EMP resistant does not mean EMP proof.

There is some concern about roll stability with high loads during landing for the navy role, according to a contact in the Indian Navy.

Well. The assumption is detonation would take place up and high. There would be fallout. but it won’t be as intense as when the nuclear weapon is detonated on the ground.

And then you’ve just EMP’d yourself.

That’s not a doctrine from the 60s only, S-75s in the 80s had nuclear warheads on-site, S-300 of every type had a nuclear payload as well.

Are they still operational under START II or just in stockpile though?

The YF 23 was better in those 2 regards. It was mainly mothballed b/c it was ahead of its time.

I think Y 20 is right. Its much simpler for these conglomerates to go with a conventional design. Only Russia and the US have the experience to let their imagination roll

It’s radar signature was allegedly lower than the F-22s but that doesn’t mean it’s the most perfect geometric shape for stealth possible. None of planforms seem to directly duplicate any previous stealth aircraft.

The allegation was pretty ridiculous in also claiming a nuclear-tipped S-400 missile, which I’m pretty sure doesn’t even exist operationally, only in stockpile.

The only problem is that if you don’t apply Keynesian economics in the boom period prior to a debt crisis, then applying it afterwards doesn’t produce good results.

6x GBU-10, 4x AIM-120C, 2x IRIS-T, 1x 1,000 liter EFT. That’s over 7,500 kg.

Slight correction, those are ASRAAMs and EPWIIs (1,000lb warhead) and I think it’s about 10,000lbs. 6 x 1,000lb + 4x375lb + ~2,000lb = 2x200lb.

EF this load out is for show. There are plenty of pics RSAF EF that is carrying far below it. I want to see 5 fuel tanks picture . This plane is not rated for 9 tons

A load-out of similar weight was used in operations against Libya. 4×1,000lb + 2x2000lb + 4x375lb + 2x200lb + 500lb = 10,400lb.

5 fuel tanks you won’t see, it only has 3 wet points.