Sending four PAK FA (prototypes) to Syria was enormously valuable because USA was operating the F22A Raptor over Syria and through deconfliction channels CENTCOM was notifying Russia what the location of their F22A was. Each time US Forces sent a notification a PAK FA was dispatched to the area to find it with the Sukhoi’s radar sensors. 

According to disclosures made by PAK FA designer Alexander Davidenko, revealed in the HAL India contract in Syria the IRBIS-E radar could detect the F-22 at a range of 160nm. by reverse calculation of the radar’s Aperture peak power output it was ascertained that the F22A Raptor’s RCS averaged 0.3 to 0.4 m2.

Lockheed Martin publishes a misleading claim that the F22 RCS is just 0.0001 m2.

Russian experience suggests Lockheed Martin defrauded the US taxpayer by making  false claims.

The Indian contract also reveals experience enabled Sukhoi to make significant changes which reduced the T-50’s   RCS to 0.1 m2.

Changes referred to were incorporating S- shaped air intake ducts and creating a more deeply recessed weapons bay.  These were features incorporated to the Su57 not present in the original PAK FA.

Yes a CSDIC  POW report from 18 September 1943 (SRA 4394) KEW W/O archives) two Luftwaffe personnel were discreetly recorded by hidden microphones (that is methodology used by all CSDIC facilities)…,  discussing an He-177 bomber modified with an enlarged bomb bay at Reichlin for an Atomic bomb called 76 Zentner

One asked the other, What is this 76 Zentner? Have you actually seen it?

[  suggesting the bomb itself already had some noteriety  amongst others who had not seen it ]

The other POW replies , it looks like the 36 Zentner, only longer and it has to be screwed together.

It was also described as intended to destroy big cities and ridiculous because the bomb was “too big” 

The 177 bomber intended for delivery was described as awaiting engines

One of those captured was described as Ju88 R4 Unteroffizior W/Op, 5/llJ,G,2 captured 10 Aug 43, the other described as a Gefreiter/ mechanic captured 11 May 43.

These POW do not describe it as an “Atomic bomb per se, but the description fits.

It also seems to describe the He177 V38 aircraft found at the Letov factory at Prague.

This aircraft could have been awaiting DB603N engines. for high altitude flight.

v38 also could have been waiting for  DB603N engines which were fitted to He177 A6 prototypes converted to He277. HIGH altitude flight was the only way a German bomber could deliver any bombs over Britain by 1943/44.

from various sources and their claims:
Gripen $3,000 – $4,500 USD
F-16 approximately $5,000 USD
Rafale $16,000 USD
F-22 $19,000-$40,000 USD
F-15C $17,000-$30,000 USD
Eurofighter Typhoon – $14,000 USD

if you guys have better figures or figures for other aircraft, please add and i’ll update!

Your figures are grossly inaccurate sorry. Back in 2013, the service released figures from its Air Force Cost and Performance (AFCAP) system that accounted for costs per flight hour.

F-22A Raptor -*$68,362
F-15C Eagle -*$41,921
F-15E Strike Eagle -*$32,094
F-16C Fighting Falcon -*$22,514
A-10C Thunderbolt II (Warthog) -*$17,716

Fighter aircraft type,*Estimated future cost per flight hour (FY’15 $):*

F-35A Lightning II -*$32,554
F-16C Fighting Falcon -*$25,541

If you meant Grand Slams

Because with a 44,000lb bomb load (two Grand Slams) it would never make 33,600ft

Aren’t you shifting the Goal posts?

I asked you why you previously said a B-29 could not reach 18,000ft. You still have not answered that question yet?

[ATTACH=CONFIG]231548[/ATTACH]

With two 22,000lb Grand Slams mounted near the wing roots, the B-29’s Zero Fuel Weight (ZFW) would only be 115,360lb.

If you add fuel to reach Farge, Bremen (282sm) and return (say 600sm +Res) about 9,000lb more than sufficient for a mission from Norfolk to Bremen + return with Gross take off weight of 124,360lb. The B-29 combat ceiling climbing at at 500fpm is 36,550ft and 100fpm climb at the service ceiling of 40,000ft. One engine out ceiling is 35,300ft so why would 18,000ft be a challenge for an aircraft well below maximum gross weight?

The B-29’s Ceiling is based on maximum Gross weight less fuel burn. We are not even talking about a mission with full fuel.

Take off distance would not have been a challenge from RAF Sculthorpe’s 2,000m runway either.

[ATTACH=CONFIG]231549[/ATTACH]

The PDF file of proving trials notes:

3.
The AAF Board concurs in the conclusions and recommendations of the AAF Proving Ground Command as stated in the above report, except
for the following:

a. It is the opinion of the AAF Board that the cutaway bomb bay doors in their present form are unsatisfactory.

b. The reduction in airplane performance after the “Tall Boy” bomb has been released is excessive. Present tests have shown that the original estimates in this respect, as stated in Preliminary report on subject project, dated 27 May 1945, were conservative since the reduction in true air miles per fuel gallon has been found to be approximately 5.5 per cent with the bomb on board, and approximately 11.8 per cent without the bomb, for all altitudes tested.

c. The AAF Board strongly recommends re-designing the bomb bay doors so that the gap can be closed after the “Tall Boy” bomb has been released. It is now estimated that the combat radius of the airplane can thereby be increased from 1320 miles to 1500 miles.

4. It is the opinion of the AAF Board that, in the interest of placing these very heavy bombs into combat in the shortest possible
time, and due to the limited number of targets and high degree of specialisation required by the unit employing these bombs, that for
the present only one group of B-29 aircraft should be modified for the installation of the 12,000-lb. “Tall Boy” bomb.

So the report notes that 12,000lb Tall Boys were to carried recessed into a B-29’s bomb bay

But leaves unanswered the question what types of Tall Boy bombs were intended for mounting under the wing roots?
Were these wing mounted bombs the 12,000lb or 22,000lb Tall Boys?

For ferry flights a further eight fuel tanks could be carried in the bomb bays. Therefore if the 12,000lb Tall Boy was mounted in the forward bomb bay were any of these ferry tanks able to boost the range if fitted in the rear bomb bay?

Which unfortunately may well be the case.

The real problem is they began with several false assumptions chief amongst which that it turned west from IGARI and flew through the Straits of Malacca.

The Duncan Steel group are experts in satellites and orbital dynamics, with no insight to aviation. They took as read that MH370 was last seen on radar at MEKAR north of Aceh and then began making vector additions from that location.

The Malaysian Government said a military radar at Butterworth tracked an unknown target flying over Pelau Perak, waypoint VAMPI and was last seen at MEKAR. The screenshot however is taken from a civilian SSR display:

[ATTACH=CONFIG]231504[/ATTACH]

The military radar at Butterworth is a Thales Raytheon GM400 and this is what the screen of a Malaysian GM400 set looks like:

[ATTACH=CONFIG]231505[/ATTACH]

It was never seen on radar flying to MEKAR. Indonesians at Lhoksumwae saw the same airspace and did not see the target which Malaysia claimed to track. Their claim is a hoax. The track plotted from MEKAR to the Indian Ocean uses vector addition from this position near MEKAR and the reason why it makes no sense is because MH370 was never at MEKAR.

Would a civilian death in the crash of a civilian flying-boat be listed in CWGC?

I understand the survivour was a tail gunner and the aircraft was Short Sunderland flying boat W4026?