NOLA

I don't have any shots of serial Su-35S' showing the blades so i can't of course rule it out, but i can't recall ever reading about it either in articles about Su-35S or interviews with Saturn.

Operationally on Tu-160? MiG-29 RAM testbed? MiG-29K/KUB sporting thicker paint around "suspicious" areas? Su-35? RAM is nothing new for them. To avoid confusion lets stick to Su-35S designation. As VVS never had (no, i am not counting the Knights ones as they never actually flew after being painted in those colors) Su-35's. As to the Su-35S i am not aware of it having compressor blades threated with RAM, do you have anything that could back it up? It definitely has other RCS lowering solutions.

Are we done yet? Can we come back to the topic?

I have followed this program for many years, but i can't recall any information of the state of T-50-0 tests, good or bad. However, once again, i won't be shocked to learn the materials didn't perform as expected, that is why they are testing them to start with. There is rarely any piece of hardware that is designed and work perfectly out of the box. :) As to T-50-2 it is possible its recent grounding is due to modification indeed, but we don't know. There were also problems with vertical stabs, i know that T-50-1 got new ones around October of 2010, and T-50-2 is a true cannibal. It got vertical stabs from T-50-1 after its grounding, and one of the horizontal ones. ;) -2 got vertical stabs from -1, and one horizontal. -3 got horizontal stab from -2. -1 got horizontal stab from -3?. (not sure about this one, haven't checked yet) Also, a correction; It is S-37 or Su-47.

Ah okei. When it comes to specifics we don't have anything other than our Mark 1 eyes and pictures. :) Middlepart being replaced suggests that either composite skin is not strong enough for that area, or they miscalculated the strain on the main spar. As far as i am aware, only T-50-1 suffered big cracks (hence its grounding for over a year), -2 for instance flew a lot even after MAKS 11. It doesn't mean that it is mature design of course, it is probably just that it wasn't pushed as much as -1 was. -2 is more of a system tester tho, while T-50-1 was supposed to start high alpha right after MAKS 11. Interesting enough, T-50-2 haven't flown since about December, while T-50-1 is flying frequent now. But yes, i am sure they have their share of problems with composites, Su-47 was fun in that regard.

You didnt read what i wrote some post above, did you?

While i do agree the anti F-35 lobby is strong for many reasons, there are plenty that enjoys to bash T-50 because in their minds Sukhoi engineers are simply idiots. Anyway, lets not derail. Agreed. :) When it comes to T-50-4 changes, it would depend what one compares against. What i mean is that one could compare against T-50-1 or -3. Compared to T-50-3 however the changes are: - Huge structural changes over wheelbays and the top skin as well. That is also the area between two main bays, and also where the main wing spar (rib? unsure about the correct word) is passing through. It has been reported T-50-1 suffered big cracks following MAKS 2011 display, and it was grounded for over a year and heavily modified. That design alteration was mentioned indirectly in one of Sukhoi's news on their website. - Smaller structural changes changing composites to metal. - Clear outside stiffening plates ala those on F-16 or early Flankers. - KS-U installed at the sides of the cockpit. - KS-O ("R2D2") removed, new antennas in the area. Doesn't mean it is replaced by them. What they are for, unknown. - Full radar suite, although i am skeptical of that, more specific towards it having L-band in the slats. That is unchanged vs previous prototypes, meaning it is still out of metal, although as on previous prototypes, in a different shade. - Back to canopy without middle bar. - Two eyes for KS-P unit vs one on T-50-3. (Possibly incorrect) - Some antenna changes around the nose. - Radiation warning signs around the stinger... - No flares installation. That should sum it up? :)

So, one year delay vs how many years of delay to JSF program? Unless my memory is incorrect, wasn't F-35 supposed to be in service in 2005?

There has been small shape changes, and not so small structural ones. Oh.... SNAP! :D There are also plenty on new pics on RP, but i wont bother uploading those.

That is project "476", or Il-76MD-90A. It is new build, not update of previously made Il-76's.

Inside the PAK-FA... ;) http://fotki.yandex.ru/users/korotchenko-rusarms/album/287888/?p=1

It isn't. MiG-31BM's will get it this year.

Okei, in that sense.

As conventional as AMRAAM's and Sidewinders in F-22? ;)

I am perfectly aware it is Kh-29T (can't write Cyrillic AND Roman in same designation). It was just to show the dive. And i am aware of T/L difference. But fair enough, you have the overall point. My point to start with is that IRST can paint ground. The Tu-95MS? :D

No doubt. I didn't say IRST was better than a pod. Better range = less risk.

Surely Su-35S has not lost ability like previous flankers to make a shallow dive? :)

Wow. I thought you were just ignorant and slow, but now i see you are in fact much worse. I will just leave it at this, no point, this is like talking to a wall. YOU haven't provided ANYTHING, all you have done is to try to discredit me on every step, and failed each time. Picture is from a patent, and one of the patent holders is MAIN DESIGNER OF PAK-FA. So this trash is from him. If my memory doesn't fail me, Pogosyan is also one of the patent holders, another idiot that made this trash. It doesn't show the three solutions i mentioned (duh!) it is just a simple sketch with one purpose, to show the inlet is straight. Yes, the intakes are variable, hence they have ramps.

Correct. :) As usual gems from Ablogin, this time Tu-160: http://aviaforum.ru/showpost.php?p=1276964&postcount=174 http://aviaforum.ru/showpost.php?p=1277786&postcount=177

If you think i do that, clearly you are understanding it opposite of what i am saying. Su-47 had S-intakes. As i said, it is not extremely complex task really, even MiG-23 had them... Clearly they moved away from them in PAK-FA. Read the quote i posted, it is from PAK-FA patent, and it is speaking out *against* S-intakes. As i said, they have selected a different approach, a more complex one. So Sukhoi folks are not stupid, i never said they were. Anyone who think straight intake equals to "Zomg, clearly Sukhoi is teh stupid to not make S-intakes!", are stupid. :D Straight intakes like they have opted are saving them weight AND volume. Not to mention S-intakes dictate things like engine placement, weaponbay placement and so on. It is not stupid decision, but a clever one. Clearly they think they can shield compressor as much as S-intakes do, through atleast three separate solutions.

Pictures showing you are wrong. Pictures that make you seemingly unable to say what is exactly photoshopped. That is besides the discussion. They are of course perfectly aware of it, they are not idiots. The did have S-intakes on Su-47 afterall, it is not exactly high tech. As i have repeated before, patent, patent and patent. It is all in there. There are atleast three different solutions that together will cover compressor face against radar. Without the use of S-intakes. I rest my case. I have no idea what that is supposed to mean. I can show you one million pictures where PAK FA's intakes are black, doesn't mean they are photoshopped. There is this thing, it is called shadows. You may have heard about it. PS: Just because no solutions are installed in terms of intake shielding =/= there will be none. It is not like first prototypes will be equipped with everything at once. "These things, they take time" ©

So the engine is in wrong place on T-50-3? And you are saying i don't know what i am talking about? Wow.:megalol: So, just because i haven't taken the picture i can't proof it is not a fake? Is that your most reasonable argument? Surely that argument can applied on every picture? So every picture that is not taken by me, must be a fake? (Since i "cant" proof it is real) And you haven't answered *what* is fake in that picture. Try, it will be entertaining. Also, this must be fake? So far i have provided atleast two proofs that the infamous picture is real. Even ignoring the picture itself and reasoning. So far, your only argument on it being fake can be summed up as a - Since i didnt take the picture, it must be fake. Even ignoring the fact even if i took it, i could easily PS it. ;) b -:

Just to add a few things; Su-34 does have designator. In fact it is inbuilt. KS-N is not meant for Su-35S and MiG-35, it is meant for PAK-FA. Although it is possible in future Su-35S will be able to carry it. Reason why Su-35S for example also needs special pod is because it is question of range. Specialized pod for a ground attack task will of course offer better range and possibly better quality than what IRST can offer. Either way it is smart to not be "reliable" only on a specialized designator pod, but have IRST designate as well.

If you didn't take the picture how do you know it is fake? Stupid question requires stupid answers. First off, ask youself, why would Department 1 (google it) require PS of the intakes, and in such a way that it is not "flattering" towards T-50? Surely they could have just PS'ed it with a black wall, and that is it. :smilewink: Besides *what exactly* do YOU think is PS? IGV? The compressor blades behind it? Both? That something else is there and they PS'ed IGV and compressor blades on top of it? If so; ---> ATS. Nuff said. Is this also PS? http://www.knaapo.ru/eng/popup-100x100.wbp?picpath=/media/rus/gallery/aircrafts/combat/t-50-3_1st_flight/t-50-3_22_hires.jpg http://www.knaapo.ru/eng/popup-100x100.wbp?picpath=/media/rus/gallery/aircrafts/combat/t-50-3_1st_flight/t-50-3_23_hires.jpg Dept 1 must be really bored then.

It never was. You are free to believe it is fake, i don't care.