I’m not even sure its at the petit duc stage.

Small duck stage? Why would the PLAAF be developing a small duck UAV?

It is based on Agile Falcon concept (with large involvement of Japanese domestic technology) – F-16 with larger wing and more hard points.

Isn’t the term ‘Agile Falcon’ a contradiction, given the fact the larger (and thus, heavier) wings and tail plane, not to mention additional weight of the AESA and other hardpoints, likely to make it less ‘agile’, particularly when compared to a vanilla Viper?

I don’t think you will see this done with a Western jet:

The Western equivalent of the Su-25 Frogfoot, the A-10 Warthog, is probably better suited to landing on a flooded runway, given its higher ground clearance and high-mounted engines.

From Wiki;

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairchild_Republic_A-10_Thunderbolt_II#Durability

There are several reasons for the unusual location of the A-10’s General Electric TF34-GE-100 turbofan engines. First, the A-10 was envisioned to fly from forward air bases, often with substandard, semi-prepared runways that present a high risk of foreign object damage to the engines. The height of the engines decreases the chance that sand or stones will be ingested. This also allows engines to keep running while the aircraft is serviced and rearmed by ground crews, reducing turn-around time. Without the limitations imposed by engines, the wings could be mounted closer to the ground, to simplify servicing and rearming.[45]

I wonder if the BAe 146 was originally designed for ‘rough’ landing strips such as highways? Impressive improvisation of the rebels though. I’ve always thought that there should have been a full military spec version of the 146, perhaps with a rear ramp door, revised carriage for rough landings and extra fuel tanks. Would have made a great little tactical transport.

What’s that 4 enginned transport that seems to be landing on a road? BAE 146?

Ok, missed that post…argue away 🙂

Did you not notice them before or something?

Yeh, I’ve noticed them before, just like the lack of engine covers and absence of ‘S’-ducting :p

Just thinking out aloud, that’s all. I would have thought podded engines would be inappropriate for a LO design, hence why the F-22, J-20, F-35, Japanese and Korean projects don’t seem to consider them. But, it’s always refreshing to see a unique approach to the same problem.

Zelin did not equate the two. The comment was about force structure, MiG-35 forming the “light” aspect, akin to the F-35.

But even in that context it doesn’t make much sense, as the F-35 will contribute the ‘light’ element of a 5G structure, along with the ‘heavy’ F-22.

So is a heavily modified Mig-35 being planned to work alongside the T-50 in a future gen RuAF structure?