The R-37 got a lot of its range increase due to simple trajectory shaping.

During that test the missile was successfully captured by the guidance system and controlled at that distance.

100 KM S-300 system change into 300 to 400 Km S-400. and now 500 KM S-500.

The 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.

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.

Wrong. Some Zaslon-M features, including R-37 compatibility, are part of the MiG-31BM upgrade program.

That 300 km shot from the early 1990s was also done by having the launching MiG-31 hand over the guidance command function to a FLANKER downrange. The baseline MiG-31 had no capability to perform a 300 km intercept.

Achieving that kind of range performance around 15 years ago means absolutely nothing. Bigger is not necessarily better, and assuming that because a 300 km weapon was tested in the early 90’s that 600 or 700 km weapons must be around now is unintelligent. By that logic, where is the 250-300 km range AIM-54 replacement? You fail to understand what goes into developing a modern BVR AAM and what will drive the range, size, and speed of the weapon.

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.

There are no 600-700 km AAMs. If there were I’m sure you’d be providing evidence rather than personal speculation based on your desired perception of the Russian air forces and your personal need to make them seem superior to all comers as you can then point out how Indian and Chinese export products are far less advanced than the Su-27SM avionics upgrade program.

F-14s kill MiG-23s:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sj0HctAs8TA

ACIG believes that the MLs were likely based at al Bumbah, which was primarily a Syrian-crewed unit:

http://www.s188567700.online.de/forum/viewtopic.php?t=71&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=105

If that’s true then they could have been there as far back as 1989 as the two FLOGGERs blown apart by the USN were seen to be toting R-23 or R-24 AAMs. They may have been Syrian aircraft transferred to Libya as replacements for the FLOGGERs donated by Libya to Syria in the early 80’s.

Congress, the presidential candidates and think-tank pundits repeatedly dub the US armed forces “the best in the world”. Behind this vapid rhetoric, a meltdown – decades in the making – is occurring.

F-15s, F-16s, F-18s, F-22s, B-1s, B-2s, B-52s, etc…combine that with the quality of training and performance demonstrated in combat, and how does that equate to “vapid rhetoric”?

The USAF’s annual budget is now in excess of USD150 billion: well above what it averaged during the Cold War. Despite the plentiful dollars, the USAFs inventory of tactical aircraft is smaller today than it has ever been since the end of the Second World War. At the same time, the shrunken inventory is older, on average, than it has been ever before.

The numbers are smaller and the dollars are up because of increasingly expensive aircraft and inflation. Basic economics, he must have either skipped or failed that one since I’m sure he’s not conveniently ignoring it to make his point more “credible” :rolleyes:

With the `plus up´ of more than USD200 billion, the air force actually made its inventory troubles worse: from 2001 to today, tactical aircraft numbers shrank by about 100 aircraft and their average age increased from 15 years to 20, according to the Congressional Budget Office.

What? The aircraft are older now than they were in 2001? That’s unpossible!

Not to worry, the air force and its politicians assert, the solution is in hand; it is called the F-35 Lightning II Joint Strike Fighter. It will do all three tactical missions: air-to-ground bombing, air-to-air combat and specialised close air support for ground troops – and there will be tailored variants for the air force, navy and marines. Most importantly, it will be affordable and, thus, the US can buy it in such large numbers that it will resolve all those shrinking and ageing problems.

A/A combat is not the primary focus. And it isn’t going to replace all of the tactical aircraft, so it clearly is not the one-stop solution, is it?

Unfortunately, the F-35 has barely begun its flight-test programme, which means more problems are likely to be discovered – perhaps even more serious than the serious engine, flight control, electrical and avionics glitches found thus far.

That’s hardly an unusual occurrence.

Take the F-22 experience; it was in a similarly early stage of flight testing in 1998. Its programme unit cost was then USD184 million per aircraft but it climbed to a breathtaking USD355 million by 2008. Considering that the F-35 is even more complex (19 million lines of computer code compared to 4 million, and three separate service versions compared to one), the horrifying prospect of the F-35s unit cost doubling is not outlandish. The last tri-service, tri-mission fighter the US built, the F-111, tripled in cost before being cut back to barely half the number originally contemplated.

Since when was the F-111 a tri-service aircraft? What were the Army or Marine variants? F-22 costs also blew up when the production numbers got massively cut. Once again, economics.

The inevitable reaction, just as in past programmes, will be a slashing of annual production, the opposite of the increase the air force needs to address its inventory problems.

What current threat exists that will necessitate a one-for-one replacement of current aircraft with the F-35? That was never the plan anyway.

The F-35 is actually less manoeuvrable than the appallingly vulnerable F-105 Lead Sled that got wiped out over North Vietnam in the Indochina War.

There’s a retarded comparison if I ever saw one. The F-105 was far more vulnerable to SAM systems as guess what, it wasn’t anywhere near being an LO aircraft. As for maneuverability, none of the pilots have any issues so far, and the jet has power to spare as F-16 chase planes are constantly having to use afterburner to keep up.

With a payload of only two 2,000 lb bombs in its bomb bay – far less than US Vietnam-era fighters – the F-35 is hardly a first-class bomber either.

Asinine comparison #2. Most combat aircraft don’t load up on PGMs today anyway. They also carry external fuel, AAMs, and ECM/targeting pods. The F-35 eliminates the need for most of those and carries two AMRAAMs internally. The F-117 also performed just fine as a strike aircraft with a two bomb loadout as well.

With more bombs carried under its wings, the F-35 instantly becomes non-stealthy

Duh, that gives it expanded versatility after it has eliminated air defense assets.

As a close air support attack aircraft to help US troops engaged in combat, the F-35 is a nonstarter. It is too fast to see the tactical targets it is shooting at; too delicate and flammable to withstand ground fire; and it lacks the payload and especially the endurance to loiter usefully over US forces for sustained periods as they manoeuvre on the ground. Specialised for this role, the air forces existing A-10s are far superior.

I agree with part of this in that the F-35 is a retarded aircraft to employ in a CAS role. What are the realistic chances of 100 million dollar combat aircraft being forward deployed to rough strips with Marines to provide colse support at very low level. However, the Eurofighter has managed to perform the CAS role in GREEN FLAG exercises recently, so the fact that it is a fast jet is a non-issue, it depends on the weapons fit and the tactics used. Loiter capability? Improved by IFR. Vulnerable to ground fire? Sure, but it can use SDBs from higher altitudes, so it may not have to get as low as current assets like to do anyway.

However, what, the advocates will protest, of the F-35s two most prized features: its stealth and its advanced avionics What the USAF will not tell you is that stealthy aircraft are quite detectable by radar; it is simply a question of the type of radar and its angle relative to the aircraft. Ask the pilots of the two stealthy F-117s that the Serbs successfully attacked with radar missiles in the 1999 Kosovo air war.

Uh, make that ONE F-117. And yes, stealth aircraft are detectable. Implying that people think they are invisible is implying that they are uneducated idiots, great move.

As for the highly complex electronics to attack targets in the air, the F-35, like the F-22 before it, has mortgaged its success on a hypothetical vision of ultra-long range, radar-based air-to-air combat that has fallen on its face many times in real air war.

And in past conflicts the fighters on both sides were detectable and emitting high-power signals tripping the other side’s RWR gear. Come on, use your head.

The F-35s air-to-ground electronics promise little more than slicker command and control for the use of existing munitions.

Cool, here he demonstrates total ignorance of the sensor fusion concept for the JSF. Credibility, fading.

The F-35 is a bad deal that shows every sign of turning into a disaster as big as the F-111 fiasco of the 1960s.

Hold up. The F-111s problem was that the USN tried to use it as a carrier based interceptor. If the JSF ends up as capable as the F-111 in the strike role, I doubt that a lot of people will complain. Except of course for former F-16 designers watching their accident prone product become yesterday’s hot toy.

In January the US will inaugurate a new president. If he is serious about US defences – and courageous enough to ignore the corporate lobbies and their minions in Congress and the think-tanks – he will ask some very tough questions. These will start with why an increased budget buys a shrinking, ageing force.

Older jets need more maintenance. That means more money. Jet fuel has increased in price. That means more money. Really, before this guy tries to write something serious, he needs to seriously think about retaking a basic economics course.