Frankly I think heads should roll over such a mismanaged idea! Who thought it was a good idea to induct a type that was elderly, with poor spares availability and not known for its hot and high capability.

The stupid thing is they retired the AN-32 a type still in production, with spares availability, simple to maintain, already operated by ANA personnel and designed for its hot & high capability.

Question is what next? Certainly on the short term their lift capability will be provided by the US. I have already heard talk of giving them second hand C-130 but that is a larger more complex type. Will the US swallow its pride like it did with the MI-17 and purchase them some AN-32?

Any chance you post a copy of that AFM article here, highly interested in this stuff. I`ve also heard about spare shortage, maintenance issues leading to inability to maintain three-four G222 aircraft flightworthy at KAIA airport which I have some info from. The ANAAC G222 is not that old, but overhauled and modernized a few years ago. I`d say rather it is much younger than any other Afghan military transport capability today or in the past and much more spacious than the An-32. Note that the C-27J is still produced today, sharing a lot of components, agreggates and systems from older C-27A(G-222), so I hardly can believe there is such poor spares availability from Alenia. I think the reason could lie somewhere else meaning the “freezing” relationships between Alenia and US Airforce dropping lately the big C-27J Stinger II gunship deal and choosing the MC-130W as a new platform for gunships……..It seems that USAF is now pursuing a new course edging out not-native equipment and procuring its own, wonder how long will the Mi-17 fleet stay….:)

To Glendora: thanks for that article.

T-50-1, -2 and -3 all have them Martinez. There is a few more of them to spot at other places on -4 vs 1/2/3.

Tailless PAK FA is just a simulation.

I know, but there were times(since cracks appeared) the T-50-1 did not have them(even the T-50-2), found many pics…..T-50-3 got them on first flight when looking at hires photos….
http://www.knaapo.ru/rus/gallery/events/combat/t-50/t-50-3.wbp

If it was a navigational antenna of any kind, shouldn’t be on the back of the plane, behind the cockpit instead of the nose and pointing forward?

Why just on the back? always to cover the front and rear hemisphere do not you think? You cant do that with only one antenna on the tail, moreover it looks very similar to the short range nav antenna…

[rollyeyes] 9 mein herzzz:

hmm, all I see are shadows and reflections from surrounding surfaces (engine cowlings and tails), the grey composite skin has especially glossy appearance, do not think there is anything like you highlighted…any particular reason for that shaping anyway?

original picture
http://www.knaapo.ru/rus/popup-100×100.wbp?picpath=/media/rus/gallery/aircrafts/combat/t-50-3_1st_flight/t-50-3_14_hires.jpg

Long awaited dark Flanker, are you happy now?? 😀 Geez, but glossy paint..:eek:, looks ugly, hopefully new MOD orders will clear up this mess with camouflage even in Russian MRO bussines.

When not mentioned it is a doctored picture at least.

ok, this guy is a bit heavy handed when playing with the photoshop shadows feature, we can see it around the dark landing gear wheels, but he will learn that with time. I do not see a problem with that.

seems real, why fake?

Here you can see on Afghan AF MiG-21bis >

Hi Robert, do you have info when, where(which IAP) was the foto taken? thanks