Lol the su-34 makes me wonder, could the F-35 be modified with a side by side cockpit. The intakes could probably be moved outward by about 10-15cm, and the front fuselage would look more like that of the su. They would have to add some weight at the back probably. Making a tandem dual seater would disequilibrate it way too much. Anyways back on topic.

It is not just fat enough like it is actually?
It wouldn’t be better try to elongate it a little so to being more streamlined instead? A la J-20, maybe?
In any case it would impact with the usual problem of stealth planes: even a minimal modification, way, way less than making a dual cockpit, in external form and you would need to made all RCS reduction calibration again…

I’ll post this article also, that seem me a rationale and non partisan approach to the NFZ idea.
I found very interesting the data about the 1998 campaign over Kosovo.
I would however added also some consideration about the 2006 Lebanon campaign, just to add another level of difficulty to the whole thing.
http://warontherocks.com/2016/10/political-airpower-part-i-say-no-to-the-no-fly-zone/

The most important advantage of Electronic scanning lies within it’s rapid beam steering ability. It allows more precision and more update for multiple target tracking. Plus since the beam is computer controlled, you can precisely control how long the beam should stay in an area, thus you can improve Time on Target for scenario line..detection of small RCS target. This is main reason why everyone wants ESA radar.

For Active Array (AESA) Main advantage over conventional slotted planar array like Zhuk ME or PESA like Bars lies within Reliabilty. AESA modules does not have single point power failure common to PESA or Slotted planar array. The AESA can tolerate up to 10% module failure before things got out of control. Conventional or PESA radar using Travelling Wave Tube or other amplifiers like Klystrons.. will fail if TWT fail. Plus AESA modules have long life. TWT or conventional transmitter got only around 200-500 Hrs of MTBF.

Regarding power budget. AESA’s advantage lies in very short path between radiator and the module. Thus having less loss in receive or transmit path. PESA or conventional may have loss associated with waveguide assemblies and antenna feed network.

In the future.. AESA advantage will outweigh its cost, especially when Photonic true time delay got implemented for beamsteering. Phase shifters which historically limit the operational frequency bandwidth for ESA radar will go away. Thus allow the radar to make maximum use of their frequency.

All exact, only operative disadvantage of AESA when compared with PESA is that with radiator and modules attached one to the other it is very hard to put it on a steering plate.
Actually both F-22 and F-35 and Rafale use a fixed one thus limiting field of wiew to +/- 60° while only one having it, in a quite unusual form, is Gripen E-F.
[ATTACH=CONFIG]249255[/ATTACH]
How you see It is actually mounted 30° inclined on a rotating platform.
So, for a 4,5 plane like Su-30 or Su-35 but above all strike Su-34 a modern PESA is a good option: their phase shifter are actually the same of an AESA, just the radio wave emitter is conventional but until they van produce a more powerful emitter that their own active modules the associated loss are easily compensated.
[ATTACH=CONFIG]249257[/ATTACH]
Unlike a conventional MFI radar it doesn’t have the issue of disrupting RCS as it doesn’t need to steer continously, just to be inclined in the desired direction before emitting (the one of Gripen would instead necessitate to move continously instead).
A coulpe of planes will have them pointed respectively left and right and probem solved.
For the 5 gen it is different pair of shoes however and they opted for the definitive solution i.e. have added side looking radars.

What “reality check”?

https://coronadotimes.com/news/2016/02/19/fire-on-navy-ship-in-bay/

See my post above: if you consider the LCS (and the Zumwalt also) a more succesfull program than the Kutnetsov class…

if they mix the diesel with kerosene it wont smoke

Yes but they have neither Diesel than Kerosene, russian ship run on furnace oil or to use their own term Mazut.
It is a quite ideal combustible for steam engines as it is semi-solid and burn at higher temperatures.
Add that it come as cheap as dirt for a petrol exporting powerhouse and you get how they favor them even if smoky as hell.

What element the coalition use for support and from where they start?
Because Russian have Latakia that’s is 200km from Aleppo and when they had to act in Palmyra they moved helicopters in a closer base, same happened with Incirklik A-10 while Coalition has not air bases in Iraq AFAIK except for Apaches. And actual theatre of operation is very distant from the Persian Gulf.

Unlike Turkey. Russia would never do such thing without getting a “green light from US” Which they would never get in the first place.

But it goes like this, -Russia talks to US, telling them to back off the airstrikes, US and Russia is co-op on air operation, contrary to what some people believe. By Co-op i mean they transfere out pre-flight routes before each mission, if the mission is close to where they do Tac air op anyway. VKS is not operating in certain areas and vica verca in Syria, but i’m sure they have guidelines and regulation in for of an agreement.

US then relay that message towards Turkey. Turkey realize the US wont step up for Turkey if Turkey steps out of line in Syria, will have no other option but to back down.

In large, its world politics, and Turkey has to adhere to that.

Vica Verca?:highly_amused:

The rest all exact anyway.

A decade from now, we may see a sight like this, at some Indian airfield, with the PAK-FA derived FGFA in the mix too..

3 of the best looking fighters of all time..I’d add the Mirage-2000 and the pre-unified cockpit MiG-29 to the list.

My all time favorites are: Su-27/35, Mirage III and Draken. Pak-fa would add to the list also but after flanker anyway.