Perhaps he was an illegal immigrant?

…Well, whoever he was he was bloody stupid – bet he was cold in the landing gear bay of a 747 at FL390 with nothing but shorts and a t-shirt? 😀

It’ll be gettin on for minus 60 degC.

D’oh.

Their right to have the accusations investigated in Sweden is the right that has been violated here. If he’s innocent he has nothing to fear in terms of any investigation into these allegations.

1. Why is it a right to have someone taken to any particular country for investigation when the investigators have been offered the opportunity to interrogate him in the Ecuadoran embassy?

The Swedes can investigate away, they can interrogate away. They can even trial him via videolink. If he is found guilty, then you have a point about serving time in a jail of the jurisdiction he is found guilty of crime in.

Until then – their right to justice does not require Assange to be in any particular country.

2. You really don’t get it do you? He (and many others) consider the proving of the rape allegations right or wrong in a court to be inconsequential to him being eventually extradited to the US.

If you skip the UAV, VVS have AWACS and satellites for support.
You know this, so why the question..

Both Foxhound and Flankers operate in the very same enviroment, only with slightly different tactics. They operate out of the same AB. They form a symbiosis, they are part of the VVS tactical front line structure.
So where does the T-50 fit in, hm?
Quite nicely you can stick them between the Foxhound and Flankers.

Are you expecting the Su-35 (and to a lesser extent the MiG-31) to continue through the lifetime of the PAK-FA?

I would expect they will want the PAK-FA to be able to operate as a stand -alone unit (if they choose to in any given scenario).

4+2 AAM might work – they should know better than me – but for the size of the aircraft I think its a poor combat load.

Your examples are grossly simplyfied.
If it boild down to a BVR shoot out, then the T-50 are teamed up with Su-35S and Mig-31BM.

Ahh, I don’t believe it is sensible for the designers to make that assumption.

If it were assumed you could act like that, why not just get AWACS, satellites or passive UAVs to act as guidance sources for the Flankers?

4 AMRAAMs are enough for every stealth fighter mission in general.

That is even more ridiculous than some of my wild statements!! 😀

So you get 4 shots before you absolutely have to close in negating (or greatly reducing) any VLO advantage? (Or withdraw – which may well be an effective mission kill).

The F-22’s 6+2 is just about enough.

Within reason – you can never have enough bullets/missiles/bombs on board. The PAK-FA is a big aircraft – in my opinion 4+2 is a poor compromise given the size of it. I personally don’t believe the Russians will go down that route – and it will have more on board (internally).

If we are to accept that the least LO part of T-50 is its rear, then the GA loadouts become a contradiction.

Sorry, my internal acronym-pedia is failing me – GA?

All aspect LO is very important when it comes to penetration or deep strike missions.

Not if you go in ground-hugging. Or its one big mother-hubbard of a cruise missile. Or if its naval interdiction with a big ASM.

How big is Brahmos? (anyone)

From what I have seen so far, the T-50 design seems (to me and to me only) as a design oriented at delaying a good track and lock on from the front quarter for LO enemy’s BVR missiles until it gets within the range of its own sensor suit (IRST etc) where it is likely to have the upper hand due to aerodynamic performance. A design intended to close the gap between detection and launch ranges if you will, which was greatly changed with the introduction of the F-22.

Strike missions do not seem to favour its profile. Am I completely off?

Very possible.

However, personally I think they’ll probably look to get more out of than just A2A.

From what I gather, they have PAK-FA and PAK-DA in the works, with PAK-DA being a Tu-160 replacement. D’you think they’ll rely on the Su-34 for all strike in the medium term future?

Hmmm – while I’ve no idea what the design load is for PAK-FA, for Su-35, there are 12 hard-points.

Can anyone really see the Russians (of all people) accepting half that on their latest and greatest? :confused:

Vertical launchers allowing 2 per bay, i.e. 8 centre mounted + 2 in sidebays = 10 is possible.

Rotary with 3 per bay, 12 + 2 = 14; I wouldn’t discount it out of hand, but would they accept the added complexity? Not sure.