How a 1.6 M F-35 would intercept a 2 M Tu-160 carrying 12 x Kh-101/102 is not that clear to me.

It wouldn’t. The Tu-160 is a stand-off bomber and would launch its cruise missiles well outside the F-35’s, or any other interceptor’s zone of operation. The F-35 would be tasked with shooting down the cruise missiles, not the bomber.

What do you mean by “rough field capability” landing a MiG-21 on a farmer’s field? Good look to that. As it happen much of NATO air power could disperse too if they wanted too – I just don’t think they were really bothered about it at the time – dispersal airfields can be nuked too, you know.

LMFS

check some actual data and please tell me how many modern jet fighters can land in 300 m, unassisted.

None can at normal combat weights on landing – unless they use an arrestor hook – that’s my point. Do we agree on this?

Regarding the take-off distance, your comment is inaccurate too. Dont know what kind of TO you mean, if from land or from a carrier using a springboard. Current Russian fighters can take off from the short runs in Kuznetsov (ca. 100 m) almost fully loaded and a Su-33 upgraded with the AL-41F-1S engines from Su-35 would in all probability make if fully loaded. Su-57, if second stage engines fulfil the claims, could do it quite easily.

When have you ever seen a Su-33 take off from the Kuznetsov with 6,500 kg hanging off it – that’s right, you haven’t. On a normal land runway the Su with need a 1,000 metres or so to take off with such a payload – at sea it would be the same.

Boeing said the F/A-18E could take off from Vikramaditya fully loaded.

When did Boeing say that?

The Indians flew one at over M3.0 over Pakistan one time I think.

Yes, I read that once – but normally the IAF flew their MiG-25s at M 2.5 or so. At M 3.0 the MiG would have no combat range at all.

I’m pretty sure the Royal Navy knew what they were doing when they laid down the design specifications for the Queen Elizabeth class aircraft carrier almost 20 years ago. But maybe the RN are kicking themselves today they never consulted the many anonymous posters on the Key Publishing forums – who knows?:rolleyes:

The QE class are the size they are to allow them to achieve a high daily sortie rate during combat operations – that was the requirement – the QE class is the answer, simple.

You guys don’t get it. What Russia is now doing is creating a Fog of War situation, where there will be both Russian and Syrian crew operating S-300. It means they are sort of Immune towards IDF.
What does it take for IDF to attack such S-300 battery where they risk kill Russian servicemen?

Well the Russians can’t do that – if they did that they would be taking sides with the Syrians against the Israelis – they wouldn’t be neutral anymore. The Russian and the Israelis have already made agreements about this, levels of demarcations and what not.

Madrat

With the turks joining the “One Belt One Road” alliance, what platform from China might they adopt? J-10? FC-1? J-31?

What would the J-10 and FC-1 have to offer compared to the F-16Cs already in Turkish service?

How else would you define “harm” in this context but cost in time and money? The more airframes you’ve already built by the time a problem requiring a fix is identified, the more aircraft there are which need expensive remedial work, for example.

As mentioned, the F-35 programme did deliberately increase the level of concurrency over and above that typical of previous aircraft projects.

What has any that got to do with making a direct comparison between the orders and production rates of the F-35 on the one hand, and with that of the T-50 on the other hand – as you did?

Of course, mistakes were made in developing and putting into service the F-35 – as is the case with such ambitious projects – but the fact of the matter is, today there are 300 F-35s flying with half a dozen air arms or so. Can we say the same for the Su-57 in 3 years time?