But it wasnt fired from 228km either.

Yes, it was fired at a distance of 228 km. That is right there in the article. Why you aren’t getting this is beyond me.

Only SAMs/AAMs can go hypersonic untill now. So logically they are taking about those things. Not subsonic cruise missiles.

And the MiG-31 cannot shoot down SAMs or AAMs no matter what statements you fraudulently misinterpret to make it seem so. They’re talking about “antiaircraft missile systems”, meaning missile systems designed to shoot down aircraft. He differentiates these things from “aviation”, meaning that they are not airborne. That means some sort of surface to air system.

It was lock on at 319.5km. Radar acquiring is detecting and tracking. that will be totally different values.

Not necessarily true, but either way, the missile was still not fired at 300 km.

antiaircraft missile systems . u conveniently forget the missile system wording.

Read it again. They are saying that work on the Zaslon helped when they set up a shop in NIIP that develops phased arrays for both “aviation and for the antiaircraft missile systems”, implying SAM systems. What motive anyone would have to twist that around to fabricate ideas about MiG-31s shooting down AAMs or SAMs is beyond me.

The problem is that they’re not being bought in sufficient numbers to keep costs down.

A fact that people like to forget.

If you ask me a jet that is far more of a waste of money is the Super Hornet. When have we fought a recent war that did not involve the use of numerous land-based aircraft? Or put another way, when was the last time we had to rely on a CVN to fight a war without most of the strike power coming from land-based USAF units? The GAO already ripped into the SH by illustrating that it was not any more or less capable in most areas than the C model Hornet. Better to put that money towards the JSF, specifically the C model.

JSF is a waste of money in its own right though, as it is not the aircraft we realistically require. A stealthy VSTOL aircraft is a huge technological accomplishment but represents little of value in any likely combat environment. First-day targets can be hit by F-22s anyway.

But the F-22? Not so much a waste of money as it is an example of what happens when a technologically far-reaching program has its numbers cut drastically: the price will skyrocket. With F-15s needing to begin to be replaced and 4+ gen fighters being proliferated more and more often, something superior was required to keep the edge. It just so happened that the intended victim discovered that its system of government was a totally hilarious failure, eliminating the need for so many F-22s.

Good point, I do tend to use the nice red font when I have to get onto my soapbox 😀

Some of the Russian airshow maneuvers like tailslides and the Cobra have one really nasty combat utility, but it has absolutely nothing to do with WVR combat. It’s an interesting way to potentially exploit the Doppler Notch and break lock against a SARH weapon, or an ARH weapon operating in certain PRFs. By designing the Su-27, for exapmle, to be dominant in the WVR arena with the R-73, IRST, and HMS, those types of maneuvers may have forced USAFE F-15Cs into the WVR environment.

Granted, with more modern advances such as the AIM-9X and JHMC, this becomes partially redundant, but it may have been behind the apparent overemphasis on maneuverability in the FLANKER. Food for thought at least, the Russians knew that the Su-27 would likely be inferior to the APG-63 and AIM-7M in BVR, so why not take that out of the equation altogether? Not relying on jamming systems removes a home on jam type of engagement as well, so you get forced into a WVR fight where the FLANKER, back than, would likely have cleaned up.

How long did the MiG MFI wait to fly because of a lack of actuators for the canards? It could be a simple component like that keeping the ARJ-21 out of the air.