exec

That's because AN/SPY-1 has a coverage from horizon up to zenith.

Where did you learn math?:D 27 x 1,852 = 50km 50 x 1,852 = 93 That R-77 data is from the manufacturer. It was on a military blog? Yes it was, so what? This was also on the blog. http://img34.imageshack.us/img34/8296/r771.jpg http://img529.imageshack.us/img529/7115/9b1348eseeker2.jpg Official papers state 50km vs fighter and 80km vs non maneuvering target at high altitude. Do they collide with what you can see here? You've already seen it. BTW: when you know what is the max range for R-27R (you have official chart) and what is the stated max range (70-80km) and you know what is officially stated max range of the R-77 (80-100km) you know what to expect (20% greater range than the R-27R). This is exactly what you have one the graph I've provided. LOL:megalol: Even if anybody here has it, nobody will post it here without having troubles. I can tell you that russian charts for western missiles are conservative. I've a source (not some website estimation) stating greater range than what we can see on the graph. But well, if official Russian graph is not good enough try to find something better yourself. I won't give you anything more. It seems that even when there are evidence of Kopp's lies you refuse to accept them.

Oh, of course I have. 1. Comparing tracking ranges of us radars vs long range detection mode ranges of rus radars on one chart which is misleading. It's like comparing possibility of detecting a small fighter vs large bomber and putting it one one graph naming it "detection range". 2. Missile ranges: R-27R - 80km R-77 - 100km AIM-120C- 50km Reality check: R-27R: http://img148.imageshack.us/img148/3573/86610817.jpg R-77: http://img211.imageshack.us/img211/1843/r7722y.jpg AIM-120A: http://img188.imageshack.us/img188/1328/aim120ranges.gif OLS-30/35 - Carlo claims a detection range for head on encounters 50-60km up to 90km. Reality check: OLS-35: http://img43.imageshack.us/img43/8827/ols35.jpg

So you’re just contradicting everything without having any arguments at all. I already told you that not everything is classified, but you refuse to accept even that simple fact. I already gave you a lot of data from manufacturers or manuals but you also refuse to accept them. It seems Carlo Kopp is the only true source for you. As I said, it’s impossible to talk with you, because you’ll contradict everything we say, because ‘we don’t know nothing, period’. Believe what you want, if its Carlo then I’m sorry for you, bye.

That’s cutting the discussion. We’ve never been in any VVS weapons storage facility so we don’t know nothing. Close the topic and close the forum, there is nothing to discuss here since nobody knows nothing. :D Maybe they have hangars with hundreds of PAK-FAs ready for combat, who knows - right? I mean – that’s not entirely impossible and for sure it’s impossible to prove that they don’t have hundreds of PAK-FAs. However: 1. We know that this aircraft is in early stage of development. 2. Russians sources claim that the PAK-FA will enter service in 6-10 years. 3. Engines and avionics are in development. But still, I can’t prove that they don’t have hundreds of PAK-FAs because I’ve never been to any VVS weapons storage facility and I don’t know nothing right? Not everything is highly classified. For example Russians freely give us max ranges for their weapons systems (missiles, radars), and those figures are often much better than what you can achieve in real life (for example they give us max range for R-27R at 20km altitude most ‘usable’ altitudes are between 1 and 10km where most. Only MiG-31 or Blackbird fly at such altitudes (20km). Radar ranges are for special long range detection modes within limited sectors and so on. You’ve brought nothing. You’re living in your own world. You can believe what you want if it makes you feel better. Can’t you really see all that bias on Kopp’s website? If you use wrong data you end up with wrong conclusions! I’ll give you an example(very oversimplified): Ru fighter: 1. missile 100km range 2. radar 150km range US fighter 1. missile 50km range 2. radar 100km range conclusion: Ru fighter is better true data (or without ‘mistakes’ as you like to call it): Ru fighter: 1. missile range 42km 2. Radar vs US fighter 100km range US fighter: 1. Missile range 55km 2. Radar vs Ru fighter 150km Conclusion: US fighter is better. So if you still think that using wrong sources isn’t important then we can’t help you.

Oh boy… well, sure that’s a perfect way to cut all discussion. Who knows, maybe Russians have flying saucers with Mach 20 and turbophasers capability…? There are proofs that some missiles are in early stages of development(like R-77M, K-172) and sometimes the development is frozen due to lack of funding. They didn’t even have money to buy baseline R-77. There are more urgent needs than development of a new super-duper missile. Tell me – why would they want to develop such missile if they haven’t modernized their aircrafts to be able to launch such missile? Now when numbers of aircrafts which are able to fly is getting slimmer and slimmer they must have been utterly stupid to put money in development of a secret missiles which are completely useless for them. BTW: they recently developed RVV-SD (R-77 with bigger motor and probably other upgrades) and the missile is intended to fly with (for example)Su-35BM. Why are they developing inferior RVV-SD if they have developed superior R-77M?

Kopp isn’t credible. He clearly has an agenda of some kind. His articles are pro-Russian for some reason. What he likes most is finding strong points of Russian equipment and exaggerating weaknesses of US-made equipment. He also forgets to mention any weak sides of the Russian gear. He also likes to compare possible future Russian equipment to legacy US-equipment (like comparing non-existing K-172 or R-77M to AIM-120C). He also compares different types of data (ranges of radars - tracking ranges for US radars and long range detection modes ranges for Russian radars for example APG-77 vs Irbis-E). He does it intentionally. Why? I don’t know, but it’s obvious that his articles are heavily biased towards Russian equipment. Of course – there are some articles with some very valuable data, but you have to know how to read them – how to filter out the bias. If you can’t see the bias… well, it’s your problem.

That's of course half-truth. If the AMRAAM arrives with high energy (speed) chances of outmaneuvering it are slim. Well, Russians claim 140km detection range vs 3m2 target. So the tracking range is probably 110km vs 3m2 target. Versus Super hornet it would be like 55km. Add a jamming to this equation and the tracking range will fall to ~30km. Su-30 with RCS of 20m2 will be detected by APG-79 from more than 200km and tracked from 150km at least. AESA are hard to jam, so even if you try to jam the 79 tracking range won’t fall too much. Because the source is wrong. If you base your arguments on a wrong source your conclusions will be even worse. Sure, but there is one detail missing. Such ranges are achieved “using long range detection mode within limited sector”. So basically, when you slew to radar to the sector where you know the target is and you use that long range detection mode (which probably takes some time to scan and process) you can achieve such results. Subtract ~30% from that range when you talk about ‘normal’ detection range and again 20-30% when you talk about tracking ranges. If you keep using such “sources” it will get you nowhere. AIM-120A has ~20% range advantage over R-77. And and don’t know if you know, but in terms of range AIM-120A<AIM-120C<AIM-120C-5<AIM-120C-7<AIM-120D. The source is wrong. Manufacturer claims max range =<35km. I will even provide you with a source to prove that I know what I am talking about. http://img15.imageshack.us/f/ols35.jpg/ That’s not entirely true. Russians give their max ranges for high altitude (20km) high speed head-on shots (not ballistic shots). These are the most optimal conditions you can have. This is why we can see 70-80km range for R-77R while we see on the diagram that the max range for 10km alt shot is ~35km. But if you fire that missile at 20km altitude vs 20km altitude target the range would grow to ~80km. Often quoted 55km range for the AMRAAM is more or less true – for a shot at 10km altitude. At that altitude (10km) R-77 has ~43km max range vs non maneuvering target.

In Carlo Kopp's world Russian equipment is often 2 times better than in real world. For example: Irbis-E with 50% more range than APG-77. R-77 with more range than AIM-120C (when we know that AIM-120A has a greater range than R-77) OLS-30/35 IRST with 50-60 (or more) frontal detection range (when we know that its 35km in optimal conditions for OLS-35). etc, etc... His articles are biased, period.

LM says F-35A will cost as much as the new versions of F-16 and F-18. http://thehill.com/business-a-lobbying/103973-lockheed-martin-confident-it-will-beat-pentagons-f-35-cost-projection

Much larger wings.

Actually they (Russians) can't make any improvements in avionics, becouse they still don't have the it!

On the USAF roadmap there is a F-X fighter entering service in 2025-2026.

My favourite one:

Am I?:music_whistling: So how about Pogosyan(Sukhoi's director) article? http://vivovoco.rsl.ru/VV/JOURNAL/VRAN/03_10/STELLS.HTM

Ha ha. This is the real value. Ok, maybe it's closer to 19 m^2.

There is no point, really. I just disagreed with 'instantenous IRST scan' claim. No need to get annoyed.:thumbup:

Well, not exactly, more like +/- 14º, so you'd have to do four sweeps (28 : 7,5 = 3,7), considering that this is optics, it will certainly take some time. And what about the aircrafts that are closer than 40km? Narrow scan pattern gives you large blind zones. AESA radar scans whole 120ºx120º FOV almost instantenously.

Don't tell me you didn't know that! :doh: Average forward RCS of the Flanker is ~20 m^2.

Not entirely true. IRST has an instant field of view 7,5x10* (OLS-35). Scanning limits are +/- 90* in azimunth and -15 + 60 in elevation. So, scanning forward sector may taka a while. Basicly using 7,5x10* FOV you have to 'shot' 180 'pictures' to scan all available forward area. I think AESA radar can do all the scanning a lot faster. Actually you have to steer the 'beam' (camera). There are other important problems I think: -short range (forward sector ~35km) -even shorter range in non-perfect weather conditions

Russians have ~50 Su-27SM.

Hi everybody, this is my first post here. This is probably true. Newer N011M BARS (PESA) has a range of 140km vs 2m^2 target. I think we can compare F-16 Bl 52+ even with the Indian Flanker (MKI). We know N011M range is 140 vs 2 m^2 target, so it should be able to detect F-16 from ~110km. APG-68(v)9 range versus Flanker (20 m^2) is probably around 190km (100-110km vs 2 m^2), so if you ask me - F-16 Bl 52+ has a radar range advantage vs MKI. That's not entirely true. F-16 Bl 52+ T/W ratio is much better than MKI's, so the Falcon should have better acceleration. ECM: Su-30MKI has ELTA El/M-8222 F-16 Bl 52+ has ALQ-211(v)4 (AIDEWS) plus ALE-50 towed decoy.