NOLA

It is Zvezda kit reboxed and looks nothing like the real thing imho.

Not to withstand. That T-50 stand is for gun firing trials, look in the doc in T-50 thread.

Thanks.

Yeah, that is clearly Su-24M.

Might i ask where you got the MiG-31BM shot from?

You can twist and turn it any way you like, but F-35 does not supercruise anywhere near the speeds F-22, YF-23 or T-50 is capable off. Not to mention the extremely short short range it can do its slow dash. 1/3 of F-22's and T-50's in fact. Rafale can probably sustain it for longer, can't say about Eurofighter. Again, F-35 falls short. I have still not seen a single good argument against the points i proposed.

You are still getting it all wrong. I did not mention Su-35, i was talking about Su-35S. And yes, those two are very different planes. There is no information on if Su-35S went supersonic without AB with or without weapons, but i am holding my button on either light load or none. That wasn't the point anyway. Point being one cannot make a new definition of "supercruise" just to fit F-35 neatly under it. That would diminish the term, and would make F-22 having "super-duper-super cruise". (afterall it goes atleast 1.7 mach without AB which is higher than F-35's top speed). And YF-23 would also need a new enchased version of super cruise... Are you trying to say YOU know the flight profile? Because i made it perfectly clear i don't. Strawmen, strawmen everywhere. Again, going mach 1.00000000001 without AB is not supercruise. Super cruise was basically a requirement starting from ATF days and hence the definition of it should be based on that requirement. And that requirement said mach 1.5 without AB (which YF-23 and YF-22 managed to go over without any problem), and also with a decent load iirc. (not full load) Basically F-35 cannot supercruise, it can go supersonic without AB. Again, that is something Tu-128/EE Lightning/Su-35S can do, so hardly anything special.

F-35 can supercruise? You do realize that supercruise =/= going supersonic without burners, right? Because if that is your definition, that is laughable at best. :doh: Tu-128 could go supersonic without use of afterburners. EE Lightning could go supersonic without use of afterburners. Su-35S can go supersonic without use of afterburners. Maneuverability might be an open question, but i have yet to see anything impressive done by F-35. T-50 has already shown such things. And in weeks time, F-35 will be obliterated in that respect. Besides, there is no argument there, TVC + LEVCONS... When it comes to flight profile it isn't know indeed, but everyone knows highest range comes at height, not at low altitude. Basically T-50 and F-35 won't be much different in flight profile i suspect, like it or not T-50 has better range. Agree, it should be moved either to T-50 or F-35 thread. Again, how can F-35 carry 4 anti ship missiles? Bomb wise T-50 wont have problem carrying 4x500 kg either. (talking internal only) Be specific, HOW exactly is JSF better than T-50 air to ground. The name doesn't show anything at all, data does. Come on, i would expect better arguments that this. :)

Oh my. Since you asked, guess it is ok to answer it. Can't speak for J-20 and J-31, but regarding T-50: - Top speed. Conservative, mach 2. If "leaked" test info is correct, 2.35. - Super cruise, nuff said. - Range. And having super cruise T-50 will reach target much faster. (it is 1500+ km on supercruise and over 3500 km in total) - Radar. The main radar N036 has more modules, 1522 vs around 1200 (?) in APG-81. - Moar radars, fusion between them, nuff said. - Maneuverability. Any questions there? - Weapon bays able to carry 6 air to air missiles. 4 long range, 2 short. F-35 will be able to have same internal number in some years tho. - External pylons number is the same. 0-0 there. - Can F-35 use 4 long range anti ship missiles? Nuff said there as well. Think i am about done, but i am sure more things can be thought of.

Well, considering they didn't even bother to strip the original paint, you can guess quality of the paint and quality of the way it is applied.

"There are many disbelievers in stealth, more than a few of them truly technically ignorant and proud of it." Sherm Mullin, Skunk Works :)

Searching for "Red 21 Tu-95MS fire" gives plenty of links fyi. This one is the most detailed: http://www.kommersant.ru/doc/2162877?fp=33

I see we have severe case of wikipedia here. It doesn't weigh 18.4 tons empty. Lol no. Su-27 is in 16.3 tons or so empty.

Who told you so? Bogdan has said several times it can supercruise. But it is not clear if it is something proper like 1.2-1.3 or just something silly like 1.01... And besides, it is not clear if it is with or without weapons. And what do you mean its T/W is above 1.1? It is different every second it flies you know, depending on the fuel.

IMHO the display was much better at 100 years of VVS. There he did that trick and went into high AoA. Besides, imho, editing in that video is horrible. Anyway, watch this to see proper sorcery:

It is not Russian, and it is not Mi-8.

Nope. Bogdan says specifically that the plane will correct itself after take off if pilot lets go of the stick. Journalist then says it can land itself if needed. Now, they did say plenty of BS in those 4 min some of which i pointed out earlier, but i don't have much trouble believing it can do that. Such systems have been tested before. I remember a shot of MiG-29M2 with pilot at front holding his hands up, i can't claim it was automatic landing, but it must have been some sort of automatisation. It would be correct to question what are the parameters the system are measuring to understand if it needs to do automatic landing or not. Does it monitor pilots health in any way for example? I also believe Kvochurs company has been testing automatisation. You are being extremely simplistic. As pointed out Buran is a great example. Extra fun fact from that landing is that system was smart enough to calculate something humans in control room didnt notice, and since they didn't notice they panicked for a bit. Automatic landing from space was only repeated many many years after Buran, by X-37. There are also examples of automatisation systems on submarines and so on. Another good one would be rocket launches which are also being done in automatic, no "red button" pushing involved.

That is called "PChN" or "Povorotnaya chast' napliva" or in other words: Moveable part or LERX. Well, there are currently 4 flyable frames, but right now 3 of them flies. T-50-2 is undergoing modifications to join T-50-1 testing. And no, 500 missions number is a BS one, i am fairly sure. In January total number was 200. I don't believe for a second there has been 300 flights since then shared across 3 frames. That is more than 2 flights per day, ever day. Nope, not buying it.

Il-38.

Yes, 6 pylons is standard now, at the start it was 4. As to AA missiles, haven't seen those beyond on prototypes. And to be picky, it is Ka-52, not KA-52.

Sum up of the video: - They claim more than 500 flights has been made. I firmly believe that is a big pile of malarky. Correct number is around 300. - They claim that top speed is 500 km more than F-22, and say that T-50's top speed is 2500 km. I don't think i need to point out just how BS that is. - It is also claimed that T-50 is lighter and has greater range than F-22, which sounds correct. - T-50 exceeded expectations, in for example supercruise and super maneuverability.

Yes, it is just a mock up for the movie.

I beg to differ. S-1 up to and including S-4 is what looked gorgeous: Btw, S-7 was shown to a Chinese delegation... It will be at Paris show as well.

Center of gravity shift due to loose cargo.

810,47 million rubles exactly. :)