I thought it was the Israeli made jammer on the Bison that was the real star during those exercises?

Me cynical? nah…

I just happened to actually read the link you provided in the Russian missiles thread. Did you?

My bad…your point is…? Russkies can’t indigenously produce CFRP?

Nope, just that the producers of these types of composites are independent of the airframe manufacturers themselves. Anyone can decide to make their components from CFRP if they have the design and fabrication ability.

So ‘Porsher’ can single-handedly influence the number of PAK-FA’s produced?

Now, that would be the ‘JSR’ line of argument.;)

I’m not so sure about that. I think you’re making the assumption Sukhoi will take ‘concurrency’ to the risky levels LM have. Structural/ buffeting problems of ’51’ have resulted in a time slippage evident on ’54’, whose first flight will come around a year after ’53’, despite the two being produced at around the same time. This may also have had a bearing on the reported FGFA slippage of 3 years.

OKB Sukhoi’s Annual Company Report published April 2012 states (paraphrasing) “it is envisaged production [PAK-FA] machines will incorporate over 30% CFRP composites (by weight)”, so clearly the T-50 is nowhere near ‘set in stone’ like the F-35, and affords considerable flexibility in the programme.

Notwithstanding parts such as those bare-metal engine cowlings are likely to be replaced by something similar to the CNT CFRP currently used on the SLV stages (it’s the same company that makes the T-50’s wings):

http://portalnano.ru/read/iInfrastructure/russia/nns/technologiya/technologiya

Interesting links, thanks.

NOPP “Teknologiya” actually fabricate their products using CFRP which is supplied by external composites producers who also supply other aerospace companies around the world:

http://www.porcher-ind.com/ (not “Porscher”)

and http://www.quickstep.com.au/

I thought the following might interest those who are fans or critics of the Lockheed F-104 Starfighter

I’m a fan of the F-104, and of the F-105.

Good post Pioneer. The Starfighter probably has no worse a safety record than any of its contemporary peers of the 1950s or sixties – it just has the most publicised safety record. This especially true when discussing Eastern block types – they never liked to discuss any problems that they might have bringing new aircraft into service. For example, many people know of the prematurely failing wings on the Lockheed C-5 Galaxy when it was introduced into service in the 1970s. They had to be replaced at great cost and with a lot of media attention. how many people know about the Tu-154’s early problems with its wings? The first 100 or so aircraft had to have new redesigned wings fitted when the old ones were also found to be prematurely cracking up.

The “problem” is that I doubt if the F-18E probably was ever going to win the Malaysian competition anyway for political reasons. Therefore, some people in Malaysia would have a need to express various technical reasons (and faults) as to why the Super Hornet was not chosen.

If I am not mistaken, the MKM being the same radar as the MKI, it would have its complete ‘back end’, processor section originating from India, as with a lot of avionics which was sourced from Western Europe and South Africa. But now we are talking about technology which is over a decade old – I am sure a lot of countries have moved on, especially Russia.

North Korea’s air force may not be exactly small in size, the capability certainly is so. As shown in the following film.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8rZhxefhDBs&feature=share

The only real modern equipment shown are the MiG-29s and Su-25s.

You’d wonder what that island did to deserve such a pasting – try to defect?

It’s like watching Godzilla versus the Japanese army…

A $20k guided missile? You might have forgotten one zero.

Read this article in that great fount of aerospace wisdom, “the Economist” last week. Lots of info on “cheap” missiles:

http://www.economist.com/node/21563702