No worries.

BTW, did I say that I’m a qualified teacher of English as a foreign language? 😉

Really, me too.:)

Just don’t ask me to teach the TOEFL… stupid American test, I once almost fell asleep in front of the students when teaching it!!!:diablo::diablo:

Herr Schicklgruber’s “Scouse an’ Irish” wing of the family:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patrick_Hitler

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/this-britain/the-black-sheep-of-the-family-the-rise-and-fall-of-hitlers-scouse-nephew-412206.html

Yepp… sometimes I wonder how one could feel safe on a plane in Iran.

However Iran Air is not so bad and seems to be more or less up to international standards.

On the other hand; the numerous “low cost” airlines in Iran are really a nightmare.

Dogdy “wet leases”, in this case (if I got the details right), a Kazak aircraft and crew.
I know nothing about Kazak maintenance and crew training levels, but please allow me to be reticent.
There is currently a rumor (only a rumor) in Iran that the damaged aircraft is not the aircraft it is supposed to be.
In other words, the serial number does not correspond to the registration number, and it looks like the serial number on the aircraft belongs to another airframe that supposedly should have been scrapped in Kazakhstan.
Now it is only a rumor and we have to wait and see.

Anyway corruption in Iran is at such a level that on a maintenance and documentation level anything is possible

When I was living in Russia around 3 years ago I watched a Russian TV documentary concerning the black market trade in dodgy airliner spare parts, or more to the point, the forging of the documentation that accompanys each and every spare part or component that can be traded. In Russia this document is called a passport. The documentary focussed on the Tu-154 airliner – more specifically components on the Tu-154’s powerplant (Soloviev D-30 if I recall), especially a snail shaped component (‘ulitka’ in Russian) which I presume is some kind of turbine pump. Pretty nasty if it were to fail in flight I’d imagine, and bearing in mind that it seems to have been some sort of catastrophic engine failure which led to the crash of the Iranian Tu-154 2 weeks back – I should think that any air crash investigation would want to look into the origins of many of the airplane’s components checks on the documentation, etc.

Just my 10 kopecks worth….

F-100F
Followed by F-105F from 1966 and F-105G with Standard ARM (AGM-78A/B)…
Just to remember, when that kind of warfare was introduced and the value of that was learned the hard way. 😉

You could even consider the Ju-88 and Ju-87 as SEAD types at a stretch – they were used to attack parts of the British Chain Home air defence system during the Battle of Britain in 1940:

RAF Ventnor continued to work effectively until 12th August 1940 when 15 Junkers 88 dropped 72 high explosive bombs on the station at mid-day, leaving it badly damaged and off the air. This photo was taken from one of those bombers, the transmitter towers are in the foreground. Although the domestic site was also located within the compound at the top of St.Boniface, amazingly only one person was injured. Despite the on going danger from ten delayed action bombs, the station was back in limited service within the hour. On the following Friday there was a second raid by 6 JU87 aircraft which deposited 15 bombs into the compound with the result that two unfortunate hits finally created damage that could not be fixed easily. (Today, near the parking spot close to R Block, there exists a strangely cratered area amongst the gorse. I believe these holes to be bomb craters.) The station remained unserviceable for two months but mobile equipment was installed at Bembridge to ‘plug the gap’ in the chain until the Ventnor repairs were completed.

http://www.ventnorradar.co.uk/CH.htm

Wiki:
“F110-GE-129 29,400 lbf (131 kN) thrust engines power the F-15K, representing an increase from that of the baseline F-15E”

Compair them with the Su-35 BM:

“Powerplant: 2× Saturn 117S turbofans
Dry thrust: 8,800 kgf[8] (86.3 kN, 19,400 lbf) each
Thrust with afterburner: 14,500 kgf (142 kN, 31,900 lbf) each”

Thanks

And your point being…?:rolleyes:

The Su-35 won’t be in service for another 5 years at least. The basic (1981) Su-27 airframe is most probably an improvement on the basic (1972) F-15 airframe but I get the impression that the Eagle in nearly all variants has a better thrust to weight ratio compared to the FLANKER – which may give the advantage to the F-15 in certain flight regimes…?:confused:

Nearly half of Russian air-to-air missiles with IAF have homing, ageing problems: CAG

Nearly half of Russian air-to-air missiles with IAF have homing, ageing problems: CAG report

Putting a big question mark on the performance of the Russian beyond visual range (BVR) air-to-air missiles with the Indian Air Force, an audit report by the Comptroller and Auditor General (CAG) has noted that nearly half the missiles tested either did not home in on targets during evaluations or failed ground tests because they were ageing much before their shelf lives.

The R 77 (RVV-AE) BVR missiles, fitted on board the Su-30 MKIs, MiG-29s and MiG-21 Bisons, were bought from Russia starting 1996. More than 2,000 missiles were ordered after the Kargil conflict and 1,000 have been delivered.

The CAG report, which will be released soon, is based on evaluations of the missile — its range is close to 90 km — during ground tests, inspections and test firing by the IAF. The missiles were bought at a “cost of Rs 2 crore each” but their failure during tests, says the CAG report, has affected the “operational preparedness” of the IAF.

“All figures in the report are based on air force records. Everything is verified by the IAF,” an official said.

The problem with the missiles was referred to Russia and several teams subsequently visited India to rectify faults. IAF officers familiar with the missiles confirmed that this has been a problem area for long. “It is a known fact that the missiles do not work as we would like them to. Periodic tests that are carried out when they are in storage show their dismal state. We also have problems with spare parts,” said a retired officer who was closely associated with the matter.

http://www.indianexpress.com/news/nearly-half-of-russian-airtoair-missiles-with-iaf-have-homing-ageing-problems-cag-report/490055/

The sanctions prevent the Iranians from buying Western equipent which will almost always have American components installed therefore forcing them to obtain Russian aircraft.

Your saying that Russian aircraft are inherently more dangerous than American aircraft? Hardly.
I don’t think anyone has ever proved that aircraft from the Eastern bloc are any more unsafe than Western aircraft, although they might be less cost effective. Far more important is the country the aircraft is operating in or from – many old Soviet built aircraft have to operate in countries where raising questions about safety is almost like raising questions about your sexuality…:D

As it happens Iran has a very poor safety record at the moment, whether it be Boeing, Lockheed otr Tupolev.

http://aviation-safety.net/database/dblist.php?Country=EP

Don’t think so… According to ICAO, Tu-154 has had 1.7 times fewer incidents than the world average..

I don’t think the record of the Tu-154 is that good, but like I said, mainly due to the operator and not the aircraft itself:

http://aviation-safety.net/database/dblist.php?field=typecode&var=475%&cat=%1&sorteer=datekey&page=1

I disagree here. Most sources give in figures only for types which are still active because this reflects the current capability. That counts for Soyuz exactly as much as for Delta or Ariane. Why should anyone include list of launches of something one cannot use anyway is beyond me..

So which is the most reliable launch system in service at the moment?
More importantly though, has there been enough launches of each type to provide a credible statistical sample?

The impression I get is that eventually, any country can develop a very reliable launch system… if they carry out enough launch attempts to begin with.

Agreed. Space Shuttle failed on the field of cost, not in reliability aspect.

In the end, comparing launch costs between different countries is really just comparing labour costs… bit like comparing the difference in the cost of a ride on the Paris or the Moscow Metro… again the advantage is definitely to the Russians.;)

The same could be said about Soviet VLO planes but.. who cares? It’s pointless to argue about something that was never used.

If we’re comparing timelines of technological development I think it’s relevant enough, but you are correct, the actual sophistication or level of technology of a weapon system is not as important as the fact that it is in service with many countries in the world and has already or will likely see combat service… MiG-31 V F-16 anyone?:diablo: