Yeah the last time Russia was accused of hospital bombing it turned out to be a farce. They hit nearby targets, but not actually the hospitals.

Just sayin’.

Western media + NGOs + govs saying it really doesn’t make it anymore believable. Their coverage has been bent on depicting the VKS as a civilian murdered from day one.

From all these claims, you would think someone would finally post a video that clearly and unedited showed VKS wasting a hospital, but somehow, that little detail is always fleeting.

It may have been hit by Syrian AF, by artillery, covered in shrapnel by a near VKS hit, who knows. But I am not buying this notion they targeted multiple hospitals in one time frame. It makes zero sense logically and tactically.

Do you have any idea to what extent the RuAF are bombing Syria these days why wouldn’t you believe they have struck a hospital? Only a matter of time frankly.

From all these claims, you would think someone would finally post a video that clearly and unedited showed VKS wasting a hospital, but somehow, that little detail is always fleeting.

Not going to be very easy if the bomb was dropped from a Su-34 at 5,000 to 10,000 metres above?

You gotta consider that the mere definition of ISIS by the West and by Russia is not identical.
For the West, ISIS = ISIS
For Russia, ISIS + Ajnad al-Sham + Sham Legion + Jabhat Ansar al-Din + Al-Nusra + FSA = ISIS

In other words, you are either pro-Assad forces or anti-Assad – no need to make any further fine distinctions.

on the other hand, the west has been bombing ISIS (or, at least they say so) for over a year… and ISIS continuously moved forward and expanded its territory…

When one looks at the bombing campaign against Serbia almost 20 years ago, it was a completely different intensity. Was NATO weakened during that period? like it ir not, is still the legal president of Syria

Is ISIS expanding in Iraq? BTW i’m not saying Russia is being “weakened” by their own bombing campaign – were did I say that?

like it ir not, is still the legal president of Syria

I thought the whole point of this civil war in Syria – as with many civil wars around the world – is to determine who will become the “legal president of Syria”?

HARMs certainly have been the US answer in any conflict where the enemy had radar guided SAMs… In combination with a few stealth aircraft… In 1999, however, after the shoot-down of the F-117 even B-2 bombers were escorted by non-stealth platforms (making the package itself visible to radar). So HARMs remained the fall-back option.

The HARM will still be a US answer to SEAD – but don’t forget JSOW as well – whether launched from stealth aircraft or not.

It’s a long time since anyone shot down another person’s aircraft with an on-board cannon.

I knew recalling a 5th gen design that used a twin boom
and now i remember it.. it was general dynamics submission against the yf-22

F-35 is a twin-boom design.

MLD upgrade raises G limit to 8,5Gs, and adds vortex generators for better high AOA maneuverability. F-5E’s g limit is 7,33, so I believe MLD will also achieve better max ITR as well.

Don’t quote G-limits from flight manuals too much – G-limits can often be arbitrarily chosen figures in many cases – F-4 Phantoms have pulled 13 Gs in combat you know.

Nope. More to do with levels of training and flying expertise. If the Argentinians could actually fly, the air war would have been a lot harder.

Wouldn’t fancy the missile’s chances against the 6 AK-630s on the Slava. And the Soviets wouldn’t have been anywhere near as kind in the type of victory they’d inflict. The UK left the Argentinian mainland alone.

The Argentinian navy only had 5(?) actual Exocet missiles delivered at the beginning of the war – I don’t think this weapon in such numbers was ever going to have much effect on the Soviet Navy in 1982. Didn’t the RN lose more ships to dumb bombs?

I think MiG was just unlucky. Like Su-27, MiG-29 was also built for the demands specifications of Soviet airforce. Its not MiG’s fault that their product was something that had no role after cold war. Othervise MiG did built some great aircraft; MiG-21, MiG-25, MiG-31 are all excellent aircraft, even today.

-MiG-23 is a good aircraft with superb supersonic performance (better than F-15A/16A), and good (better than F-4E, F-5E etc) subsonic maneuverability. Its only disadvantage was complexity, but its performance reflects the engineering capability of MiG company.

-MiG-29 was good for exactly Soviet airforce wanted. For late 1980s, it would have been the best aircraft for WW-III IMO, good trade-off of ruggedness, simplicity, avionics, kinematics and cost. But in last two decades world has changed, and MiG-29 needed much bigger advancements to fit in this new world and be competetive on the market with F-16/18, Rafele or Typhoon; advancements that MiG failed to make in time.

Also, lets not forget Sukhoi designed T-4 Sotka, a truly advanced and unique aircraft for Soviet aerospace industry. Now with PAK-FA, Sukhoi is truly getting the experience MiG won’t have.

I could probably agree with much of this – but MiG-23 more manoeuverable than F-5E? I don’t think so.