If we consider the average RCS of 0.3-0.4m2 for PAK-FA and 3-5 m2 for Su-35 with weapons then it gives an advantage of early detection for PAK-FA and first launch of BVR missile , ofcourse the ESM of Su-35 will warn of such BVR launch and it would take evasive measure.
It lets the pilot of the PAK FA decide whether to fight or to leave.
If he is fully fuelled and armed he can manouver to the side or rear of the the Su-35 staying out of sensor range and then creep up behind him and launch a couple of missiles at his rear.
Alternatively he could hold back and fire an R-37M and then wait 30 seconds and then fire another, and then wait another 30 seconds and fire a third missile. While the Flanker is manouvering and jamming and doing all sorts of things to deal with the first missile the second missile will be lining him up and if they both miss then the last missile will have a good chance for a kill too... and while this is happening the PAK FA could close in to launch an IR missile or leave the area.
Remember when trading missiles even if the Su-35 can detect the PAK FA at 100km, if they start trading missiles the missile seekers will have reduced range performance against a low RCS target so a BVR missile might blow past a PAK FA without detecting it.
It'll seem like that but I doubt it. Sunni Saudi isn't too happy with Shia Iran to begin with.
That is what I mean. The Saudis might have said they will buy the Antei-2500 if you find a reason NOT to sell S-300s to Iran.
Hasn't Jane's reported that Russia sold the US the S-300V system already, a while back?
Actually I got that from a more reliable source... the designer at Antei said that during the dry period of the 1990s they used a sale of the S-300V to the US to fund the development and upgrade of the system to S-300VM. He seemed to think a lot of the ABM technology in the S-300V helped in the design of the PAC-3 from memory.
Besides, what you really need in order to counter one of these are the electronic waveforms and signals being transmitted. Don't need the physical system to get ahold of those.
Quite true, but just because you sold them your old goodies, doesn't mean you should be in a hurry to sell them or give them access to the new goodies.
Besides, a decent motor can overcome lack of lift from control fins to a degree.
Lack of aerodynamic surfaces means it will likely rely on hypersonic body lift... as it slows down there will be a dramatic loss in manouver performance because of a lack of control surfaces and of course because when there is no thrust the thrust vectoring is useless too.
No big deal however as IR WVR missiles are generally not used at ultra long range... 20km range targets are normally engaged with AMRAAM or similar.
BTW what is the possibility of a R-37M and modernised Mig-31 intercepting a Mach 3 Brahmos/Yakhont ? The R-37/Mig-31 is described as capable of intercepting target with a maximum speed of Mach 6.
Depends on what part of flight it intercepts it and from which direction. A manouvering low altitude missile would not be easy, but a cruising high altitude missile should be well within design parameters.
Of course scramjet Brahmos should exceed the mach 6 limit, but of course by then we will likely have seen the replacement for the R-37.
Well it can be useful for conventional warhead , Gulf war has shown that the interceptor can some time deflect he missile or break it up and the warhead keeps falling down , having a higher interceptor altitude gives it a second chance at it
Against a conventional warhead its detonation at 25km will mean minor fragments at ground level. Gulf War experience shows us that missile optimised to hit aircraft tend to direct their fragments at the centre of mass but when the target is a modified Scud missile the centre of mass is the inoperative engine of a falling missile. Targeting that is pointless as it is falling anyway... filling it full of holes does nothing to the warhead. Also the higher speed of the modified Scud meant the missile often broke up during its fall to the target and the largest pieces were hit most and again they were the engine and fuel tanks section of the missile. The warhead free to fall to the target.
The S-300V is a purpose designed system that can engage aerial and ballistic targets and doesn't have such problems.
The Mig-31/R-37M can deal with AWACS/JSTARS at its maximum kill range of 280 km , for slow and low flying cruise missile it would be slightly lower ( ~ 250 km ) for supersonic manouvering aircraft it would be around 130 - 140 Km around 40 % of its range.
If it can manage a kill at 300km in tests then its max kill range is at least that. Its realistic operational range will be less, and the flight manual will likely state an even shorter range to ensure a decent kill probability, but it makes little sense to put hard figures on what are after all guesses.
A fast target can still pull less G and can make the missile bleed energy , i bet the last few seconds would still have to deal with Jamming , Towed Decoys and Chaff at the least.
Jamming and decoys (which includes chaff) are seeker issues, not energy issues. And the missile is falling from height so it can perform lots of manouvers during the terminal phase of the attack as it will have plenty of energy. It is during the mid phase of the attack that changes in direction and speed cost the missile the most energy because without course updates it means that when the missile activates its seeker and starts to scan for the target if the target is not where it should be and is at the edge of the radars vision the missile will have to turn just to get near the target... if that target is climbing and accelerating then the intercept point moves further ahead of the target and becomes harder to reach in time.
Cant keep such things close to the border.
You put them around things worth defending and then you put Pantsir-S1s and TORs around those to defend them from attack and then you integrate your air force and army as a layered air defence system.
Long Range IFF is a major problem
It certainly is, and the introduction of UAVs in large numbers just compounds that as an issue, but perhaps also offers a solution... send a UAV to ID potential intruders... if they shoot them down that is confirmation they are hostile without risking a Su-35 or a Pak Fa.
I wont call 0.46 Pk as amazing because they did not encountered any jamming or manouvering from target basicly the target was not aware in most cases it was under attack.
The 0.03 PK record of Sparrow wasn't much different... the enemy is still mostly a small countries air force that has been poorly equipped in terms of EW and suddenly finds itself in a war against a superpower, or Israel. When the enemy starts spending on AWACS and JSTARS like assets and EW suites then kill rates will certainly fall, but home on jam functions might actually balance that fall out with an increase of kills because the jammers were internal or pod based instead of towed...
If scramjet was that easy it would have been flying by now , it wont be a scramjet for sure but a effecient ramjet.
Who says they are not flying scramjets now?
They have access to super computers and were flying scramjet motors almost 20 years ago. They are currently working hard on a scramjet model of Brahmos. Why not pool resources and develop a scramjet powered AAM as a scale version of Brahmos II?
It can intercept tactical ballistic missile of Lance class , thats one of the goal of SA-11 BTW.
I have advertising that lists the SA-11 side by side with the SA-17. For the 9M38M1 (SA-11) they list performance against aerodynamic targets and cruise missiles, but where it says Lance II ballistic targets they have small -'s. For the 9M317 (SA-17) they list range as 20km, max altitude as 16km and max cross range as 14km because of the shape of the trajectory of the target.
Further under single shot kill probability the SA-11 has no numbers for ballistic targets or HARM type anti radar targets. The figures for SA-17 are 0.5-0.7 for Lance II and 0.6-0.8 for HARM.
As to why it intercepts lower when its maximum intercept altitude is 25 Km , the problem is its dealing with a high speed ballistic target flying at Mach 3 and the computation needed to have an effective kill box and the limitation of its radar to do so means it intercepts at lower altitude.
The max altitude for interception for the SA-11 is 22km. The SA-17 can intercept aerodynamic targets up to 25km... perhaps you are confusing the two?
The SA-17 also introduces the capability to engage ground targets including ships.
Lets see Garry no point in speculating right now.
We know from other threads that the VDV has introduced the SA-13 as a stopgap system to replace the ZU-23.
We know the SA-13 on its MTLB chassis is not air droppable and therefore is only a temporary solution.
That means either the new chassis is not ready or the new missile is not ready or both.
I would suspect the SA-13 was used because it was available, but if the final solution will be MANPADS based then some sort of MANPAD based launcher on an MTLB as an available chassis would have made more sense as the turrets could be transferred to the new chassis when they became available.
I think the assumption of a new standard chassis and Morfei missiles for the VDV makes sense but you are right, it is only speculation on my part.
Honestly I doubt it would be outside the capability of the system, but it wouldn't be as "easy" as firing at an E-3C or U-2, which are significantly slower.
The fact that the Mig-31/R-27 combo are described as being capable of engaging Mach 6 targets suggests a mach 3 missile should be well within engagement parameters.
Of course having said that a Mig-25 should be a relatively easy target for AAMs as its manouver capability is limited to 5gs, yet they can be difficult targets with a skillful pilot.