The AESA went through multiple stages.. the first FGA01-01 (2007) has been light tested on the #154 but with mere 680 TRMs failed to meet requirements.. it has been enlarged to FGA-29 688mm full-size array with 1,064 TRMs (2011).. to my knowledge, the resulting radar was deemed too heavy and too demanding in terms of cooling.. the last incarnation is called FGA-35 and has 960 TRMs.. no idea whether it is this type that is installed on the #967..

As far as I can recollect now, without a recheck, the first Zhuk-AE unit displayed on the MiG-29 (then paraded as the MiG-35) was a technology demonstrator to prove the basic tech of an AESA FCR for fighters in Russia. Even during those period it was mentioned that its just a TD and the real production version will be larger with more T/R modules once the testing phase is finished. This was also mentioned during the MMRCA contest in NIIR reports/interviews.
After the MMRCA contest (which anyway had politics involved) was over for the RAC, we did not hear much about the Zhuk-AE. Then somewhere down the line LTCC became reality (even though it was the plan back in 2005) and we saw a completely new and compact design from what was earlier displayed.

The approx timeline for Zhuk-AESA basically looked like this
2003/4 or much earlier – Development of first AESA FCR for fighter in Russia started by NIIR.
2005 – Development was reportedly nearly completed.
2007 – Displayed an actual working TD unit on MiG-29 after it had already completed flight hours on a MiG-29.
2013 – A new design with employment of LTCC T/R modules showcased.
2016 – Another more refined/final/production standard unit/design was displayed and was also promoted for India’s LCA Tejas.
2016 – Zhuhai-2016, only Jane’s reported and published a pic of the Zhuk-AME.
I still dont understand WTF no one else had any info or even a pic of that display unit. All I have seen till now is that single pic courtesy Jane’s.

Hardly anything may happen to thing which never existed.

Experimental prototype =/= working and serial produced device.

That was an eye opener!
Utilizing your theory, I just realized that PAK-FA/T-50 doesn’t exist!
I fear utilizing this theory of yours across various other Russian military programmes.

There aren’t much to go after. My 2cent, even VKS was not happy with the AESA. I couldn’t reach requirements.. What else could it be?
So it was back to R&D for the manufacturer of radar.

Can you guide me to any reports/documents which details the above highlighted part and its current status?
I was not able to find any good article/reports on the status of the radar and its previous test/performance reports. So just asking if you have come across any.
As far as I understood, like many other Russian mil projects, the main issue has been lack of funding.

New naval Tor testing which happened few days earlier.

Russian strike forces in Syria till now

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/C7bdf9yXwAE9j_G.jpg

On top of that very limited combat support units to effectively support multiple fronts, stupid instances like friendly fire happens (24 Mar) on Syrian force which is already manpower constraint.

https://twitter.com/IvanSidorenko1/status/846086724447092736

The NATOs Jihadi friends are truly bringing bad name to the TOW-2/A or rather showing its out-of-brochure and TV capability vs Russian armour. The earlier attack which struck directly on the front turret of a T-90 without any secondary explosion turned out to be an old T-62M recently delivered by Russia.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cSaYwvBlBAU
Those who don’t like reading long, here is a good and short article.
http://thetankblog.com/tag/t-62m/

Another one. These rooftop & “grounded” Jihadis with anti-tank launchers could be very well neutralized by on station armed drones there by lessening causalities on own forces. This area is where the muricans score high w.r.t the Russian forces.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w8LQ0_0JmTU

Collection of recent TOW launches.

Quoting R&U from the comment section as I dont want to retype

what is that even mean “not top of the line”? These are TOW-2 missiles tandem warheads … What “top of the line” are you talking about ? first generation?
Price/Cost: In FY 2015, the unit cost of a TOW 2 missile is $58,908.
FY 2016 DoD Program: FY 2016 dollars in the amount of $87.5 million supports the fifth year of the current five-year (FY12-16) multi-year contract and procures 1,704 TOW 2 missiles.
So there are the same missiles US army buys TODAY

The only drawback (& stupid decision) of this successful campaign by the entire range of Russian delivered armour to the Syrian forces in facing off one of the best anti-tank assets in the NATO arsenal is that, the idiots in the Russian establishment is likely to backoff from the best possible upgrade proposed for their T-72/90 MBT fleet and instead trim it down to a limited upgrade which is more “economical”.

Anyone came across a translated version of the below episode?
Have good visuals of IL-76 air frame testing and A-50.

They need more attack choppers . Fighters still can’t see individuals, small civilian vehicles and anti tank locations . Plus the 30mm gun from lower altitude more effective. Lower altitude attack also has element of surprize.

True, I too believe gunships is whats needed rather than wasting and risking those frontline fighters.
Three options to increase the gunship support.
1) Russia increase their arsenal – But Russia seems like not in hurry or they simply do not have any more gunships to spare for the Syrian campaign
2) Make deals with Iran to sell couple of dozen gunships and deploy them in Syria to support the anti-terrorists ops.
3) Partner China to make them an active party to the combat operation. China will be able to combat test and utilize their helo gunships. They wont get a better testing and proving ground for their new gunships.

There’s also an image of a rebel-captured T-90A being put to use in this offensive.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/C7rAb3bVQAEuyCg.jpg

I find it that you have too much difficulty to called the terrorists what they are, where as you are at ease often using “regime”.

T-90 is being used to protect that two VBIEDs from SAA strike and seems like thay have been successful earlier using their best armour to protect their VBIEDs. Btw, that T-90A now being used by HTS have already taken atleast one more hit from an anti-tank missile or projectile on its front turret and ERA blocks on the left side is missing.
There is no other option than to destroy that T-90. The Russians as usual being careless did not bother to atleast track the tank and hammer those who tried to transport it after it had to be abandoned. Talk about the “super” Russian situational awareness and eyes in the sky.
If anyone wants to see a T-90 that is likely to be actually destroyed, track this specific T-90A in use with HTS. I would love to see it captured though.

Not disagreeing about the general idea that claiming every single Russian tank is a tin can is just stupid, BUT;

No M-60T or Leopard 2A4 got penatrated by ATGM from its front armor; not hull nor turret… T-90A got hit from front armor just once, and tank was penatatrated.. It was an *extremely* lucky shot that impacted its gun mantlet but still; T-90A is yet to pass its trial by fire. There is another T-90A hit from its side, seen burning, but that wouldn’t be a subject for comparsion as no tank in the world has any kind of armor protection to withstand ATGMs from sides.

Don’t get me wrong, I don’t actually think T-90A in -on paper- much different from Leo2A4 or M-60T in terms of protection, but if you are looking ONLY at actual combat record in Syria, Leo2A4 did survive some 8+ and M-60Ts survived some 30+ ATGM impacts. T-90A currently has one frontal hit and one penatration. While this operational record is statistically insufficent to say the protection T-90A is a crap, it surely is not enough to back up your claim that T-90A is on par with Leo2A4, or even M-60A3s, which on different occassions, did survive all 3 Milan ATGMs thrown at its front turret.

And don’t judge Leopard 2A4s performance solely looking at the single photo;

http://below-the-turret-ring.blogspot.com.tr/2017/01/leopard-2-in-syria-part-2.html

This guy easily proves same damaged&abandoned tanks are pictured several times from different angles and under different weather conditions, then empty tanks are hit again by ATGMs, or VBIEDs then pictured again a few times.. Again I am not making a T-90 vs Leo2 comparison, but you are either falling for a falsified propaganda or you just ignore that fact. Who knows what exactly happened to that tank? Maybe knocked out by ATGM, hit a few more times, then filled with explosives from inside and detonated? Airstrike to prevent their capture? That is not apples-to-apples comparison, that is not actually a comparison at all..

First off all, I didn’t meant that specifically for Turkish forces or their operating ability. But the subject was only the tank.
On one hand you are fully convinced that none of the Turkish tanks were penetrated, and on another you are fully convinced that the T-90 was indeed penetrated. Do you have any proof for that claim other than western fanboys theories?

Just for your info, T-90 doesn’t have to prove anything to anyone, their service record in Syria since Oct 2015 speaks for themselves.
The only visuals we have seen till now for the T-90 are those which terrorists released which they though was good enough to keep their and their masters “honor”.

As far as I can recollect now based on footage released so far, we have seen only 4 or 5 cases in which T-90 was probably hit to the extend of having the tank to pull out of active combat. In most other cases the missiles probably never reached the tank due to its Shotra APS.
So yes, what we saw for the past nearly 18 months in Syria is a validation of Russian designers solutions – 1) To avoid opponents strike through active protection system 2) If the APS screen is breached, the tank to withstand the impact and damage.

I’m listing in order the strikes on T-90 that we saw during the past year and a half.
1) The first and “famous” T-90 hit with a TOW which every media covered as it was the first real combat engagement of a T-90. Shtora was clearly not active in this engagement.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_90Hx7g5_5c

2) The Aleppo operation in which we saw a terrorists drone footage of a T-90, probably disabled and abandoned, with white smoke coming from the tank. This was also attributed by some to a friendly fire from the Syrian forces who mistook the tank as that of the opponents.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X3ymHin8p-8

3) The twin TOW attack on possibly a T-90, not sure. The first one failed to do any damage and the terrorists launched the second TOW with the same result.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c0vLdi2Ij2I

4) At the start of the final battle for Aleppo liberation, Syrian forces had to abandon a T-90 at Mallah farms offensive after it developed a technical glitch. The murican colleagues specialized in beheading, Nour Al Zinki, later captured the disabled tank.
https://www.liveleak.com/view?i=8b8_1465556349&comments=1&safe_mode=off
https://www.almasdarnews.com/article/islamist-rebels-capture-first-t-90-tank-syrian-army-aleppo/

5) The last loss was the only major loss of the T-90.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=obwP3rDYzpI
https://twitter.com/SyrianMilitary/status/823804485374013440

The tank was supposedly hit by a missile on top side and set the MG ammo on fire. Then a second missile struck and the commander and gunner left the tank. The driver who was struck inside was rescued after an hour.
There is much to this video than simple destruction… I personally find it hard to believe it was struck with an anti-tank missile particularly TOW coz I have not yet seen the terrorist launch video of this attack.

Here is another Russian delivered T-72B taking TOW for breakfast. In all cases where the video ends without showing the aftermath of any fire or “fireworks”, its very safe to conclude that the tank was not destroyed.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yburtcgEOuY

Another video claiming to be a T-90, not sure. But what I can say with clarity is that the missile hit the front side and we can see the 3 armor plates flying out, which is the only slight inclination for me to believe it was probably a Russian delivered T-90 or a T-72B, coz most of the Syrian tanks don’t have those plates. One thing is certain as usual for videos which ends without showing the aftermath – the tank was not destroyed.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FHM5w4Ih3E4

I am saying that is innacurate- because the T-90 has survived all the action we have seen it in without internal compartment fire (a decent if not perfect way of judging combat penetration). In at least a few cases they were hit and captured, or abandoned

+1.
That is the fact from the battle field since the first Russian deployment in 2015 which the so-called experts and fanboys equally find hard to digest.