As exemplified by the F-35, this “test points” thing is just a PR orientated stunt, pulling out some random numbers for effect and always telling the press how far ahead they are, always (well actually , not really, as shown in the recent OTE report).

Judging other programs by the same PR orientated metric is very uninformed indeed. Did Rafale use this ” test points” thing, or Typhoon , or indeed any other modern combat aircraft? I would be interested to know that actually.

No test points are not a PR stunt. All aircraft use ‘test points’ but the terminology isn’t universal. What may be called test points in one program may be called something else in another nation. For example the PAK-FA will use test points to pass things such as supersonic weapons release, range, speed etc etc.

Here is a link to Typhoon which mentions test points when trialing the aircraft. It was most certainly not a PR stunt.(slow to load but it gets there)
http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=5&ved=0CEgQFjAE&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.baesystems.com%2Fdownload%2FBAES_063239%2Fair-international&ei=F5X-ULvqA7OX0QXuhIDYDA&usg=AFQjCNETrnD1f39pZIr_vjxVBRr7UtgkBw&bvm=bv.41248874,d.d2k

In aviation, as in boxing: a good heavy fighter always beat a good lightweight fighter. 😉
T-50 and F-22 fighter jets it, they replaced the Su-27 and F-15 respectively. 1.42 and C-37 – long-range fighter-interceptors, they had to replace not only the Su-27, Su-33, but also the MiG-31.
1.42 had a stupendous range without external fuel tanks 4500 – 4750 km. Cruise speed of M = 1.78, maximum Mach 2.35.
Its main drawback – high RCS, the rest of it more powerful than any other fighter 1990 – 2010 period.

The fighting analagy is all wrong. I’ve personally witnessed a hulking great 23 stone bouncer knockod out cold in one punch by a guy who i’d say was no more than around 10, possibly 10 and a half stone in weight. As the old saying goes it’s not the size of the dog in the fight, it’s the size of the fight in the dog. For example F-16’s routinely kick F-15 rear end in mock combat. RAF Hawk jets can cause real problems when taking on the bigger jets such as the old Tornado F-3 in mock combat. I’ve seen it written that when a hawk gets in amongst a group of bigger jets it’s like a fox in a chicken coup. In short the size of the platform isn’t the determining factor in air combat, not by a long shot.

Can it get a good enough vector to possible get an efficient intercept in the first place.

Who runs out of juce first, etc etc.

That all depends on the geometry of the intercept. Sometimes you might not have a hope in hell of catching it but other times you will. Much depends on mission planning of the attacking aircraft.

Su 34 is capable of M1.8+ and fighters like F35 or F18 won’t be able to even intercept it effectivelly.

On egress it’ be tricky to catch (depending on where the intercept geometry) however when ingressing it cannot go that fast due to having to carry its weaponry externally. I would imagine its limited to around Mach 1 when carrying an A-G load.

This statement requires a bit of elaboration, at least to me. How can a part that is invisible from a certain angle affect the RCS value??

I’m not a qualified expert but from listening to various experts i’ve spoken to in the past it woul seem that the radar waves creep along the airplane and then creep back to the radar. From what they’ve told me the rear of the aircraft very much effects the stealthyness of an aircraft when viewed from the front.
And the EODASski stuff is pure conjecture on your part and given that western electronics have ALWAYS been superior to the Soviet/Russian kit then you can be a certain it (EODASski) won’t be a superior system. I notce Russia is not confident enough to show their EODAS in operation too, quite telling that is. And have they even flown their EODAS? If not then it’s nowhere near ready as it’s not the type of kit you can simply test in a lab then bung onto an aircraft and have it work perfectly.

I ‘m not gonna give names , it ‘s not important .
Cheers .

To be fair it is somewhat important when you’ve made an allegation like you have. Besides, what on earth’s wrong with naming names?? It wouln’t be a crime or even an insult.

I wouldn’t boast about it – it will not make you too popular in the week that most of the UK’s self-employed (including old Mercurius) have to write a four-figure cheque to Her Majesty’s Revenue & Customs (a.k.a. the vampires & blood-suckers).

I’m on ESA, it’s not my fault but the fault of a poorly trained foreign doctor that was employed by the NHS.

The issues with lightning have been well known for over a year and a fix is already in the works.

old news

Two years and still no fix? In that case it’s doubtful it’ll ever be fixed.
I just can’t comprehend how a company manages to screw up so badly on quite literally everything! I mean is there anything that actually works as its meant to? Anything at all???