U.S., Russia aircraft test in-flight safety protocols over Syria

test of that provision lasted around 3 minutes and took place in the skies of south central Syria.

A U.S. military official, speaking on condition of anonymity, said the aircraft came within 5 miles of each other.

Russia described it as a joint military exercise. But, in a sign of the sensitivities, the Pentagon said calling it a military “exercise” was incorrect and that it was only a test.

“This test was a prudent measure solely to ensure that, in the event coalition aircraft encounter a Russian aircraft during operations in Syria, one of the established and agreed upon modes of communication in the agreement functioned,” said Pentagon spokesman Jeff Davis.

Source:
reuters.com

Go for it! I’m still not sure exactly where you’re coming from but if you have a theory that you think better explains the ‘diverging’ of the facts then I’d love to hear it…

…but, please, I’d rather not be drawn into any discussion that focuses on the condition of the victims.

I think the crash scene was altered. Simple. Notably, the tail cone separation bears sign of two differents forces with an in-axis force that can’t be identified on the external body. This would converge with the absence of the horizontal tail.

No, not ‘lies in a statement’; just a statement that has been taken out of context.

The media are very keen on quoting people and, in an effort to get an early statement, these statements get increasingly inaccurate as time goes on but they are often repeated (and then misinterpreted by those looking for a conspiracy). Remember the famous 9/11 Flight-93 ‘no bodies’ quote from the coroner that was taken completely out of context by the conspiracy-theory nutters?

What matters is when exactly this statement was made because when it was made not all the victims had been recovered (because they still haven’t all been recovered, now)…

…so we have no idea when this statement was made…..only when it was reported. So it was true (when made).

I checked on the BBC last night and it was reported that 144 victims had been flown to Russia; so are there still 80 victims to be recovered or 80 victims that haven’t been flown to Russia yet?

Two points only as I don’t think this is the place for a polemic regarding your own sense of rigor Vs mine:
– first you might have noticed that I didn’t jump on the first thing that I noticed as potentially diverging from the other facts (hence the “again”).
– secondly I quoted the source as I mostly do. CNN are what they are but they are professional journalist with a sense of responsibility. This is not sourced from an obscure blog.

Last but not least, we are here on a rather unpopular web forum to cross check our impressions, ideas and analysis. This is not a mainstream media that have to be cautious about their reporting. We can discuss here more on the edge with the few facts on hands. All that we need is to remain cautiously honest. This is not PPrune where some lazy journalists hangs day-longs waiting for some sensationalism.

~s

It is starting to look like an internal explosion, so far cause unknown,

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-11-02/infrared-satellite-reveals-heat-flash-time-russian-airplane-disaster

It could be also a collision.

Enigmatic answer. Wiki does not sleep:

Empty weight: 14,500 kg (31,967 lb)
Loaded weight: 31,600 kg (69,700 lb)
Max. takeoff weight: 33,475 kg (73,800 lb)
Powerplant: two × SNECMA Atar 9K-50[61] turbojets
Dry thrust: 49.03 kN (11,023 lbf) each
Thrust with afterburner: 70.61 kN (15,873 lbf) each
Performance

Maximum speed: Mach 2.2 (2,340 km/h, 1,264 knots, 1,454 mph) at 13,125 m (40,000 ft)
Combat radius: 1,240 km (670 nmi, 775 mi)
Ferry range: 4,000 km (2,160 nm, 2,484 mi)
Service ceiling: 20,000 m (65,600 ft)
Climb to 11,000 m (36,100 ft): 4 min 15 sec
Armament

Bombs:
1× AN-11 free-fall nuclear bomb or
1× AN-22 free-fall nuclear bomb or
16× 454 kg (1,000 lb) free-fall conventional bombs

We have discussed the matter earlier (last year?) and it was shown that a Sonic Boom mission was feasible from the Pacific ocean (shorter than French Guyana and Safer than Senegal).

Then to say that the mighty IV could have carried its max bomb load all along its max ferry range and back is an illusion. Que dis-je, it’s a Mirage.

Source:
Wiki

Since when is the North Sea a peaceful tropical waterway? To fly in the weather, you need an heavy platform (wind and wind gusts).
It’s either C130, Atlantic NG, P1 or less P8 with a complement of Scorpions (disseminate low-end mission on less costly airframe).

You won’t have a 24/365 coverage with Reapers!

Also, it’s now all about projection. Icecap melting down, anybody?

Airbus Proves More A400M Capabilities, and Eyes Exports

Surprisingly, the airflow problem is generated by the airlifter’s wings, rather than propwash from the large TP400 engines. Airbus has asked a research institute to investigate whether it would be feasible to extend the length of the refueling hose from the current 90 feet to 120-150 feet.

Pathetic.

They gonna ask the same guys that led them into this disaster to lead them out of the mess they were put in now that they were told the solution. Where is the incentive? What happens to the commitment toward excellence of the secular Eu R&D?

Bahhhh…. Airbus.