I was surprised to see no one posted this in here.
View: https://youtu.be/nD_en_xvSvU?si=fR4mXSDkFYpxgdGq
He is flying a wartime mission with his Smartphone?!!![]()
Selfies can kill you, definitively.
Regarding the Su-25 filmed ejection in the story, I guess it was a collision with a power cable?
View attachment 736070
Run the missile out of energy after the rocket motor burns out?The range would suggest a satellite acquisition and tracking ( I am guessing that the remote commanding operator is seeing both the Su-34 and the Patriot missile through overhead IR sensor).
Then there is the constant high G maneuvering. That is difficult to understand given the distance at which the missile is when they start jinking hard (80 km)
What I would suggest is that they have identified a particular aspect in dynamic maneuver where the missile can lost the track. What I can understand is that this is not a simple high G circling. Given the duration of the maneuver the presumed circling would have produced multiple case of overlapping heading.
So first, they fly toward the presumed launch point (north, 350). Then they are beaming 90 degree. But why the constant high G maneuvering? Mariupol looks to be flat terrain.
You could also try to make it hard for the SAMs radar to keep a lock
You could also try to make it hard for the SAMs radar to keep a lock
Given the (very low) known loss rate after initial successes with patriots, they appear to know what they do.I feel that is hard to do with a remotely modern radar. But perhaps some older sets have a liability, or perhaps they just think they do.
They say that the R-37M not only has a long range, but is also very effective against maneuverable targets. It was already said earlier, according to the results of the application in Ukraine, that the probability
Kinda curious on what's on the red circle ? This is a still from that documentary on the Su-35 engagement.
They usually use that reticle for gun range, but the left side scale says the target is a bit over 160km? So I’m not sure; this hud has more symbology than the regular su-27.Looks like a countdown tape that revolves around the circle to show when there is clearance for the missile to fire and when it is the optimal time to fire. And the 216 I think is kilometers. You guys agree?
Definitely, not the distance to the target. Expected flight-time, i presume?Kinda curious on what's on the red circle ?
They say that the R-37M not only has a long range, but is also very effective against maneuverable targets. It was already said earlier, according to the results of the application in Ukraine, that the probability of defeat is approaching 100%. The targets were Su-25, Su-27, Su-24 and MiG-29
we may soon see how it performs against more modern RWR like ones on F-16.
![]()
India and Russia Discuss Co-Producing Su-30 Fighters For Global Export Markets
India and Russia Discuss Co-Producing Su-30 Fighters For Global Export Marketswww.armyrecognition.com
Agreed. Amazing bit of flying.
There is the full video out there but I chose the final landing sequence as it is the most dramatic and amazing part of an amazing and harrowing flight. Apparently this new su-35 was having flight logic issues and was constantly pitching up. The whole video you hear them troubleshooting the issues. There is the full video with translation of the speech.
Amazing stuff. He got as low as possible and just kept looping near the runway. He got aligned a few times but right during flair up the nose of the fighter just kept going upwards and he would have to abort and retry. Yes, he actually used the landing parachutes like dart fletchings causing the nose up action to straighten out just in time for landing. Very heavy, rough landing but absolutely incredible piloting skills.
System didn't fail per se. It's a test flight with (as they've found) wrong code, system does exactly as coded.Isn't FBW supposed to be quadruplex redundant or something? With the probably of total failure <10^-9 per flying hour, which means you need 1 billion flying hours to get a single failure.
System didn't fail per se. It's a test flight with (as they've found) wrong code, system does exactly as coded.