1. Is JAS-39A-D 4.5 generation or is it really 4th generation?

4.

2. Other than being cheap to operate, what other advantages does a JAS-39 have over upgraded F-16 or F/A-18A-D?

Ease of maintenance is another thing, but I think that you are overlooking the fact that SAAB (and the Swedish government) has made a huge deal about all the promised tech transfers and additional offset agreements. In many cases that has been one of the most important selling points.

3. In terms of performance, is JAS-39 even comparable to much heavier Rafale and Eurofighter?

Not the baseline 39 by any means. The NG/E/F comes a bit closer (and enters the 4.5 domain), but it’s still quite a bit smaller and single engined so while it has splendid general performance and maneuverability, is capable of supercruising (even with moderate combat loads if I recall correctly) and so on, it falls short in the long run.

That is to be expected though, and the plan was always to mitigate that by highlighting the fact that is still capable of fielding the same advanced weapons as the competitors, that it has lower acquisition and operating costs, at the very least comparably advanced sensors, situational awareness aids and datalinks, a good degree of “field sturdiness” and reliance on proven low-risk concepts, full NATO-compliance et cetera. And of course the offset deals.

Basically, all things considered it is said to be adequately competitive as far as the technical stuff goes and in some cases it may very well exceed the capabilities of others (not raw performance, but the data handling is supposed to be fantastic), but the focus has always been to make it more attractive on the business side of things.

Well luckily the Ka-52K is not Serbian. 😉

It’s just two different routes really. From what I gather katran is some kind of proto-Slavic for something (like soil) seeping with a thick dark fluid, tar-like, wet coal, like bitumen or what have you. For reference:
http://www.slovopedia.com/22/202/1634761.html

I don’t know of any contemporary Russian word that directly traces back to that particular piece of etymology but it seems to be incredibly old and well established in certain Slavic contexts.

As far as the Ka-52K is concerned the name is obviously taken from an order of sharks (Squaliformes) that are called katran in both Russian and Ukrainian (a word that is probably derived from the Greek word for the same shark, κεντρόνι/kentroni, which I would guess, I’m not entirely sure, itself derives from the term stinging/to sting – κεντύ, as the sharks in question tend to possess stinger-like venomous spines).

But venomous spines aside, these sharks are tiny and not very intimidating. The venom in question is mild as well, bee sting-like tops. Then again a certain amount of modesty is always good, quite unlike the mighty dragons and blades of thunderous glory that we keep hearing about. Is it just me or does that kind of have an effect opposite to what is (presumably) intended? :p

PS: And it the fin was NOT changed structurally. It is same fin, not some “Il-476” fin that you seem to say it is.

I said sans the structural improvements… Just remarking on the coloration.

Have you got a picture of a MiG-29K with such a warload actually taking off or landing on the Kuznetsov? I would be very surprised if you did.:rolleyes:

Note: I am not saying that you are wrong (in that the MiG-29K/KUB probably did not conduct actual flying operations with such a big load), but there are lots of scattered photos from both earlier Kuznetsov and the more recent Vikramaditya trials that show the aircraft with all kinds of loads performing take offs, landings, touch and go’s and fly-by’s. It does seem to me like they had a go at most reasonable combat loads. In fact, I was surprised to see such diversity considering that after all, surprisingly little material is available in the public domain. Regarding the Vikramaditya, most of it is from that single Zvezda report it seems like. Oh, and that (Mikoyan sponsored?) Go-Pro video from inside one of the participating aircraft.

Take-off 2 AAM (?) + 2 tanks underwing:

Ditto, fly by:

4 AAM underwing landing:

4 AAM + belly tank landing (too big for direct display):
http://img13.imageshost.ru/img/2012/09/17/image_5056dc2f2e542.jpg

Totally clean touch and go:

Etc. Quite the mix of loadouts. No mock-up anti-ship missiles or other display loads though, of course, but I do think the performance is there.

Russian Zenit Rocket with US Satellite Fails at Launch

The Zenit-3SL is an Ukrainian vehicle (built by Yuzhmash), albeit with Russian engines (similar to those used in the US Atlas V).

In other news:
Russia launches six Globalstar-2 satellites
Russia Launches Three Military Satellites

That FGFA model appears to mirror a more primitive variant (basically just a prototype in Indian colours) than the “T-50-6” PAK-FA model shown at MAKS 2011 (which at least had much of the engine gondolas covered in RAM). To my (admittedly untrained) eyes, leaving the engine area like that would seem to be detrimental to maintaining low RCS. I mean, to the point where all other shaping efforts and such would end up being largely futile. Am I wrong here? That Indian model is puzzling to say the least… Cool lo-viz roundels though. :p Also note the “no-step” zone right above the AA sidebays, why’s that?

But in short, I don’t think it’s all too representative for what is about to come anyway, though models like these might contain some hints.

What will be difference between today’s star and the future one (like pre 1943), no white outline ?

Yeah, pre ’43 it was just plain red.

That’s the biggest i could get it on bmpd, was it in higher rez than this?

Rear facing radar!!!1!1111