Actually, an F-14D would almost certainly be able to detect an F-22 with its AN/AAS-42 IRST, especially if it was supercruising or in ‘burner. Had the -14D not been canceled, enhancements to the unit would have further cemented this. In fact, I’d wager the APG-71 would have been able to detect it as well, at reduced ranges, given some of the wavelengths it works (I suspect there were highly classified tests done to determine just this for tactics development purposes). The big question would be, though, could the -14D (or other aircraft) actually target a Raptor beyond IR missile range?

while i am against IRST at bottom nose position,that dont detect very well the higher altituide targets , didnt supertomcat had a pair of 2? and they were paralalel not ofset by some degrees? why was that? 1 for deep scan other for closer ranges?
interesting is how u.s.a.naval forces found it too expencive and cancelled
F-14BM :D,even if it had very good f-22 style radar ,super-cruise,2 seater….
and we yet have money to throw away on su-35bm remake.
this su-35 is biggest b.s. ever from suhoi and airforce.
whats wrong to incorporate irbis radar and other upgrades on existing flanker series made by knaapo and iapo ,then to make all new airframe.
this is another trick to stop of mig-31 modernisation and sqeese them out of every possible project.is there anything in aviation industry today that is not with suhois,exept trainers and ???.jakovlev and MIG had 30% share in pak-fa to see now its pushed out.

But a F-22 has not a RCS of 3qm, against a RCS = 0,01qm = 400km *0,24= 96km,
RCS = 0,001 = 400km * 0,13 = 52km for tracking.
RCS = 0,01 = 400km * 0,06 = 24km area search and for volume search only 1,3% of 400km = 5.2km !
RCS =0,001=400km * 0,018 = 7,3km as and for vs 400 * 0,0025 = 1km!

Your SU-35BM is only F22 Fodder!

hmmm

But a F-22 has not a RCS of 3qm,
against a RCS = 0,01qm = 400km *0,24= 96km,
—————————————
from here the SU-35s superior IRST takes over for silent kill
(the Rat doesnt even have that)
now,ratfans will say f-22 is so advanced it doesnt generate any heat while supercruising M 1,7 LOL,infact i think do to insulation and reflecting of heat needed to reduce stress on composites it shines very good…
—————————————
usual blabla….
RCS = 0,001 = 400km * 0,13 = 52km for tracking.
RCS = 0,01 = 400km * 0,06 = 24km area search and for volume search only 1,3% of 400km = 5.2km !
RCS =0,001=400km * 0,018 = 7,3km as and for vs 400 * 0,0025 = 1km!
blab,bla…
……………………..
so ,as raptor closes a bit more to indentify and get a good shootdown probability the flanker maybe have spoted him and is goint to engage the F-22 FIRST and F-22 doesnt even know it ,he still thinks hes invisible and hes passions shall be his undoing…
second spot,(BUT) first shoot ,first kill :D:diablo::dev2:

Still at least the Indian Navy can sleep soundly in the knowledge that, should they ever find any ice in the Indian Ocean, that their new ex-Russian carrier is strong enough to plough straight on through it!.

?.

Well with todays rapid change in climate you never know :D…
Actually i think mor ppl would be happy in ВМФ to have a CV then to sell to indians,so there might be some blowing prices just a “bit” higher…
however look at new equipment stuffed where old arsenal has been removed and prices for that are not the one in 1996 period but 2006 period brand new and more expencive stuff and look at cabeling needed for all of that…
we already operated a number of small CVs and kuznjetsov its brothership. so i think we have enough experiance.

I wasn’t talking about the T-4 looking like the Blackbird. I was talking about the picture that rpg put up that looked like the blackbird and then being proud of it. If you want to believe the first T-4 was easily capable of M3 fine, but there’s a reason we have to verify top speeds and records. Wind tunnel testing and calculations are great, but the only way to prove something is to do it. It’s like saying someone will be the greatest soccer player in the world because he’s extremely fast and has a strong leg.

that picture was proposal from end of 1964.and bomber was much bigger and had lot of different things than sr-71 you dumb.anyways we dropped that as you can see you mumbilng for nothing ,we continued with our own design -when was flight of t-4?

…and i think you should leave your childlish games for kindergarden,.
and have no idea of what was at stake at the time,and the state of people working…
and i have more then pictures-videos –RD36-41 engine testings were good ,airframe testings were good,
weight was well calibrated there was even some more room for weight growth, since fuell cells were added in enginegondola.
…there was time,money,will and everything for mach 1,5 10th flight.
and to proceed to 2nd ,(mach 2-3 speed) phase.
after thoose 2 ,the final third phase would be approved with missile launches…
-also number ,102,103, 104 (,cells, 80% fueselagge), prototypes would have been finished!!!
to dissapointment of us all dementievs decree came and it (10th flight) cancelled,
and im sure youre explain here how and why it was abbruptly stopped,and prototype number 100 towed away.
all that time pressure was mounting from every side ,no help from bomber constructors,strategic airforce was getting beaten down thanks to nikita,lagging of electronics complex OKEAN (ocean) to arrive -whitch was needed for good nuclear bombing,its one of reasons for more stages and flights,we even used the SU-7 for cannard test, 2 SU-9 for wingshape tests.
T-4 constructors -Chernakov ,Baslavski ,Lokshin ,all great names but were a new team.
i left for dresden germany to work on hydroturbines being built there for a while ,
i have already posted too much,im going too- on vacation.

wow. I can’t believe what you are saying RPG. The Soviets could have fielded the T-4 in great numbers? Come on, it never even demonstrated its performance. Even you admit how much the Russians copy and you seem to be proud of it. The U.S. has always been and always will be ahead of USSR/Russia in aircraft design for this reason-they can’t design truly genius aircraft, a la SR-71, without the Americans making it first. I really wasn’t a big believer that the Soviets copied, but RPG, you, sounding Russian, and admitting you guys copy american designs, have switched my whole verdict.

zap,zap…
its quite probable if production started in 70tis ,by 90tis at least over 150 t-4 operational aircraft versions would have been built, instead of new programs and development (waste of money) Tu-22,22M,and Tu-160 -just to mention …
it looked like sr-71 BUT it was doing was advancing that idea much further ,not same as sr-71, look at fusalage like toothpick ideal for mach3+,cocpit area..,canards,…2 more engines under fusalagge …so its basic same idea but advanced and much diffrent like mig 142 to typhoon…
why waste money and time on mach 3 cruise bomber if you have mach 3 developed recon aircraft with good range? ,and youll come up with simmilar design anyway :rolleyes::eek:,what are we to make a reverse delta bomber just to be different???
…same to say any flying wing is a copy of hortens deltas ,or some guys drawing he made in during 1st world war for a light biplane fighter.
…you americans copy everything!!!:diablo::dev2:

now lets continue …
do to some electronics glitch the kulon (coulomb) factory..
electro systems for the nose with its components installed fitted was a bit late.

i would put in here the yakovlevs proposal Yak-35…
it had simmilar range payload ,speed like t-4, used same 4 engines…although max takeoff wweight was at 100+ tonns,T-4 was 120 T

and 1 of many tupolevs designs and a modest one with cruise mach 2,3 or so speed, other were much more heavier and faster to derail other competitors promising rediculously high performance ….tupolev the 1st proposal was light proj. 125. with 2 giant NK-6 engines.

mysachiev already had his M-53 (M-56) with mostly engine compartment changes..

there was a 4 engined, mach 3 cruise bomber, proposal based on sr-71 :D;)

Too bad that was a Russian SS-N-20 eh? :diablo: The D-5 currently has a string of 129 successful flights and counting.

yea i know ,i was joking,too bad our slbm suck:(
hice however how the sistem of engine control did keep it in air that long.
however i do think t2 had 1 failure at least.:D

Hmmm…
Violates one of the taboos of modern jet design…never, ever have 2 engines share a common inlet. Both engines have to be started at exactly the same time and rev up at the same rate or you get reverse airflow through the engine that didn’t start. Once reverse flow is established, it cannot be started without damaging the gearbox and lube system. Also, if one engine fails in flight, it can cause a compressor stall in the other engine.

Little wonder T-4 was abandoned.

well that shows your knolege about reading tehnical pictures ,if you looked more at pictures i posted of inlets you wouldnt make such dumb asumptions so fast, this things were well thought of before,and by ,much more qualified people than you…
now look how much your wrooong,look at two doors as i said just in front of engines they were automaticaly regulated and opened in case the 1 engine stops and presure goes up.futher up there was 1 more door.
reason b-1 and tu-160 have other inlet configuration is because of SWING-WING.
t-4 was a delta.