Are the Russians drunk again?
Be nice. They may yet have to bail out your government (nice grammar btw).
Engine placement & alignment vis-a-vis LEVCON and hence intake:

…and then there was 3. Yak-130 photoshoot:
Here’s something else. The circumference of the top-half of that metal engine casing is smaller than the lower half. Hence only the top-side can be indicative of engine alignment & positioning. It also explains that slight and unusual divergence of the nozzles.
Therefore trying to assess engine placement using bottom elevation is mis-leading, as for the topside, it’s pretty clear & speaks for itself, as posted above (in the AN-124).
Is it an unreasonable supposition that the centre (lateral axis) of the comp. face is in-line with the LEVCON root?
…’blind freddies’ need not respond.
Does anyone know how the S-37 Berkut’s MLG retracts? ’cause the mechanism appears virtually identical (imho) :confused:
LOL, this is NOT true.
Sophisticated contribution, as always.
These ‘bracket’-type things are something to do with the comp-face mounting, they’re similar to the ones found on the Su-35. Hence a reasonable deduction is that the cf has a ‘high’ installation, note the height difference between the front intake lip and the engine bays (which themselves are not indicative of the mounting angle & elevation).

The intakes have curves galore, definitely the most baadaass intake design yet conceived by man, wind-tunnel & supercomputer.
It would require only subtle alignment variations to hide a substantial %age (if not all) of the cf.
I mean, how stupid must one be to do something like that?? ;)…
How stupid must one be to imply something like that? 😉
Lysenko my hero:

Here ya go Dionis, and anyone else who’s interested:
I’d wager there’s at least one KnAAPO employee who hasn’t stopped laughing since it’s ‘leak’.
The aspect ratio appears all wrong, compare:
I have a v.hi-res (4.21MB) version of that infamous pic, I’ve just tinkered with the brightness/contrast etc and the entire metallic engine section (topside) has been removed (should be easily visible from that camera angle), not even an outline. That pic is mischief indeed!! 😉
…the entire structure upon which that all moving fin is based- has been removed…
Pass the sherry Watson- this case is closed.
Hey Guys!! I can see the compressor face from here!!

Ka-27/29 landing trials aboard ‘Mistral’:
Yip, she flew again yesterday…
…yesterday would’ve been an excellent photo-op. Good weather/light and T-50 & T-10M-8 flying in pairs, let’s wait ‘n see.
Is LM still serious about ‘fixed pricing’, or will US taxpayers foot the shortfall for export orders?
Since December, Pentagon officials anticipated the per-unit cost including the price of development to be $112 million; it is now expected to be $155.6 million. The number most closely associated with flyaway pricing was estimated at $92.4 million only a few months ago; it is now at $133 million. Earlier this year, development was extended from Fiscal 2012 to Fiscal 2016 in an effort to reduce schedule risk and concurrency between testing and production.