Thanks Trident.:)

Note that it’s 01 in those pics , 03 shows an array of antennas and other elements on the tailboom aswell , probably RWR, chaff and flare dispensers, and elements of the OEIS. Same for 02 i think. This should be the production standard, right ?

Still no sign of that mysterious appendage from the first photo – very annoying!

Drives me up the wall that thing.:eek:
741 again.
http://russianplanes.net/ID68157

Also,to be honest , i’m beggining to have doubts about these two new MiGs being for Syria .They just look too advanced , that pod thingie, SOAR and SOLO sensors, and we don’t really know what’s in that radome . I’ve read posts from last year saying that the full size ZhuK-AE (or Zhuk-A?) was flying back then. ( at least on MiG-35 961 with the big radome).

When MiG-35D 154 was ready in 2007 it was having these NIIP-UOMZ made SOLO, SOAR , OLS-K, OLS-UEM systems , but it seem UOMZ systems were quite ****, so most were taken off.

Could these new MiGs have now similar systems but made by NPP-SPK? If the brochures are correct , and the info floating around aswell, the OEIS sensors at least are similar to Su-35S’s.

Seems mr. Berkut has a new friend on that rightwingmilitaryphotos.net place , which appears to have alot of interesting stuff to say. One of them is that the undernose sensor on T-50-3 is called KS-P.(“optical-electronic sub-system of informational support of low altitude flight and landing” ?). The OLS on it is also different (compared to the one on T-50-2?).

Maybe he can fill us in a bit more, unfortunately i still can’t get my head of UOMZ vs NPP-SPK and who’s doing what for which aircraft.:confused:

Also , if i’m to read betwen the lines , russian MOD still interested in MiG-35?:eek:

still not yet

is this T-50 or Su-30 topic?

PS 50-2 is in the air right now

:rolleyes:

http://russianplanes.net/ID68116

Some source claims that the actual ratio in the 1991 Gulf war was 4 or 5 kills and several more damaged for the iraqis, versus 23 aircraft lost in A-A to the “coalition”
As a sidenote, remember that Mirage that aparently flew into the ground chasing an EF-111, and was credited to the crew as maneuver kill? Well aparently that Mirage landed all in one piece at his base. Go figure.:rolleyes:

When you’re listening to american or israeli kill to loss ratios( or iranian, for that matter), those are CLAIMS, not necessarily the reality.

PS: Ummm…hmmm..i thought this was the Iran vs Israel thread, didn’t realized it was the PAK-FA thread! Nothing of the above ( mine and others too) have anything to do with it! Sorry for my OT.

Practical operational cruise speed of the F-22A is around 1500 km/h. Cruising at M1.72 is very far from optimum SFC, you could as well ignite the AB on. But it’s good for marketing to show how “better” the F-22 si from the rest of the worldwide fleet.

IIRC, the requirement was for M1.5 correct ? Why would they exceed it in the design, that costs time and money and compromises. Probably the M1.72 figure is the same like the “800nm detection!!!111!!!” for a rocket plume by EODAS. I saw the vid, test probably started at much closer range, at 800nm there was this tiny little blip just barely visible, then it was gone. I think they took the maximum figure they could still see it before being gone , and they made their claim.

Speaking of requirements,regarding T-50, Flateric mentioned that aparently , it was Sukhoi , and not RuAF who demanded the decrease from M2.35 then M2.15 , finally getting to M2.0
Is that true and if so, why did Sukhoi asked for that speed reduction? Thanks.

Oh btw, regarding PAK-FA in sort of a “feint” AB , it’s possible it was in minimum AB …just guessing, might be wrong.

JSR, i don’t think the unpainted T-50 is taking off, but landing …and i’m having doubts about 51 aswell…
I seem to have plenty of pics with T-50 taking off without AB.
Here’s one with AB aswell.
(c)Marina Lystseva

Thanks for that Berkut:)