Does the MiG-31BM have a glass cockpit? I remember hearing that it did somewhere.

No, it does not. It does however have a bunch of new LCD MFDs, three in the rear seat, one or two for the pilot. Many analogue gauges are retained though, so a partial glass cockpit, maybe?

You see, we can’t retire our Sea King’s. Cause we hven’t got any replacment yet. Curse that NH-90 deal years back!:mad:

The NH-90 is heavily delayed.
Not only our SAR Sq. But also our police and navy have signed deals for NH-90.

The Swedish Armed Forces also got tired of waiting for the NH90 (though by now, some 3-4 years late, at least 6 of the 18 ordered have been delivered). They bought 15 Blackhawks as an interim solution. Has there been any similar ideas in Norway at all?

Perhaps… The sharkmouth red 55 shouldn’t be fake at least, several M3’s in Pacific Fleet service sport them:

Red 57:
http://russianplanes.net/images/to70000/069665.jpg

Red 02:
http://i.imgur.com/051ev.jpg

The fundamental problem with most of those early claims is that the airspeed indication systems were not designed, much less calibrated, for transonic phenomena, so nobody can ever know for sure.

That’s true and basically it boils down to these numerous anecdotes of audible sonic booms. Pitot tubes tend to go haywire in the transsonic regime and that’s always a factor one has to take into consideration. Far more valuable are the first hand accounts of obvious transsonic buffeting suddenly ceasing despite no appararent decrease in velocity (i.e. an increase), and then returning after throttle down.

I firmly believe that the sound barrier was broken several times by manned aircraft prior to Yeagers flight, but as have been stated numerous times, not in level flight and thus not challenging the X-1’s place in the history books.

I would guess, though I am no aeronautical engineer, that the 163 would have some lateral stability issues at transonic speeds.

Perhaps, but the DH 108 did positively break the sound barrier and its overall layout was very similar to the 163. It had a more pronounced sweep though (~45° as opppsed to the more modest ~24° of the Me-163) but an almost identical aspect ratio (~4.7) and total thrust (17kN for both). Neither were really suited for supersonic flight and the 163 undoubtedly less so, but I really don’t find the notion of a momentarily trans/supersonic 163 in a dive too outlandish to consider possible. It’s not like the X-1 was a supersonic marvel anyway, with its near-straight wings and non area ruled fuselage (although the wings were pretty thin). It was a pretty sturdy thing though, and with near 30kN roaring in its a** and an airdrop procedure to boot it got the job done.

Don’t worry, the engineers are aware that the F-35 will be expected to take off carrying a load and have allowed for that… :rolleyes:

The “barn door” on the top is an intake and is most certainly not acting as an air brake at the speeds it is open.

What do you mean? At any velocity >0 relative to the surrounding air, drag is a factor. That huge door presents increased drag, you can’t deny that. However, the F-35B surely copes regardless and the impact of increased drag on take off performance here is negated by the fan lift (a somewhat flawed but nevertheless valid comparison would be the lift/drag situation of a conventional aircraft with fully extended flaps).

Still, a “slimmer” solution would have been better theoretically speaking. Not quite sure how much of a negative impact the current one has though, it’s probably not too bad.

DSI intakes are fused with the fuselage. No flat surfaces and no gaps mean better aerodynamics.

DSIs are generally lighter and simpler than variable geometry solutions and they might help maintaining a low RCS for aircraft where they are applicable but they are not superior aerodynamically (which really is self-explanatory as adaptive 2D intakes can tailor their geometry to specific flight regimes). Also, I really don’t see how you could apply that to the intakes that the J-15 has.

A Soviet carrier with soviet planes using the american doctrines. Talk about a mashup.

The thing I don’t get is that it all seems to be staged in an attempt to appear all Top Gun-cool. Look at the greens for example, mimicking the way the USN green jersey catapult crew would wait for launch and then quickly head up to the cats to do their thing (like placing slot buttons for cat 3 and so on). They even got the cool ready-to-sprint stance down.

I find this hilarious. 😀 Just having a rainbow crew is a pretty sound idea though, I mean, anything that aids organization is a good thing. But why this outright carbon copy, even implementing deck officers that serve no actual purpose on this type of carrier?

It sort of reminds me of the time when European nobility would send off sketches of porcelain designs to China to have them make it. Legend has it that they’d even replicate coffee stains and such, if they were on the sketches. And this is no joke but I know of occasions were people have ordered electronical components from China where they’d specify acceptable fault rates in fractions or percentages and the Chinese suppliers would actually include faulty components corresponding to the order specs.

Sorry. 😀

EDIT: I see now that others have already pointed out how humorous this all is and in the process of it, pretty much created an internet meme: http://forum.keypublishing.co.uk/showpost.php?p=1954861&postcount=622
(those all seem to be making fun of the yellow jerseys though, giving the go sign)

😀

Oddly enough it looks better than the Su-25 and -34 moldy aubergine and diaper blue mix even though it’s pretty much the same thing as far as I can see. But if they are so crazy about going gray they should really consider adopting a take on the MKM scheme. 🙂 Those are by far the sleekest looking Su-30s out there:

Speaking of which, why did they insist on the white radome? The 35S has a grey one and so does a whole bunch of the MKx’s that the 30SM is based on. I mean, not that I mind white but that just makes it look even more off. The same goes for the 34, by the way.

Where are the new MiGs going ? Akhtubinsk? Haven’t seen ( presumably) MiG-29M 741 in quite a while. 🙂

MiG-29M

MiG-29M2

I see that the Russians have discovered a new method for quick painting.

😀

In the process it also adds a co-pilot from another dimension, the technology is not without its quirks yet and much is left to be ironed out.