputy Commander Major General Nikolay Kuklev.
The plans are that the Navy will have four A-43s by 2013 and buy them in the antisubmarine variant afterwards. Upgraded Il-38s and amphibian Be-12 will oppose submarines till 2015, Kuklev said. Only the RF Black Sea Fleet has B-12s. They are nine in number, including eight antisubmarine ones. After the upgrade, B-12 will enjoy the up-to-date target search and track system.

Designed by Taganrog Beriev Aviation Research and Technical Center based on the A-40 jets, new A-42 has improved tactical and technical characteristics, including in part of the flying range and duration. The A-40 has never become the series plane due to financial problems of late 1990s.

A-42 is a multipurpose jet that could be used for patrolling maritime and inshore zones, surveillance of subsurface, surface and shore targets and for search and rescue operations. It is equipped with the Sea Snake target search and track system, ARIA-B navigation devices and airborne communication system. Its maximum speed reaches 770 kilometers/hour; the flight range is 11,500 kilometers.

In-service, exactly the same number of X-Band fighter-borne AESA radars as in Russia. But there are European AESA radars in service, including one sold to the USCG for its patrol aircraft. How many Russian AESA radars, of any type, are in service?

What has been claimed is that Russian AESA radars, & in particular the Zhuk-AE, match or exceed the best in the world in performance, & that Russia is so far ahead of Europe in AESA radar development that there is no point even in comparing them. I see no evidence for either claim. The proponents of this view appear to believe that experience gained on one one class of AESA radar is of no value when developing another class (but PESA experience is very valuable 😀 ), that the quality of the hardware is of no significance, & that all Russian radars are fully ready for operational use as soon as a protoype is shown.

Why should be there any doubt in Russian AESA claim. they know how to make radar. Bars PESA almost matches APG-79 and Irbis is more in APG-77 class. There shouldnt be any doubt Zhuk-AESA. EU AESA is very weak even for AWACS. IAF didnot chose it for AWACS. so hardly there is possibility for fighter radar. they are still dithering over M2K radar and even if they signed it tommorrow. It will take upto 2015 for decent slot array M2K. EU fighter AESA have no chance before 2020.

I wonder why the Russians aren’t developing something of similar size to the Sandbox / Shipwreck.

Maybe they know they don’t need to ever engage carriers – so smaller missiles make sense? The warhead of the Yakhont is puny compared to the missiles above, so it’s either they know they won’t have to fight the US off, or they intend to field far more Yakhonts per vessel / unit and use smaller size as an offensive / LO advantage.

Russia have tested cruise missile from Iskander TEL more kind of version of Sizzler. And there is klubir missile associated with Su-35.
Now airborne radar has greater power, missiles are more compact. 400kg warhead of 1970s is different than 21st century. .
u need much larger missile from Ship to create same kind of energy and range than let say Su-35/MIG-31 launching Antiship missiles at above 50,000 feet and Mach 2. things have shifted in favor of airpower decisevly if used in sufficient quantity and technology. Airborne radar can see further than ship based radar. aircrafts are more flexible to use. Reaction speed is fast. There is no point in creating over 10,000 tons cruiser just to carry large antiship missiles. Ships should be limited to 2000 to 5000 tons at most and should be used primarily as AAW system. Its better to invest all the money in supersonic bombers/Fighter that can saturate the targets within in hrs rather than taking months to assemble armada. The fear of credible airpower with space based survellence will not allow ships to even come close to shore for thousands of kms.