Where is it? All I see is a Super Frelon. Or is this like the “revolutionary” Iranian F-5 with two tails?

Actually, I think I see navalised NH 90 or AW101, who would fit a multi million dollar sea-search radar onto a prototype – hardly sensible or common practice?:rolleyes:

And they made a pig’s ear of the cockpit – looks like the cockpit of the early Mi-24 HIND A, what with the gun sticking out…

:rolleyes:

A former pilot of MiG-31, on a russian forum said:
“А наличие ТП на МиГ-31 – это тоже было требованием момента. Информация с ТП поступала на тепловые головки самонаведения без включения БРЛС, что даёт преимущёство атакующему самолёту (скрытность атаки). В одном вылете из Талаг весной 1987 года по SR-71, мой штурман Дима П…..к, выпустив ТП, поставил его на “Атаку” на дальности (не буду говорить какой, т.к. это неразглашаемая информация), что позволило бы нам, в случае чего, пустить по нём ракету Р-40 в ППС без включения БРЛС. Поверьте мне – дальность была очень приличной и разность по высоте у нас была всего 3 км. Я бы, в случае чего, успел бы всё что надо сделать.
“
“IRST on MiG-31 – that was also a requirement of that time. Information from IRST was directed to the IR homers of the missiles without turning “on” the radar, which gives an advantage of the attaking fighter (hidden attack). In one of flights from Talag in spring of 1987 against SR-71 my avionics officer got out the IRST and put it in “attack” mode from the distance (i will not tell you, because this is a non-talkable information) which would give us possibility, in case, to fire R-40 missile head on without turning “on” the radar. Believe me – that distance was quite good and the difference in height between us was only 3 kms. I would have been able to do what is needed.”

http://www.rusarmy.com/forum/topic7548-100.html

So the Soviets eventually developed an aircraft that probably could intercept the SR-71 – almost 20 years after the SR-71 entered service, big deal.:rolleyes:

Not that it really mattered, by the time the SR-71 entered service in the 1960s, the USSR already had surface-to-air missiles in its air defence system more than capable of taking it out (S-200, Krug?) if the ‘Habu’ was ever allowed to actually overfly the ‘Rodina’ in the first place.

Can we officially call P&W liars or misleading at best??

http://www.defense-aerospace.com/article-view/release/111900/egypt-picks-f100_pw_229-for-latest-f_16s.html

Why would you call them liars? Do you know of another 5th generation engine that’s in service or being tested – what is a 5th gen engine anyway?:confused::rolleyes:

Well yeah, that’s obviously hopelessly optimistic. Why worry about what politicians say about these projects though, whether it’s the PAK-FA or the F-35? 75% of it is rubbish anyhow, it is pointless to get worked up about it.

This aircraft hardly deserves to be singled out in that regard.

Agreed.

None of those three were (seen as) irreplaceable and Russia’s military aircraft industry depends far more on the success of the T-50 than even the UK’s did on the TSR.2, arguably. And Russia’s economy as a whole depends far more on the wellbeing of said industry than the UK’s did. Failure just isn’t an option, for that reason alone I’d be fairly confident.

Agree also. The only real criticism I’d have against the PAK FA and the Su-35 is that they both don’t really cater for most export markets, who would need a smaller cheaper single engine aircraft. The most successful ‘exporter’ of the 3 Eurocanards could be considered the Gripen.

Then again, perhaps cheap single engined aircraft will probably be the future preserve of the Chinese, who already have 2 such designs in production.

Only to have it be pushed back another year, and another year, and then another… 😀

So basically according to Putin, The T-50 is going to enter service before the F-35, which has been flying for 4 years already!:rolleyes:

But seriously,

Congratulations to the Russians for creating such a beautiful plane, but I’m not so interested in its actual capabilities, but more as to how successful the Russians will be at getting it into service. Anybody remember the T-4 Sotka, TSR2 or Mirage 4000…?:(

Wow looks like the inside of a spaceship!

Exactly what I thought!;)

Frankly, I can’t imagine that the expenditure on munitions in Afghanistan has any significant bearing on the overall cost of the war there.

Cost of War in Afghanistan since 2001

To date, $299 billion dollars have been allocated to the war in Afghanistan since 2001. This counter is designed so that on September 30, 2010, the end of the federal government’s 2010 fiscal year, the counter will reach that total number. To learn more about the cost of war in Afghanistan, see our April 2009 publication, our September 2009 fact sheet and our December 2009 fact sheet.

These counters are brought to you by National Priorities Project.

http://www.costofwar.com/aboutcounter.html?keepThis=true&TB_iframe=true&height=500&width=700

U.S. spending $3.6 billion a month in Afghanistan according to CRS report
By Roxana Tiron – 10/14/09 04:08 PM ET
The U.S. spends about $3.6 billion a month in Afghanistan, according to data provided by the Congressional Research Service recently.

The average cost per month is calculated at an average 51,000 U.S. troops in Afghanistan, but that number likely will go higher with the 68,000 troops the Obama administration already is planning on having in that country, and could double if President Barack Obama backs a reported request from Gen. Stanley McChrystal, the commander in Afghanistan, to send as many as 40,000 more troops to the country.

The cost of sending one U.S. soldier in Afghanistan for one year is $1 million versus an estimated $12,000 for an Afghani soldier, according to Steve Daggett, a specialist with the Congressional Research Service. Those numbers fall within the calculations that the Obama administration has been using. The Obama administration is calculating $1 billion per 1,000 troops deployed to Afghanistan.

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/63121-crs-calculates-cost-of-us-troop-presence-in-afghanistan

It hurts my brain thinking that the NATO countries can’t simply pull some rugged Hellis up from their hat, that is well suited for the Afganistan climat..

I should think that the aircraft that NATO are using in Afghanistan are probably the best available for the job, what helicopters in your opinion, are better suited to Afghanistan than the Pumas, Chinooks, Blackhawks, Apaches in service already.

At least the Ruskies did one thing right in their ill fated Afganistan conflict, namly bring the right type of equipment to the table.

Actually the Soviets were not entirely happy with all the equipment they used in the 1980s Afghan war.

Come to think about it, Afganistan should procure more Su-25 too
The Afganistan airforce do not need complex hellis or fighters(cas) which can go to warp speed or fire phasers, they need units that function well and are easy to maintain.

and you have in mind?