Royal Australian Air Force (RAAF): News

First of all Carlos Kopp is a man with an agenda.

He wants Australia to keep the F-111 in service forever with upgrades that would make it a near F-22. That would cost trillions of dollars so instead he wants F-22s to fly in Australian colours.

Because of this he really doesn't like or rate highly anything that might be bought instead like the Super Hornet or the F-35.

He is however an excellent source of information on particularly Russian and Soviet equipment which is why I enjoy reading his articles.

Having said that the Su-30 series aircraft is rather better than most other aircraft in service in the Asia region and still have growth potential with wing mounted L band radars for example it could detect and track F-35s and even F-22s from their datalink emissions. A new IIR model of the R-27E would make it a very capable stealth aircraft killer in the sense that even active radar homing missiles will have problems engaging stealth aircraft while under some conditions (a super cruising stealth aircraft at high altitude) could probably be detected at very long range via IRST and engaged with an IR guided weapon completely emission free.

Obviously of course the basic problem is that the F-35s and F-22s are American and if you are fighting them then a few fighter aircraft will not save you.
The Americans are going to examine what you have and play to their own strengths against your weaknesses.

I agree they will not consider it.

From memory the offer of joint development of the Su-35 and Su-34 with production of parts also included joint work on a future long range AAM.

Design bureaus in the former Soviet Union tended to work in groups, so Mig would work with one engine design bureau and Sukhoi with another. Mig would work with one radar design bureau and Su would use a different one.

The R-33 and R-37 are associated with the Mig-31 even though the R-37 is supposed to be used by the Su-35 and Mig-35 and PAK FA.

The KS-172 has more recently been called K-100 is associated with the Sukhoi design bureau and there was talk this was the missile whose joint development they were offering with the Aussies.

Have heard rumours the same offer has been made to the Indians too.

Shame the Aussies can't step back and say to themselves... why are they getting such offers from the Russians and not from the US?

The Tu-22M3 is the equivelent of 2 x F-111s in terms of payload to range, and in Australian service they could be operated with their inflight refuelling probes reattached.

Of course at the end of the day the Indonesians and the Chinese simply don't have the capacity to move their forces to Australia for an invasion and their current purchasing choices seem to suggest that such a goal isn't being planned for either.

I agree that the Su-34 would match their stated requirements and I also agree that means very little as it is actually all about politics.

I also agree that Kopp is way off with his speculations.

First of all the Soviets were happy to copy directly where the item being copied was clearly better, and they never denied it when they copied something.

The Tu-4 was a B-29 copy and it was copied because the B-29 was a very good bomber at the time and there was no Soviet equivelent with anything near that performance simply because such an aircraft would not have been much use for the Soviets against the Nazis.
Equally when an example of the Sidewinder was captured its design was modular and simple, both simple to make and maintain etc.
The equivelent Soviet missiles were very complex items in comparison so the Sidewinder was copied till the modular design could be replicated.
They captured models of the Sparrow too and in the competition to arm the Mig-23 one design bureau put forward a copy of the Sparrow, but it lost to the R-23 and later an improved version lost to the R-24.
Regarding copies the Buran is claimed to be a copy yet it is fundamentally different, it simply uses the same aerodynamics.
NASA spent 2 billion US dollars working out the best external shape for the Space Shuttle. The Soviets would be idiots to spend another 2 billion seeing if they were right.
The Soviet Buran however is a glider that sits on a rocket. The US spaceshuttle is like a big huge aircraft with an enormous fuel tank that needs JATO or RATO bottles to get off the ground.
The difference is that the Space shuttle is a plane that carries 10 tons of engines everywhere it goes.
If necessary the Buran can be removed from the Energiya rocket and a 110 ton payload can be lifted in its place... a much more flexible system.
Remember it is incredibly hard to build stuff in space so being able to assemble things on the ground and launch them in one piece drastically reduces the cost of building a space station.

Before I go too far off track the Zaslon radar is a passive phased array radar with nothing in common with the F-14s radar. The AA-9 is SARH and has little in common with the ARH Phoenix.
Equally the Iranians are hardly going to hand over information about their, on paper, most powerful fighter/interceptor.
Finally you'd think if the Russians were given that level of access to Iranian AF Tomcats that they would be flying with Al-31s and of course be equipped with Zaslon radars and R-33 missiles.
Regarding the F/A-18 shot down it was probably the R-40TD which is still operationally used on Mig-31s.
It is most likely their primary anti SR-71 weapon enabling long range interceptions from head on.
When intercepting the SR-71 because of the heat generated by the aircrafts speed the Mig-25 can actually detect and track it at longer range with its IRST than with its radar. The Mach 6 R-40TD has large wings and should get a head on lock at extended range to all an intercept from a Mig-25 or Mig-31.