Your are making a confusion b/w complex and difficult. Soldering a plate on an aircraft wing is a difficult thing to do. You need knowledge, know how and aptitude. Fulfilling the maintenance tasks of a fighter jet like the F35 is a complex process where certainly thousands of variables and options are at stake. It is not a difficult thing to do thanks to automation at software level and the the maintenance chain that provide resources, predictive action and knowledge.
The goal of an asset like ALIS is not to make you feel lost in the machine but to enhance your diagnostic to let you do the right thing at the right time. This to cut cost and down time and increase your operation tempo (less plane needed)
.
I am sorry but I still see a Thunderjet or even a Phantom something more difficult to turn around in the stressful situation like a conflict. And I am not the only one. The race for automated diagnosis, embedded maintenance software, data link and commune shared knowledge is a sign of this 😉

In other words, complex but not difficult is the new norm (as opposed to difficult but not complex in the old ages).

Now the Marines plan to operate their Bees with minimal support on FOB with only vertical airlift as support. That says a lot. In the context of Israel, or as discussed way before, Switzerland, I have no doubt that desert location (or local plateau) will offer an even more favorable context of operations.

So how it come that according to the ufficial US figures, also published i don’t remember if in this thread or in the “no-F-35 US thread”, the plane with still the higher operational availability they have is their older one, the A-10 and the one with the lesser one is the brand new F-22?
Decades old experience in plate soldering?:rolleyes:

and about the Bee argument LOGIC FAIL ALERT! BOTH A DEFECTIVE SILLOGISM THAN A PARALOGISM SPOTTED!

That is correct. In both Yak-130/M-346, you can program controls to mimic larger or slow er jets, IMO make the jet more sluggish, less responsive.

More in general, our new primary trainer (turbofan propelled) would take a part of the former basic syllabus, M-345 would take the central part of both the basic and the advanced one, while M-346 would take on itself just the final part of it and instead a consistent part of the operational convertion previously made on the fighter7attack plane itself..
So even if M-346 is more costly than the previous MB-339 to operate it is really used intead of the former just in the very final part of the advanced training while all the rest of what was done by it would be made instead by the M-345 or even by the turbofan propelled SF-260TP.

Sr-10 thank to its swept wings and large LERX would even turn out better than the same M-345 that it’s still a old style, conventional flight pattern plane.

And why do they need another Yak-131.
Its interesting for export possibly, but it does not do as much as the Yak-131.
3 tiers of trainers is enough in my eyes.
4 levels of trainer seems over kill.

It is not another yak-130: is the russian counterpart to the M-345 i.e. the one we will use for the basic training before to end it with the Yak-130’s twin M-346.
The third tier you talking about is Yak-152, Yak -130 and ?

Don’t forget the B-52s which are no doubt deploying SDBs over Syria. 🙂 ISIS were releasing images of the B-52s over Syria last month.

http://isis.liveuamap.com/en/2016/30-may-syria-isis-films-what-appears-to-be-a-b52-on-a-combat
http://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/squabbles-between-us-allies-threaten-advance-on-raqqa-3b8z78hb5

Yes, you can easily see there how even B-52 (and before them B-1B over Kobane) are better for CAS than TeWeFi-s dropping SmaGuBo-s. No smiley there: it is a serious statement.

The fact that someone use tactical fighters in long range missions against industrial installations and instead intercontinental bombers for CAS is just one of the many absurdities (altough in the sheer tactical point of view it make sense) I was talking about.

Its safe to claim A-10 doing air support for Kurds and US “instructors”.
By now US has stepped back on anti Assad/Russia retorics and Russia/US are co-OP quite nicely.
There are numerous news article to support this.
As it stands, Turkey is very much denied access to Syrian OP by the Russian forces in the Region.

It remain to see if Turkish affairs can accomondate and aid Russian interest(fighting Islamic terrorists) in the Region..
I have my doubts.

Thank for reply. Stay however certain that for “thing get tough” I absolutely meant CAS mission itself.
I used irony to summarize in just one line all the long list of objections I personally have about a certain american/western approach to air warfare and that I have spreaded in different trends/topics along those years, in Mphotos earlier and now in this more focused but excellent forum.

interesting article on Russian UAVs probably used in Syria
http://rbth.com/defence/2015/11/30/eye-in-the-sky-rusian-drones-join-the-ranks-of-the-worlds-unmanned-craft_546019

https://www.almasdarnews.com/article/israeli-missiles-fail-reconnaissance-plane-golan-heights/

A comparison between an original Vanilla MiG-29 from the eighties with a F-16 block 60 of the 2010 seems me unfair: there are almost thirty years between them , same span backward they just received MiG-15 and F-86.
Even worse with F/A-18 as it’s a carrier plane i.e. something that need a way more greater range just for not missing the deck when returning back.
Let’s reverse it: do you think that the soviet FA pilots of when it was introducted, coming from Mig-21 or even the MiG-23 had found its own range unsatifactory?
And the Navy ones that passed from A-6 and A-7 to the F/A-18?
I’ll bet on the second ones complaining more.

A closer reading of the Aviation Week explanation would reveal that the numbers given for the Su-35 are “in a narrow-angle, maximum-power search” They included this as well “Note the detection range in a standard search is half as much.”

So no, they aren’t claiming the Su-35’s radar has longer range against an equivalent target when compared to the S-400. (An Su-35 could expect to detect an F-22 once it closed to roughly 11 miles, whereas the S-400 would spot it at 13 miles… )

Interestingly, Aviation Week has chosen to ignore the more recent reports that the F-35 is actually stealthier than the F-22 in favor of the older “golf ball” analogy. (though as shown in these calculations it doesn’t make a great deal of difference in the end… if an Su-35 can’t spot an F-35 until it is 18 miles away it might as well not bother turning its radar on at all)

It seems me all so partial: what means narrow search mode?
How +/- degrees in both azimuth and elevation? Or it just means that they keep the antenna dish fixed forward? Or at the contrary given that the Su-35 antenna can gimbal (main reason because Russians still have a crush for PESA) they in that mode emit just an old style narrow beam and adjust it with mechanical steering instead:dev2:?
And they just cite the Grave Stone radar for S-400? It is just a targeting radar, search functions are made by the 91N6E radar and there will be also Nebo-m above them.
Same with Golf ball and Marble : it was almost a decade that it was revealed such values refers to an ideal angle of reflection.