I guess the combat radius of Tu-22M3 with 2 kh-22 is around 2000 km, with mixed military and afterburner on the weapons deployment phase.

The problem of the Tu-22M3 is not range or speed, but obtain target information from the Tu-142 which will certainly get hit by CBG before passing any information to the Tu-22M3. And, the Kh-22 is not that impressive weapon. I have a link that talked about the disadvantage of high velocity, high projectile weapons such as the kh-22. Surface heating on the sensors of Kh-22 during high speed is one of its problem.

the Kh-22 is an impressive weapon. It is not without its problems, but if you think for a minute what it does, it is pretty impressive!

Well based on my very limited knowledge of aerodynamics, it would be fairly incapable of “High Alpha” flight. The intakes would be soooo blanked off by the fuselage there is no way they could gulp enough air.

I wouldn’t worry too much. This does not appear to be real. A propaganda vehicle maybe. But I don’t believe this is more than a mock up and not even a serious one at that.

However general consensus is right, you cannot just assume how affects RCS by using eyeball. With appropirate continuity (which PAK-FA has by using very large composite panels) and correct RAM application (which PAK FA will certainly have in serial version) it may virtually be non-existant.

I am more concerned with returns from gaps, seams and discontinuities which the T-50 seems to be having aplenty.

Starting with the leading edge slats, the various vents and the gaps between the weapon bays. Especially the leading edge slats were a big puzzle to me. Both US fighters, the 22 and the 35 have a leading edge slat that runs all the way to the edge of the wing without leaving that characteristic dog tooth at the wing’s edge. The T-50 does not.

The devil is in the details.

Why has nobody suggested Fatass?

Fatass would be cruel and unjust considering it has the slimmest profile of all the 5th gen fighters.

All military aircraft are weapons of war.

Their primary reason of existence is to kill.

Do not therefore be surprised that any military plane can achieve a kill against another. It is what they were meant to do.

Me thinks it worthy of reposting this here, to finally lay an old fallacy (and favourite whipping boy) to rest.

I think this is interesting. Perhaps you can help me with something.

1. The patent documents (that we have seen in this forum in .pdf) show the lower half of what looks like a compressor. The image doesn’t resemble that of a typical IGV.

2. Following from that, wouldn’t a typical IGV be aligned with the engine? Would there be an offset between them as is implied here? Wouldn’t that be counter intuitive for an IGV?

3. Although the upper half of the T-50 does indeed seem to indicate the engine must be pointing inwards somewhere behind the cockpit, the lower half clearly contradicts that with the nacelles pointing straight and the intake walls partially curving but NOT obstructing view to the engine.

4. Wouldn’t an IGV be another contributor to RCS in the duct similar to a compressor fan? perhaps not as much, must still.

5. The now infamous photo of the T-50 with the straight through duct showing the lower half of the compressor, in that photo it looks like a proper compressor, not an IGV, but it seems to be in roughly the same position. (some say that photo was ps’d I hear. )

any thoughts ?

Just going to point out something:

panyimao and Tigershark are not the only problem. They are only 50 % of them problem. Other 50 % are all of you that answer or refer to them and therefor contribute with pollution of this thread and the forum.

Ignore them.

Can’t believe people are much more interested in discussing these two tards instead of staying on topic.

I won’t directly disagree with you, however if you never pay attention to negative comments, then you may end up with a forum that everybody su**s eachothers’ d*ck and no one ever pinpoints inaccuracies or has a meaningful conversation/debate.

Nope. How can i forget our F-16C Fleet.
It not the same for a Nation like Norway to operate F-16C in all different roles, and that includes Intercept mission as well.

But that does not turn our F-16c into an Interceptors, does it?

You have jets like true Interceptors and then you have jets flying that role.
Not the same thing.

We agree, it is just that you stated it so absolutely and I wanted to point out that is isn’t so absolute as it came out to be.