egypt is logical, because of suez canal, i dont see the logic in giving it away to israel tho
Powerful lobbies.
DF-21D
Uncanny.

![]()
P(обнаружения) – “вероятность обнаружения” – probability of detection, IMHO
Can’t be, it gets higher for lower RCS.
msphere is not french afaik.
But I am and I do think the F35 is a lemon.
Nic
You also consider a pigeon a meal, so what you consider a lemon is moot.
Uhh ?
Source for a) and b) please ?
It’s a well known fact the Rafale’s radar is fixed, not swash-plate mounted. And it’s an equally well known fact that it only has a one way data link.
There is an airflow modulator in the Pak Fa intake that has adjustable vanes several rows deep and designed to deliver even air pressure across the engine face and can be mistaken for the face of an engine with the real blurry pictures available (Jo found the patent, ask him nicely for a link).
If you cannot see the engine face for the air flow modulator in front of it then nobody on these forums is going to know the exact position of it.
I guess the radar waves will bounce off that instead then.
If you count like 6-8 meteors+ 2 MICAs + the pylons and a centerline tank that may be close to 16 times a clean rafale. Should the pointer even have MICAs, it depends on its RCS vs the RCS of the rafale. The rafale is said to have a really low RCS, so…
The pointer could fly towards the targets at low speed to reduce closing rate, reduce its RCS and expose its radar, from about 150-200km. As soon as the missiles have hit, it would escape in AB. The acceleration of a clean rafale is very good, so it might be able to escape. If the enemy planes are not too dangerous, the 2 rafales can continue to engage with their MICAs, otherwise they escape.
Only if you call ‘really low’ 0.1-0.3m^2 clean.
Two problems, the Rafale would have to wait for a long time before escaping because a) It has no radar swash-plate and b) it has no two way data-link to verify what the missile is doing or has done.
And if the enemy planes are 5th gen, the Rafale will be dead long before it’s even realised they’re there.
It still has a low RCS when clean. The pointer rafale might be detected at half the distance of the shooter. The could be enough to use such tactics.
Only if the shooter has 16 times the RCS. It only really works when you have an aircraft with 1/1,000th or 1/10,000th of the RCS up front. The best bet would be to use FOAS as the aiming aircraft.
GHz is my guess.
I am surprised you know NCTR and IFF but you don’t know TWS!
Righttt…….!
I did actually know what it meant when applied to radars but the missile part threw me into thinking it was something else, especially with the talk of OTH shots. But yeah, when applied to radars I’m fully aware of TWS and STT.
And the wings are an obvious and distinct feature of the Wright Flyer.
That the Chinese have went after every military technological know how by buying, cooperating, hacking, spying, etc, its not exactly news, so have every other military power on earth:That doesnt mean that the J-20 was developed anywhere other than in China, its telling that even with the spying, the hacking, whatever, the Chinese have chosen a very diferent platform by comparison with what the US and Russia are developing.
Not really, the wing planform is very similar to the 1.44 too.
The problem is the Chinese don’t just copy military technology, the internet is awash with examples of them copying literally everything.
The Have Doughnut was designed to evaluate the MiG-21, not copy it, hence nothing resembling a MiG-21 entered service for the US.
They’ve copied more than one aircraft but it’s still fairly obvious which bits came from where. It looks like the hell spawn child of a 1.44 and F-35.
Oh, look it even has wings like the Wright Flyer! 🙂
Linking the Mig1.44 to the J-20 based on looks at this stage is has honest has linking the Hornet to the Mig-29 in the late eighties.
Unlike the Z-10 (or even the J10) there´s absolutely no public evidence that there was a foreign design used has a base.
And mocking Russia using the J-20 is stupid, agreed, so is stating that the J-20 is “produced” in China but was not designed and developed there.
There’s plenty of evidence of them hacking and spying on stealth technology. The quad tail-fin is also a fairly distinct feature of the 1.44.
And where exactly would they use a copy of the F135?
First in what?
J-20, or maybe just reverse engineer the technology. It may even have been the adaptive cycle tech they were trying to steal for the F135’s successor.
Anything really.
Apparently it did not..
Despite the much-vaunted capabilities, the Phoenix was rarely used in combat, with only two confirmed launches and no confirmed targets destroyed in US Navy service, though a large number of kills were claimed by Iranian F-14s during the Iran–Iraq War. The USAF F-15 Eagle had responsibility for overland combat air patrol duties in Operation Desert Storm in 1991, primarily because of the onboard F-15 IFF capabilities. The Tomcat did not have the requisite IFF capability mandated by the JFACC to satisfy the rules of engagement to utilize the Phoenix capability at beyond visual range. The AIM-54 was not adopted by any foreign nation besides Iran, or any other US armed service, and was not used on any aircraft other than the F-14.
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.
An AMRAAM can pull 40g at 15,000ft.