Sean,

Chrom,

Please read the words very carefully. At no point did I mention it would be ‘fun’ to shoot down an SR. I suggested however that the benefits of actually shooting one down in terms of challenging the military philosophy of the West came down in favour of doing so (if guaranteed) and weathering the political fallout.
….:(

This is pretty much BS. SR-71 was nothing exceptional in terms of PR. Shooting down SR-71 in international airspace would not be any different from PR point than shooting down E-3, B-52, B-2, space shuttle or even SSBN. All these cases the same – especially take look at SSBN. How much opportunites there was to sunk one in international waters… how strong message could be send by your logic!
Whereas from history we know what all sides were rather very cautions about hurting each over in internationl space/waters…

1. Shturm – old 70x development, since then upgraded – but considered already absolote.
2. Ataka,Vikhr – Vihr is newer, and when first appeared had considerable advantage compared to Ataka (higher speed,etc). But Ataka was also upgraded since then and now they are very close to each other in capabilities. Basically, they are much the same from different manufactures.
3. Hermes – future “unified” project. Planned both air-lauched and ground-based versions, with different warheads, ranges, and guided methods. Without further specificaton it is impossbile to tell anything just by name “Hermes”. For example, range differs from 20 to 100+km, guide methods from radio-command to active radar and IR (TI matrix) homing.

Still never ever was an F-4 reported in Soviet hands.

There was surery enouth F-4 pieces in Soviet hands to assembly 10 F-4… Still, we dont know about any flyable F-4 in Soviet hands.

I think this is not correct when talking about loosing a radarlock for a second or more. When pilot turns the aircraft and radar away from the target, he looses a radar lock as well as the missile, there is no chance to regain the missile back. Therefore pilots are strictly instructed to hold the target circle within the HUD frame and keep illuminating. Written in combat employment and pilot instruction manuals.

How MISSILE can be lost? If radar briefely losses target tack for whatever reason it doesnt mean it also losses missile. There is the problem however – if radar losses track than reaquiring it might take too much time. Even several seconds might be too much, especeally when missile is close to target.

Not exactly. While in TWS mode, you’re providing course correction to the missile via the datalink, but you’re alerting all RWR’s around, and the missile could still be 40 km away from the target. In that case, the opponent could go defensive at that moment, and bleed the missile’s energy.

IRST cant provide course correction for missile outside LRF range as it lack any range/speed figures. LRF work only at 10-15km max, i.e. already within ARH missile activation range. Thats why only active-seekers like IR or ARH missiles could be used with IRST.

That’s the problem with IRST, you cannot just go around and scan airspace with it. You’d need to know where to look at. Even small radars like Kopyo provide more scanned sectors than modern IRSTs. Not to mention, that radar can perform an target ID.

You perfectly can. Since the inroduction on Su-27/Mig-29 IRST is used to scan for targets.

So, what’s the advantage of a fighter using IRST if it can only see an enemy but cannot shoot it down? What’s the big deal?

Su-27 / Mig-29 nearly always carry 2 R-27ET. It is in standard loadout. Of course semi-active radar missiles cannot be guided by IRST. Using ARH with IRST while possible also doesnt make much sence as ARH guiding will light enemy RWR just as good as your main radar.

Russia may still have some intrest for an avionic upgrade of its ~ 200 MiG-31 in 6 regiments to bring that to a similar level. The M there is for multirole to add some AG-capability and to make part of that force more usefull.

Mig-31 upgrade is planned in recently published 8-years defence spending plan.

Maybe it is because long range strike is not a classic mission of the Russian Air Force. I guess the procurement of external tanks is not a priority for an airforce that still struggles to keep its aircraft operational and its pilots flight-rated and trained.

Again, you assume wrong thing. RuA dont have needs to use Su-27/30 for long-range strike missions – they have specialized aircrafts in form of Tu-22M3 and Su-24M for that. Moreover, Su-27 cant even do such missions anyway…