Off-topic, but I thought it would be interesting to compare the effectiveness of a strike on some supposed IS facility with guided bombs by NATO forces.

http://syria.liveuamap.com/en/2016/18-july-trbrtc-very-clear-footage-rare-of-a-cjtf-airstrike

Old news. It has been comapred right after so-called ‘888-war’ with Georgia. Of course, since that war some of Tu-22M3 recieved an upgrade of its targeting system, based on the same SVP system by Gefest, and it’s a great system, but it’s not like it can replace or even compete with PGMs when we’re tallking about combat effectiveness per sortie or weight of delivered munitions. But the main question here(at least for our RuAF) is a price and quantities of PGMs in service/arsenals.

This is what they said:

You were upset when the numbers given didn’t match your expectations. Now that you understand better what they were saying and find the numbers do match your expectations… you still complain.

The problem here is that they don’t match to reality – not my expectations. Only housewives and idiots may believe to all this BS “he said, she said”. It’s a fraud for plebs – not analytics.

Lifted from another forum…

http://aviationweek.com/defense/measuring-stealth-technologys-performance

So according to Aviation Week’s calculations… in a best case scenario with a cued search and no jamming the latest Russian radars will struggle mightily to detect 5th generation aircraft at tactically useful ranges.

So, according to this ‘analysis’, PESA radar with a peak-power of 20kW has a longer range of detection than a PESA radar of Megawatt class?! :stupid: TBH, i wouldn’t take seriously any ‘analysis’ which operates only by public claims and basic arithmetics in such a difficult area of science as radiophysics. This is how real analysis should look like: http://radar.dinos.net/content.htm

Until they have something like this, there is nothing to discuss here. BTW, can someone share something similar to this doc i posted above, made by the Western radiophysicists? Would be very interesting to read something more factual and scientific than these TV-shop style loads of BS for housewives, about “metal marble” and “golf ball”.

Guys, it’s NOT heat-seeking torpedo.))) It’s a HEAT-propulsion torpedo – “тепловая торпеда”(teplovaya torpeda). Term “heat-torpedo” in our Navy’s terminology means that torpedo is equipped with a heat(i.e. chemical, on kerosene or hydrogen peroxide) propulsion systems, in contrast to fully-electrical propulsion.

Info. is from Ru UAC’s annual report.

Can anyone explain away what the heck it is going on here?

[ATTACH=CONFIG]246441[/ATTACH]
[ATTACH=CONFIG]246442[/ATTACH]

Nothing special – 1st fragment simply states that R&D on Indian FGFA to be continued in 2016.
In the 2nd fragment it was said there is a need to stimulate innovational technologies implementation on SSJ, MS-21, future wide-body airliner, PAK FA, PAK DA and AK DA(most probably, it’s a Tu-160M2) projects.

Here is a countdown to LIVE at T24 TV-channel’s YouTube channel. This is gonna be very exciting! At least for our Russian aviation enthusiasts and whole Russian aerospace industry.

Holy ****, i am laughing at how **** the assembly quality is;

Yeah, these slits are fugly.(( Interior never was a strong point of our aerospace industry.

A nice report from KAZ; http://gelio.livejournal.com/215362.html#cutid1

Wow! This airframe is looking like a brand new one! Of course, it’s not, but i wonder – is it supposed to be the 1st Tu-160M2?