Or a Luneburg lens.

Apparently you haven’t read my post. A luneburg lens is exactly what I was implying has never been seen on the T-50 but is seen regularly on other LO prototypes. I find this concerning.

Not well with the FGFA. Has no bearing on the PAK FA, except perhaps to deprive it of supplementary funding as budgets become somewhat tighter in Russia.

Are you implying that the two projects are different? That was not my understanding. Also if these “faults” are based on truth, that is a major setback for Russia’s efforts to create a 5th generation platform.

I would guess its an octahedral radar reflector, perhaps if they’re calibrating rear sector RCS reduction by nozzle deflection.
The canopy modification appears to be a stealthy cover for avionics/OBOGS heat-exchanger vents.

interesting!

[ATTACH=CONFIG]235778[/ATTACH]

ka90 art, looks pretty good 🙂

I wonder how lift is generated in the high speed phase..

Having been reading an article debating the retirement of the A10 on AW, I got to thinking about these two aircraft.

We read lots about Su-25 losses but they are being put in harms way with less sophisticated weaponry more often. I wonder if the A10 was being flown in Ukraine (for example) instead of the Su-25, would it be suffering the same losses?

Assuming tactics and weapons are the same.

Here is a video of a damaged A10 which purports to show why it is so “amazing”:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1BecNTYPYbU

there may be better examples out there or indeed Su-25 examples too.

This is not intended as a competition by the way.

I believe they are not all that different. I just think the Su-25 was unlucky enough to have been deployed without anyone watching its back sorta speak. Maybe it highlights however how ineffective its flare and chaff system is against modern shoulder fired AA weapons, but that is a different issue.

It’s always cool to see GR3A/Jaguar with the over wing Sidewinders/Magic 2. Mirage F.1 should have used that trick when they carried R530’s and wingtip Magic 2 for an extra pair of missiles.

I’m pretty sure GR3A uses them to find overhead targets when they fly low.

Wouldn’t the over-wing pylons be detrimental to the performance of the F.1’s wing?

I have serious doubts the MiG-29 is either ‘Easier Maintenance’ or ‘More lethal dogfighter’ compared to an F-16.

More maneuverable? Probably.
More powerful? Certainly.
More lethal in 1986? Perhaps.

From his interview,

The jet is very reliable and fairly simple to maintain. I could service the fuel, oil, hydraulics and pneumatics and had to demonstrate proficiency in these areas before I could take a jet off-station.

As far as I know nobody (serious) has claimed that for the 16

Similar:

This does not mean the jet isn’t very maneuverable. It is. I put it between the F-15C and the F-16. The pilot just has to work harder to get the jet to respond the way he wants.

As to the lethality as a dogfighter, yes, not only does he suggest so, but common sense does as well. The plane is agile and has in-built HMCS and HOB missiles.

The 16 didnt’ come with these for the vast majority of his life. Only during the latest blocks they were even begun to being considered. This is not something to argue. The 29 came out with these. The 16 didn’t. My approach was not hypothetical.

Equally one could argue that the two jets have similar size, hence all the systems from the 16 could go into a 29 and then let’s rethink this again. If my grandmother had wheels she would have been a skateboard type of cyclical argument.

The 29 without any upgrade, choice of different weapons or optional extras is the more lethal dogfighter. Period.

This is one of those long running points of confusion among a certain crowd on the internet…

Let me start by saying that by no reasonable definition is 25km ever WVR.

[ATTACH=CONFIG]225505[/ATTACH]

What constitutes “visual range” varies widely depending on the aircraft involved and the conditions. Sure you might technically be able to “see” an aircraft several dozens of miles away under exactly the right conditions. (if the aircraft and/or its contrail is illuminated by a setting or rising sun against a dark sky…) That doesn’t mean you are suddenly “WVR” and in a dogfight.

Even at a range of 10-12km you are only at the very edge of WVR combat in the sense of BFM/dogfighting and you might not even be within visual range in a literal sense if conditions are less than ideal and/or the aircraft you are looking for is small.

The next thing you have to consider is that when people talk about a missile’s range, they are generally referring to the distance between the launch aircraft and the target at the time the missile is fired. In head-on engagements the target aircraft will actually cover a significant portion of the distance itself. If an intercept occurs at 10km, 12km, 15km, or whatever, the missile was quite possibly fired while the target was farther away.

For example:

http://kosova.org/post/Operation-Allied-Force-How-Dutch-F-16AMs-shot-down-a-Mig-29

Several points to consider from this account.

1. The missile impacted the target 18km away, but given the time of flight it is likely the missile was fired at a significantly greater range.

2. Although the pilot saw the explosion(at night), even in daylight this would have been a BVR engagement.

3. With wing tanks, a jamming pod, and (in the case of 4 aircraft) Maverick missiles in addition to the AMRAAMs these F-16s were not in an air show configuration.

4. Two other Mig-29 kills took place that same night, and considering that it was night… both were easily BVR.

33km + 18km = 51km ~ 32miles. Nothing we haven’t established already. At launch it was of course BVR, but nothing to write home about.

Serbian MiGs were never much of a threat.