I’m sorry but your post is the stupidest, no contest. The problem should have been identified and solved long ago. What you are suggesting is to develop a new helmet, which is a huge undertaking. Changing the canopy would be very easy in comparison. Will they do it, it is not sure, given that funds are limited ( mwhahaha ) and there is so much work left to do.

Changing the design of an aircraft is ‘very easy’ compared to a new helmet revision which as mentioned before already went through three revisions? Interesting..

I don’t see why this problem would not be fixable. They could enlarge the canope to have more space for the helmet’s movement and they can modify the head rest to make it smaller.

This is the stupidest post yet in this thread. They certainly cannot and will not redesign the canopy in this phase of the project and the seat is probably designed to take the least space possible. It’s much cheaper and simpler to replace the helmets later on with smaller ones as the related tech develops if there’s in fact a problem with the current ones.

The pilot doesn’t *really* need more imho.

Except that RWR upgrade 😉

Without such feature, its all senseless; only simplifies engineering solutions and nothing else.

I’d expect it reduces the cost of production and maintenance somewhat. Really doubt the cockpit is made modular as developing such a system of dubious usability would just increase production and maintenance cost, though. If you might need a twin seater, just get one (albeit with a slight reduction in range).

In 2004, that radar was hardly on a drawing board. I think you can safely disregard such “data”.

Really? How can that be if the flight testing started in 2004 for the Ka-27M upgrade? It seems to me that the lack of funding prolonged the state acceptance trials which were only completed recently, but there’s nothing new about it.

http://forum.keypublishing.com/showthread.php?28946-Russia-tests-new-radars-for-helos

Even in that configuration, the SMT look a tad slimmer vs F-35..

Always thought the SMT hump was too oversized, but it started to grow on me lately. There is something about its ungainliness that’s becoming cool (kinda like the MiG-21SMT). At least it doesn’t come with that oversized “unified” two-seater canopy of the MiG-29M2 and 35.

the same company AESA radar on Ka-27K upgrades have 250km range. I dont see any problem with range.

250 km head on range on a MiG-35? Yeah, right.. Which radar would that be exactly? 🙂

So you basically say that Russian separatist uprising in Ukraine, too, is legit and that the outside element (Russia) seized the opportunity and became involved is quite normal?

The comparison is somewhat off since the Syrian uprising was against the regime, not a separatist uprising like in Ukraine (for which I’m not convinced it actually was a legitimate (spontaneous) uprising at all), but in any case, yes, as history shows us, it’s normal operating procedure for any powerful enough country to support various proxy forces to advance their interests. What part is surprising here? Can you name a single powerful nation exerting its influence abroad (i.e. not an isolationist country) which has not followed this principle? For example, IIRC, the US are currently openly stating that they are training 15,000 Syrian rebels in Turkey to be involved against ISIS and the regime and that they will provide them with air support. Mind you, I’m not discussing the moral aspects of individual cases here.

So, in case of your example, normal as in I would find it quite abnormal if Russia just ignored its formerly dominated neighbor possibly going towards the NATO camp given its historical experience with invasions from the West and thus the need for strategic depth. The thought of them casually ignoring the possibility of US installing ABM systems or short range ballistic missiles on its doorstep or parking the 6th fleet in Crimea doesn’t spring to mind.