It takes a very special kind of stupid and delusional to think that;
1; That the picture is fake and photoshopped by evul liberal muricans.
2; That it is anything but IGV when it has the exact right number of vanes and looks exactly the same as IGV does on izd.117(S).
But one cant reason people out of a position they didnt reason themselves into in the first place.
Not that I care about this topic anymore (and I even regret caring about it in the first place all this time ago), this IGV needs to sit pretty close (be part of) the compressor.
Wouldn’t moving the same IGV forward this much upset air flow?
the fan boys can’t decide whether it has s-ducts or not. one half is like, yes it has s-ducts.. the other half says we don’t need s-ducts we got something better (but we really have no proof, we just assume they did because sukhoi so smart). You can see our schizo bacon clone (probably same people) change his story a bunch of times and spam a bunch of russian language documents he can’t even read. its no different than LEG and Picard. people will figure out the bs, no matter how much junk info you throw.
Ok you made you point. Everyone can read it and make up their own mind. move along now.
Excuse me, what is SLR?
Single Lens Reflex (SLR) camera
he refers to with what the photograph was taken.
Do you believe that you can see the engine from the front of the |Pak Fa ?
It doesn’t matter what I believe, that is what I am saying; nor you, nor anyone else for that matter.
He is right though. Those are not engine blades. They are vortex breakers.
What the hell difference does it make? They are what they are. We have all gone through this is circles. I think we are past that. What we should be concentrating is more photos, more new info, more milestones met.
Missiles is the next big topic.
>Posts two pictures.
>Discussions devolves into invention of s-ducks and trollfest.
>Lesson learned, better not post anything.
No, keep posting, but learn to ignore useless comments.
Nope, it was actually because of the F-15’s NCTR radar capability and RoEs that required two forms of IDing enemies. The IFF at that time was absolute cack and people were instructed not to rely on it to avoid friendly fire.
I am surprised you know NCTR and IFF but you don’t know TWS!
Righttt…….!
And the J20 is “duplicate” of what? The BAE EAP?
At this stage I don’t care which plane is a copy of which or if it is. I want the damn things to get into service so we can find out if the cornerstone of their existence, i.e. Stealth has been achieved. I am tired of all the other bs. Final RCS values are all I would wish to finally be made known.
why is there so much talk about the S ducts ? or do ppl claim that there is none ? Only reason i mention it is because at this angle, you can actually see the S duct.
The nacelles are curved, that’s all we know.
All I know is that the space was needed for Sparrow-related hardware. According to Bill Gunston, a lot of work had to be done to make the missile compatible with the fighter’s NASARR radar.
This is something that puzzles me always.
As an engineer I know there is almost always a way to make an interface between two systems. Why is it so hard to integrate missiles to various fighters, I never fully grasped.
TWS?
Track While Scan!
If both aircraft are at 30,000ft, the horizon is 425 miles away. How could you even lock something at that range if the horizon is in the way.
I don’t know, I didn’t make the weapon.
Never heard of OTH shots. Hell, where would the horizon even be at 30,000+ft? I guess it could be guided by a secondary platform though.
The AiM-54 was always described as an OTH weapon.
On a long-range shot, the missile would fly under inertial guidance, and would get target-position updates from the F-14. These were intended to bring it close enough for the seeker to achieve lock-on. The victim would know that he was being tracked by the F-14, but until the seeker activated, a basic RWR would probably give no warning that a missile was on the way.
Correct me if I am wrong, but the Phoenix was capable of an ‘over the horizon’ shot. Which means for a large fraction of its flight, the plane would not provide mid course updates.
Well, saying that the RWR will be useful in defending the aircraft against any kind of radar guided weapon sounds over simplistic. Would the RWR help provide ample warninfg against an AIM-120 or S-300 type missile? If the fighter jet has to ditch its warload in order to make evasive action – it could be considered a tactical kill for the Phoenix or any other large missile?
Don’t know. All I know is that the Phoenix would autonomously guide itself towards the target after a certain range. And it was a long range.
You can’t hope the tiny radar at the front of the missile to be performing the same against a Tu-22 and a MiG.