I’d prefer a nimitz over two kuznetsovs.

A few reasons. One, I’m not convinced a kuznetsov is necessarily that much cheaper than a nimitz. Also, two kuznetsovs requires higher man power than a lone nimitz.

Most importantly, a nimitz has catapults. Now, I know a ski jump can also launch fully loaded fighters, however it cannot launch fixed wing AEWC planes, whereas a CATOBAR carrier can. And fixed wing AEWC is arguably the second or even most important asset a carrier can offer.

Without the tail rotor, shldn’t it have spun on itself?

If it was flying particularly low maybe it wouldn’t have had much altitude to have spun enough for its crash to show a pattern..

Or maybe the flight control system automatically enacted a controlled landing, etc.

But either way, that seems like the most reasonable explanation of what we see in the photos. The top of the tail had been quite clearly separated from the rest of the aircraft.

I don’t think so. If you’re referring to the EOTS, just because it has one does not mean they abandoned high altitude missions. An EOTS has more uses than hitting ground targets.

I think calling the mount an “EOTS” is a little bit inaccurate, because we are only calling it that because of its resemblance to the F-35’s EOTS, which of course is also tailored for ground attack missions.

However an EOTS could also be called an IRST, if one so desires, although it may be more accurate to say that an IRST is a type of EOTS.
EOTS can also be used interchangably with OLS.

Rafale, Typhoon, flankers, Mi-29, T-50, J-10B, all feature similar systems. The US has also exported underfuselage podded IRSTs, and is looking to integrate some into their own fleet, from F-16s, F-15s, to F-18s and the very interesting Advanced Super Hornet — all with an idea to improve A2A performance of the fighters.

Basically, what I’m saying is that just because J-20’s “EOTS” is on the underside, and it looks kind of like the F-35’s EOTS, doesn’t mean it has a similar function. If anything I’d speculate it lacks a major air to ground targeting capability at all. Furthermore, I’d also wager that most future EOTS/IRST/OLS designs on stealth fighters will also be placed on the underside of the nose and feature faceting. The faceting will naturally be for RCS reduction. But placement on the underside of the nose rather than the topside may seem strange, however I believe the underside will not obstruct pilot vision as much, furthermore, the cant of radomes and their radars means there is more real estate to comfortably sit an optical targeting system below the nose rather than on top of the nose (which would mean it must either sit in front of the cockpit, or offset, both of which will either make the cockpit canopy harder to design and/or influence the radome dimensions)

Thank god for the new landing gear doors.

The old ones were hideous.

Pretty sure they are the same.

the first prototype initially had the forward “square” landing door constantly open and ugly, but during later flight testing of 2001 and 2002 we saw that the forward door only opened if the landing gear had to be retracted or extended, and most of the time it was closed.

If we look at 2003, we can see that the forward square door of the landing gear is still present.

Wingtip is probably because it is expected to use PL-10 as its primary SRAAM rather than the PL-8 which needed the special drooped rail.

the J-16 is basically an indigenised MKK/MK2, yes. Newer and better inside bits and materials of course, and is built with chinese weapons in mind. Said to have an AESA (second fighter in PLAAF after J-10B), which given the radome size, will probably be a formidable one.

Basically, think modernized MKK/MK2/F-15E

My guess is that it’s optimizing signal returns. I don’t think that changing the serrations on a panel would change production costs very much.

I’d agree. Looking at the serration of F-117s bay doors and F-22 or F-35, newer RCS reduction serrations are less zig zaggy.

TR1, if you have any statements you consider reliable from the Russian side about the state of which Su-35 talks are at, then do share.

Most places going on about the Su-35 saga aren’t exactly at the height of credibility WRT PLA, and there is no noise from the typical PLA channels about Su-35 either. With a history of other “done deals” being reported on, such as the Tu-22M3 episode, it isn’t too much to be skeptical about this one.
I don’t think anyone doubts that there has been talks, but far from being completed to the extent which most news sites are either suggesting or inferring.

Personally I wouldn’t mind a regiment or two of Su-35s. They’d make good DACT.

Three Kolkota – P15A and four improved Kolkota – P15B.

But MRSAM / Barak-8 still far from ready.

Indeed, but Kolkata is still a few years away as well, and even then it’ll be 7 such ships, probably of which 4-5 will be available for operations at any one time (using the standard operation/refit/rest estimate), to be divided among both carrier escort and other operations…

I suppose if a task force or CVBG is to be led by a single P15A or P15B they would have enough ships for all missions, but they’ll be quite stretched if they want three or even two P15A/Bs per group.