http://periscope2.ru/?digest_id=43879

On the subject of Chinook and Mi-26:

Afghan Mi-17 crashed, US troops had to destroy (with explosives) a part of the helicopter to reduce weight, so the Ch-47 could lift it out. Hmm….

“Officials said the Mi-17 was largely intact following the crash but more than 8,000 pounds of equipment including engines, main rotor gear box, auxiliary power unit, armor, rotor head and tail boom were removed for ease of transport.”

http://vif2ne.ru/nvk/forum/files/Ishvedsky/%28111106195359%29_IMG_9087.jpg

large pic, MiG-1.42 @ MAKS 2009.

http://russianplanes.net/images/to59000/058055.jpg

Nice!

I suspect Al-31FM1.

Don’t think FM2 production had been launched yet, and have heard nothing of AF orders. Could be mistaken ofc.

EDIT: A Question, why have the fully-articulated nozzles as on the Su-27PD not been offered for production?

About the only thing that I wonder about the FGFA/PAK-FA is the 4 BVR armament thing. Seriously, that’s a bit on the low side?

If the intended arsenal is a missile larger then today’s AAMs (like the RVV-BD for example, can only fit 4 of those in there either way) then it makes sense.

Of course, the future may hold more internal launchers.

F 15 C vs Su 30 MKI/35 = Flanker

F 15K/SG vs the above = Eagle

I’ll take Su-35 above F-15K when it comes to A2A, hands down.
Super 30 as well actually.

Didn’t we already argue about this 😉 ?

That attachment is similar to the SURA-K attachment for a HMCS. Implying that the PAKFA may not have a full blown HMDS but continues with a HMCS?

One thing about HMDS’s is that they come with a significant weight penalty and pilots keep complaining about a sore neck, which can lead to a severe issue over a longer period of time.

Is that the reason Russia continues to persist with HMCS? Technology is probably not the answer because they could source systems and components or even complete systems from the French.

I suspect this helmet is for the initial “service” batch to be acquired ASAP.