Spot on Marcellogo.

The economy of London alone is the same size as Sweden or Belgium….bigger than Iran currently.

The referendum to leave was won because people in the traditional heartlands of labour voted leave because they haven’t seen any of cream……so what if London is the top financial centre of the world, best legal and accounting services, has the best museums, theatres, sport, transport (especially the new £16 billion Crossrail project….will boost economy and land values in its wake), new IT and media start ups around Silicon roundabout….compared to London there isn’t enough of that in some of the north and Midlands….all the top paying jobs are in London….they had nothing to lose by voting leave

Politicians need to address this…..spread the money around the country…..London has a pull because it is the capital as well as the above and is getting richer and richer….but more telling is the average price of a property is £0.5m in London and tiny houses in the inner suburbs going for £1m…..elsewhere the average price is only £200k……many years ago you could buy a house for 3 or 4 times an annual salary…..now more like 15-20 times….but the problem is most people can’t even afford a 5% 10% deposit unless given by mum or dad or you already have a house…..working people are paying expensive rent which is going up because the government stopped supporting house building (the proposed plans for Housing Associations will have the effect of less homes).

One way to boost the economy is not just by printing bank notes, but infrastructure projects like Crossrail 2 and HS2…..these will create jobs and spread spending power in the economy….similar to the French TGV which boosted once poor regions with previously poor links…..unlike Liam Fox who clearly hasn’t got a clue about HS2 and thinks it’s about getting somewhere 20 minutes faster…..instead of what it is: putting into place capacity that was ripped out of the British railway system in the late 1950s (when motorways and Heavy lorries were thought to be the future) and early 1960s sixties by the Beeching report (Beeching was a manager in the now dead chemical company ICI)……these projects will be like the New Deal of FDR (projects like the Coulee Dam) will have tangible and measurable benefits to the British economy.

Thanks, as a british you added more concrete particulars to my quite general outsider visual.
Obviously the things are not just about economics but also about sentiment and “vibe”, so even in the mainland England some of the bigger cities saw a very narrow Remain win even if they are probably the ones that was ultimely more damaged by London rise.

All what I read seems to confirm me what i noted looking at the geographical distribution of the vote.
Remain won in London , a financial center that greatly benefited by the open world market, in Scotland and N.Ireland thank to a mix of favourable economic condition and the presence of a strong indipendentist sentiment.
Leave has won instead in the rest of England and Wales where the former industrial economy get trashed in the last twenty years in favor of a paper based one, whose benefit went instead to London only.
Outcome is so quite rational, with the only notation that Europe probably payed for some other’s guilt as in the end England and Wales voted against London while Scotland and N.Ireland against Westminster.

Both Mi-28N and Mi-24VM (Mi-35) are doing great job against terrorists in both, Syria and Iraq. Interesting is to notice, that Iraqi army more use ATGMs against terrorist targets, while RuAF more use rocket launchers instead of ATGMs. S-8 and S-13 rockets with max 4 km have shorter range than ATGMs, but on the other side they are cheaper. I would like to ask if RuAF use laser guided S-8KOR and S-13KOR rockets upgraded with Ugroza in Syria? S-8KOR have range up to 8 km and S-13KOR up to 9 km, what is comparable with ATGMs. This could explain, why RuAF mostly use rockets instead of ATGMs although terrorists have a lot of MANPADs.

The main particularity of this video is seeing Mi-28 using rockets, in the great part of other video I have seen they (and Ka-50) are used in dynamic engagement hunting down ISIS vehicles in order to avoid reinforcements to come into Palmyra front.
Mi-24P (something IqAF doesn’t have) was instead used in CAS mode to pound enemy trenches and foxholes around Palmyra, a role where thanks to their 4X rockets canisters and twin barrelled GAST gun+ the ability to carry reloads on board they have no rivals.
The very few Mi-35 russian had in Syriawas instead retired by russians as soon the most advanced tank hunters arrived, probably because they are “neither meat nor fish” as we use to say, when compared to the aforementioned models.
Guided rockets was not acquired and I doubt they would ever be by the RuAF: they already have the S-25L for fixed wing assets and their actual AT missiles actually come in 12 and 16 carrying loads in their more recent helos.
Add to this that they doesn’t have any western style PGM “obsession” and youi will see they have not any real use for such a weapon.

And so even a thread about collaboration between countries went into the usual male genital measuring contest…
:applause::applause::applause:

For the rest a 50% burden sharing doesn’t mean that all would contribute to the design at the same percentage, at the contrary a country whose technology is actually lagging behind another would find a great advantage in contribuing at the other project as soon as they would share information and gather experience.
More evident case is the PAK-FA /FGFA which would remain an almost exclusive russian project but grant India access to a knovledge base that it would take decades to pair up indigenously at a far greater cost.
In the case of the above mentioned project i expect however a more direct Chinese contributionalmost in some areas.

In a certain sense neither the Soviet Union got anything comparable with Flanker before it, their frontal aviation planes were all short range either while the PVO ones were strictly interceptors.
Flanker was instead conceived to be both an air superiority fighter i.e. something not existing before in the soviet doctrine than a interceptor for PVO but also an escort fighter for Backfires and Su-24.
What never existed neither as a passing thought in soviet times was the multirole fighter : istribitie’l were a thing, attack planes another.
They can be derived one from the other like in the case of MiG-27 but they were always well separated things.
Even the Su-30 were not initially thought as such by soviet but was instead a specialized long range version for PVO interception missions.
It was only in russian times that the impossibility of maintaining the two separate lines and the absolute need of exporting planes for maintaining the production lines open made them turn it in the superb multirole plane we all know now for its service in foreign air forces.

Also ithe ruaf is actually using their own Su-30 in A2G role in Syria but not surprisingly has introduced an even more specialized strike derivative with the Su34 and would end to acquire a far greater number of them than of the “multirole” one…

This basically what it comes down to. Its very simple though its taking hundreds of pages all over the internet. The JSF reflects the US Military’s future strategy and combat tactics. Its netcentric warfare. Sensors, stealth, and electronic warfare come first. and kinematics is coming second. This isn’t new. The Super hornet was probably the first aircraft that had less kinematics than the aircraft it replaced. in some cases less than the original hornet. it was multi role, and took the jobs of more than one aircraft. But it made up for this with helmet mounted cueing and other electronic measures. All of this is arrived at with the Us military and lots of combat experience, exersizes and lots of uses of stealth, kinematics, EW and other facets. JSF is a reflection of future trends. Its an educated guess about what will work in the future. What it is not, is built to be an F-16 done better. 4th generation and 5th generation are different. And they have different goals. Kinematics is not the primary concern because threat systems are simple too good to out turn or out run with a meat Popsicle in the front, and pointless because helmet cueing means turning the head and the not the aircraft in air to air. the next step beyond helmet cueing is 360 sensor (dont even turn head now) and cooperative engagement. here is an example of the very serious russian SAMS:

modern IADS is nothing like the SAMs of yesteryears, and certainly nothing like the SAM threat engaged over SE Asia. Those systems were single radar, guiding a single weapon at a time, to a single target, usually using a single set of fixed or (at best) pre-selected frequencies. An S-300/400 battery can engage 6-8 targets simultaneously, with Mach 6 capable missiles, with a salvo launch of 2-4 weapons per target. The missiles will fly both direct ascent and up-and-over profiles simultaneously, meaning you are being targeted from both above, as weapons come down from over 100,000feet, and below, as they climb towards terminal engagement. Some variants of the missiles have directional blast fragmentation warheads, and all of them have lethal radii in the multi-hundreds of feet ranges (they don’t even have to have all that near of a miss to be lethal). They can engage at ranges well outside of 50nm. A single Target-Engagement-Radar (TER) can control 4 to 12 launchers, meaning a single battery may have as many as 48 missiles under its control. S-300s and S-400s can employ 3 to 4 different variants of missiles, depending on the model, meaning they are optimized for either short, medium, or very long range engagement. There are usually AT LEAST two TERs per battery. The TERs employ dynamic frequency hopping and put out tremendous amounts of power, making jamming them incredibly difficult (and most variants of their missiles can transition into a home-on-jam mode once in flight). A typical site includes a decoy emitter array, which uses carefully spaced emitters in a random blinking pattern to attract and defeat anti-radiation missiles. They also include networked short-range support systems (such as TOR) capable of destroying inbound PGMs, and often short range, radar fired artillery (2S6) capable of targeting inbound bombs at short range.

The entire system is supported by a battle management radar system (BIG BIRD or TIN SHIELD) capable of tracking hundreds of targets, and able to support 6 to 8 firing batteries. CLAM SHELL low altitude radars provide coverage and prioritized targeting against inbound, low altitude cruise missiles. Passive systems such as VERA-E and Giraffe detect inbound aircraft emissions and provide high quality azimuth cueing for the high powered TERs. The entire system is mobile, able to operate on secure datalink, RF, or buried fiber optic networks. Prepared sites with buried FO can allow for immediate shoot-and-scoot tactics without having to broadcast positions from anywhere except the TER….and even if using RF or datalink, I have personally watched a system demonstrate the ability to shoot, move, and re-establish targeting capability in under 4 minutes….which is significantly less flight time than a weapon inbound from outside the lethal range of the system.

These ain’t your daddy’s SA-2 sites, and maneuvering to defeat inbound “flying telephone poles” is a thing of the past. These are very, very difficult systems to defeat, and it requires a combination of platforms and capabilities to do so. Jamming, precision targeting, and stand-off weaponry are essential….you need to be able to find-fix-track-target-and engage these things, and you have to do it quicker than they can. It’s NOT easy, and most of them are purpose built to defeat low observability either by sheer power or by frequency tailoring.

“Every platform a shooter, every platform a sensor, every platform a connector” that is the goal. Maybe they are wrong. Maybe the whole strategy is flawed. I can’t see the next 50 years. Maybe there is something they missed. But that the reason the F-35 isn’t expected to go mach 2. It doesn’t need to, and even if it could it wouldn’t make any difference when being shot at by these types of weapons. The Flanker did because the 1970s were different, with different emphasis. F-35 is still expected to be like F-16/F-18 even with all the new toys (Norway pilots says its better, but does it matter?). Everytime someone says “We aren’t going to emphasize maneuverability, because its old” the internet which is mostly civilians, talking to other civilians with a hobby of jets losses there minds and starts chanting “Vietnam” which was not only 50 years ago but they really don’t understand how things have changed and they don’t even understand what went wrong (and then right) in Vietnam (read the Ault report). Even if you don’t believe 5th generation works. 4.5 generation has already made helmet cueing and missiles like METEOR real threats, and no one wants to close to WVR because you can also have mutual kill. no one wins. red baron and rookie are both deadmeat. Will dogfight still happen? probably but rarely. will they look anything like what we have seen in the past? no. If aircraft are cooperating its basically impossible to get a guns kill because manuevering aircraft is always in enemy sights. so while one guy is going for a 6 o clock guns kill, other fighters are shooting from 7, 9, 3, 10 o clock and smoking him, or at the very least having him break off attack. So its fast becoming obsolete. JSF was never meant to redo the 1970s. No stealth in the 1970s, no helmet cueings, no thrust vectors, no super missile. all of which we have now. Meatman can’t stand the amount of speed and maneuver this would take to dodge. Kinematics can’t win anymore. Threat systems made sure of that. Lets say 9 in 10 dogfights are Beyond visual. Why build an aircraft that wins only 10 percent of the time? For all the Flanker Fans and Eurofighters. Maybe you win. So good at kinematic US finds other ways to win. Congratulations

if the US/west is right, kinematics will be interesting footnoots, while stealth and sensors dominate. So that is the split. If the US/west is right, compromised capability for kinematics will get you dead. If they are wrong, the opposite. We see over old yuguslavia, F-15 vs Mig -29. Mig-29 has better kinematics, but no electronic warning = F-15 wins. F-15 doesn’t even dogfight= kinematics irrelevant. F-15 wins kills at night, kills at beyond visual. No twists no turns. Just shoot and go.

http://pilateschattanooga.com/files/7813/4986/9649/indiana-jones-gun-beats-sword-o.gif

+1 a lenghtly but very serious post.
Let’s me just add that the actual planes being produced in the East have nothing to do in terms of sensors with the bunch of baseline MiG-29 the Western planes has meet in the skyes of Serbia/Kosovo. The rise of Sukhoi and the fall of MiG was a clear sign that the concept of frontal aircraft was deemed wrong even there.
And obviously the trade off between kinematics and sensors is more apparent than real: Typhoon, F-15 and on the other side Flankers but also updated Fulcrums have both of it in scores.

This couldnt be more wrong, top speed of aircraft generally decided by their engine and intake design , one thing very important that people always overlook is that even maximum engine thrust of an aircraft is not a constant value but it varied with altitude and speed, and how it changes pretty much depending on the intake and engine design

For example : depending on the speed regime that the aircraft was optimized for they will use very different kind of intake, but everything has a trade off, if you want your aircraft to comfortablely operate over a wide range of speed then you would need a variable intake, but variables intake are heavier, has higher RCS and hard to maintain, by contrast a fixed intakes often only work well in a smaller regime of speed, if you optimized it for very high speed then it will choke the engine at dogfight speed and your aircraft will has ****ty dogfight performance, alternatively, if you optimized it for dogfight speed then it would be quite draggy at high speed like mach 2. 2 and beyond. The trick is to optimize the intake to the regime of speed that you think the aircraft is most commonly operate

it a matter of trade off, surely high top speed look cool on paper but in reality it doesn’t really bring that much advantage. For example : why do you really need speed of mach 2 or faster? unless your fighter is a delicated interceptors ( like mig-31) or supersonic bomber (XB-70) , it will speed most of its time at speed range around mach 0.8, why? because it is economical in term of fuel consumption, and you need to remember that acceleration take time too, it not like you can push a button and in less than few seconds you aircraft can fly at mach 2.5, the truth is the fuel consumption at these extreme speed is simply too high and your aircraft would take too long to get there from normal cruising speed ( mach 0.8) thus they offer very little tactical advantage. For example , it take around 150 seconds for the su-27 to get from mach 0.8 to mach 2, it can detect F-35 from 25-30 km on IRST, let say both aircraft was cruising at mach 0.8, do you really believe that su-27 pilot even have the chance to use speed >mach 2. That not to mention that fact that aircraft doesn’t turn very well at high speed

GarryA, thank for reply. How I explained in the precedent responmse to another person, i was just putting on a side note, not trying to wrote a whole treatise about aereodynamics, so believe me a great pert of what you wrote is well know to me.
i know also that f-35 has a DSI engine intake not a conventional one and I know its pro. Argumentation about the most useful speed regime I’ve done many myself in those same pages so it’s quite redundant but a general refresh can be still useful.
Wow, Su-27, F-16: ok, i’m not asking to evaluate the future treats but maybe putting into comparison some plane that was introduced into service in the current century not?

Seriously: People have to work, there is European tournament going on, it’s not that every time one have to write down a whole essay to justify everything he said.