This type of aircraft RAM was first patented in 2008, I believe it to be the forerunner of the one destined for the T-50.

Its good to see you can tone your posts down from saying categorically that these materials will “definitely be used on component x on the pak fa” like you always have done in the past to “I believe” they will.

Sorry for offence, but the former really made your constant “hey there’s a new patent for PAK FA materials” posts seem like childish fantasy.

The mere presence of a patent accompanied with a general statement from the scientists such as “this could be used on aircraft” does not equate to “this material is a godsend, shaping is now obsolete and this is now used in the manufacture of the PAK FA’s inlet radar blocker”, I’m glad you realise this now like every other rational person.

Too bad the Serbs didn’t know the ole SA-3 wasn’t a threat,
in spite of not being double digit and all that.

Would be interesting to know at what range the Serbs would have been able to engage the F-117 if they had longer range missiles. Probably would have only been 8 miles anyway, like the ones they hit with.

Running low frequency on the small aperture of the Sa-3 would have made the aperture’s directive gain absolutely woeful. Though they may have seen the F-117 coming a long way off, their beamwidth would have been too massive to be able to engage.

Being shot at by a battery 8 miles away is not so humiliating, even today’s stealth aircraft are designed to only be stealthy to SAM’s outside 30km or more. In the case of the PAK FA’s side aspect, roughly 190km according to APA, ie. fodder for anything on the network.

The EW systems onboard the Eurocanards are miles ahead of the US fighters ‘s systems

In what way, exactly? Receiver counts, agility…etc. Give some detail so you don’t just look like the flapping mouth you come across as, or are uninsightful generalisations all you have? Sources…go.

– There are no MiG-17s flying anymore in Cuba, the last ones were withdrawn from use as “trainers” in late 1980’s!

Better tell the IISS to pick up their game then.

EQUIPMENT BY TYPE
AIRCRAFT 45 combat capable (179 stored)
FTR/FGA 31: 2 MiG-29 Fulcrum; 1 MiG-29UB; 16 MiG-
23 ML Flogger; 4 MiG-23MF; 4 MiG-23UM; 4 MiG-21ML;
(in store: 2 MiG-29; 20 MiG-23BN; 4 MiG-23MF; 6 MiG-
23ML; 2 MiG-23UM; 70 MiG-21bis; 28 MiG-21PFM; 30
MiG-21F; 7 MiG-21UM; 4+ MiG-17; 6 MiG-15UTI)

According to them Egypt, Sudan, Tanzania, Bangladesh all flying J-6
Tanzania, North Korea are flying J-5’s

as of 2010…

I was just looking up aircraft types and who has them for the “what’s the oldest combat aircraft in service thread” when I stumbled upon (the first time I’ve noticed it) the NATO naming conventions for Russian aircraft.

These forums don’t like their multiple threads per aircraft so didn’t start a new one. I thought it might be fun in here to take guesses at what the NATO reporting name of the PAK FA will be.

It’ll have to start with “F”, needs to sound a lot different to existing names over radio and NATO never gives cool names to russian aircraft (refer to the poor Ka-25 and Mig-15)

As its a reporting name that gets called when its first encountered, the obvious one that springs to mind for a stealth fighter is “Fu”

Anyone want to try their hand at playing Nostradamus, then come back in 5 years for bragging rights?

Given a dull, overcast day I would highly doubt such shadow effects could result in such sharp, structured shapes on the port if it was a smooth, uniform surface a la ’51’ & ’52’.

I wouldn’t take any of that to the bank just yet.

Taking into account the direction of the sun, side-on and very slightly behind the aircraft and curvature of the APU inlet I say its more likely as follows (could be wrong, will certainly revisit it once better photos are available).

I believe the bottom dark area pointed to by label 1 in the pic above is the sun’s shadow of the small exhaust port at the top of the engine. The shadow is slight enlarged due to hitting a convex surface. This also checks out when looking at its placement on other prototypes. The top dark area pointed to by 1 is possibly the reflection of the same exhaust nozzle, or another shadow from a secondary light source (reflected ambient light off opposite stab). Angle of the front of the inlet may not be right for that though.

Area 2 looks like the reflection of the opposite rudder, complete with black stripe. Angle might be too shallow for that though. Could be something external to the aircraft altogether.

The distinct line pointed to by 3 is the reflection of the top of the engine cowling. The 2 different shades are likely the transition in surface materials. The 2 shades don’t match the color of the 2 materials, but may show the difference in ambient light reflected off them. Could also be the dark section is the shadow from the opposite tail projecting directly onto the APU intake’s surface. Option 3 is that the back of that reflection is lighter because of the reflection of bright light off the left tail onto the engine.

4 is the reflection of some blue sky and 5 possibly some clouds.

In fact, the lighting/shadow conditions probably highlight the shapes. Besides, the visible reflections have blurry edges.

As with all shadows, when objects are closer to the surface their shadow is projected onto, their shadow is sharper. Same goes for reflections onto diffuse surfaces.

We’ll see, would confirm before transferring this directly to the gospel library.

Yes, my background can be applied to this topic. I have worked for a well known European defense giant on ground sensors. My job was not related to R&D rather than to benchmark testing for various applications.. Most notably on future soldier programmes.

So what you’re saying is you have as much insight into classified detection ranges of aircraft IR detection systems as a …. computer operator (computers are on aircraft too you know?)

Noticed your input is at a very high level, not a lot of detail goin on there 🙂

*sigh* next wannabe please….

I’ve never heard anyone call three “several” before now

While everyone’s being pedantic, 3 is actually the very first number that qualifies as being called “several”. Several: More than 2, less than many.