Assuming the tank is idling or producing heat some other way (hence the need to hide it in the first place), the tank will heat up the glass hut and an IR munition could then target the hut.

Is this real or photoshopped? I thought the SR-71s used a special KC-135 because of the special fuel.

I thought the same thing. I found a few more photos of KC-10’s refueling SR-71’s. It appears this was only in tests/demonstrations.

http://www.habu.org/kc-135q/79-0433.html

http://www.aviationspectator.com/more-aviation-photos?page=492

I think he is talking as speed as new stealth as stated by LM and reported by Sweetman.

Here is the opinion piece by Bill Sweetman:

http://www.aviationweek.com/Article.aspx?id=/article-xml/AW_11_25_2013_p22-638264.xml

I would’ve thought Russia would aim for a smaller, cheaper carrier so that they could afford to field enough (3-4) to be militarily useful, as opposed to a glorified status symbol. No doubt PAK FA operations would be greatly eased with a larger carrier, but then I am sceptical that we will ever see a navalised PAK FA.

Looking at the design of the T-50, where would an arresting hook fit? It seems like the addition of one would require at the least reducing the size of the aft weapon bay – or making two narrow bays on either side of a hook. Or it could hang out past the tail sting, assuming that area is strong enough to withstand the landing forces if a hook is attached there.

A larger diameter engine has been installed in a J-20.

Wikipedia says otherwise:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_YAL-1

Use against other targets
In theory, an airborne laser could be used against hostile fighter aircraft, cruise missiles, or even low-earth-orbit satellites (see anti-satellite weapon). However, the YAL-1 infrared target acquisition system is designed to detect the hot exhaust of TBMs in boost phase. Satellites and other aircraft have a much lower heat signature, making them more difficult to detect. Aside from the difficulty of acquiring and tracking a different kind of target, ground targets such as armored vehicles and possibly even aircraft are not fragile enough to be damaged by a megawatt-class laser.

It seems that its IR sensors would need to be cued to a target, perhaps by a nearby AWACS. Then there is the question of whether aircraft are stronger or weaker than ballistic missiles. I suppose the laser hitting an aircraft would be bad for the pilot’s eyesight. 😮

Ok. Cool pic btw 🙂
It still looks very narrow.. pretty close shave upon launching..

That is something I wonder about… a rocket plume literally inches from other ordnance.

AFAIK the F-4 has limitations on the rail mounted Sidewinders when carrying air to ground ordnance on the inner pylons. The photo below shows a configuration to get around that – Sidewinder on the same side as an empty position on the triple ejector rack.

I believe Spud’s second photo shows the external pylons attached to the aircraft. Here is a treaty identification photo of a pylon: