Arthur
can you now please provide me with the exact nose dimensions of the Mirage 2000 and the LCA and why a Zhuk M sized radar cannot fit in it?

This is what Arthur said in post #63:

Another issue with the airframe is that it is extremely cramped and doesn’t seem to offer any growth potential at all. The fuselage is fat as it is so anything conformal doesn’t seem an option without totally destroying aerodynamics, the nose is too short to accomodate anything more than the radar… The LCA as currently under development seems to be the ultimate machine that DRDO can squeeze out of that airframe, something which can’t be said about other small fighters.

This is what you said in post #86:

Arthur, the LCA deltas are not double deltas, the flight performance of the LCA has been more than satisfactory making the use of canards worthless, as far as the nose, it is big enough to accomodate any Zhuk M sized radar and el-op gear, I really do not see your point, its nose is obviously not as big as that of the MKi but it was never ment to be, I fail to see your point, the fuselage of the LCA is chubbier than that of the Mirage, I have seen both up close so sorry I laugh at that comment.

You made the claim about the Zhuk-M, so you back it up. Other people should not have to prove your claims, that’s your responsibility.

Didn’t know where to post this.

According to a report by Russian TACC, news from the Russian Ministry of National Defense has it that the Chinese Ministry of National Defense has notified the Russian Ministry of National Defense that the Chinese military plans to test launch three ballistic missiles from a missile launching site in Shanxi province to the Lop Nur (Luobubo) testing site in Xinjiang Taklamakan Desert covering a range of 2,500-plus kilometers. The news catches the attention of outsiders on China’s missile strength.

The Russian TACC cited the 2002 Yearbook published by the Swedish Stockholm International Peace Research Institute as saying that China has ballistic missiles with nuclear capability, which consist of four types with a range ranging from 1,800 kilometers to 13,000 kilometers. China defines the ranges of missiles as: short which is below 1,000 kilometers, mid-range which is between 1,000 and 3,000 kilometers, long-range which is between 3,000 and 8,000 kilometers and intercontinental range which is over 8,000 kilometers.

The three missiles the Chinese military are testing are Dongfeng-31, Dongfeng-21 and Julang-2 respectively. Dongfeng-21 missile is launched on a mobile erector launcher with a range above 1,800 kilometers. Dongfeng-31 missile is a highway-mobile and solid-propellant intercontinental ballistic missile with low circular error probability. Julang-2 missile is a sub-launched intercontinental ballistic missile with a range above 8,000 kilometers. The three kinds of missiles all have the ability to carry multiple warheads.

The Russian media also said Russian space forces’ observation facilities prepare to record the missile launching process of the Chinese military. The Taiwan CTITV said while reporting the news on July 13, the missiles China’s mainland is testing are able to reach the west cost of the United States, let alone Taiwan.

According to the Hong Kong Commercial Daily the Dongfeng-31 and Dongfeng-21 missile would be using the missile-launching site in Shanxi province while the Julang-2 sub-launched ballistic missile would be launched in the sea and the launching is possibly part of the Dongshan island military drills. The report also said Julang-2 has been test launched during the Dongshan military drills in 2001 and made an accurate hit on its target several thousand kilometers away.

http://english.peopledaily.com.cn/200407/22/eng20040722_150474.html

What about the blue sky pod? Doesn’t it have an IRST?

Unless it’s a new missile, it resembles the KH-59 of all known russian PGM the most.

Does anyone have a picure of the Type 093 SSN? Several sources, including the US DOD and Jane’s claim the first Type 093 sub has been launched and will be commissioned next year.

Perhaps I’m looking at this all wrong or just stubborn, but while there is a superficial resemblance, upon closer inspection, the details don’t match.

drawing 1:

Not likely, since the J-10 “artist” removed the AVIAGRAPHICA copyright.

How does that prove that the two planes were not drawn by the same artist? Logo/text can easily be added or deleted, since they’re not actually part of the plane.