A showcase how semantic beats logic.

No it is a showcase on how you claimed to see similiarities between the AGAT and SD-10 seekers when I know for certain you never saw the SD-10 seeker. Because those pictures were never released. Your “logic” is based wholly on fictitious “external similiarities” that you assumed or made up.

We are both in the same situation by that. You put all your faith into the dementi of AGAT and Louyang and I into the findings of Jane’s.

Jane’s is actually reporting that the SD-10 has nothing to do with AGAT and they quoted AGAT on this. You are using a previous Janes postition that Janes itself no longer supports.

I think, I am not the onlyone, when seeing a “new” Chinese weapons-system becomes the impression, I have that seen somewhere before. 😉

I’m sure you’re not the only one but why does that matter? 🙂

I’m pointing out that outright lying about how you’ve seen similarities between the Louyang SD-10 seeker and the AGAT seeker when there isn’t even a picture of the SD-10 seeker released is not acceptable. Especially now that AGAT has termed rumors of its involvement as “fantasy.”

Now, if you were actually serious about looking at a foreign origin, you would find far more linkage to US and Western AAMs from the SD-10’s planform and history. The first Chinese BVR program began in the early 1960s from a Sparrow example. By the time AMR-1 ARH seeker head came out in 1996, China had 20 years of experience with bvr.

Don’t spread falsehoods like SD-10’s AGAT seeker, Sens. I have no problem with you believing that SD-10 is copied somewhere but don’t use pretense and assumptions to prove your point 😉

🙂
See Su-27SM no 305 at Zuhai about that.
Why ignores China that option? What is your opinion about that?

Now what does a plane that is not even in the Russian air force yet, never mind the Chinese one, has to do with AGAT and the SD-10?

I do not have that special Janes at hand. Maybe someone can post a scan.

This was posted by Google, one of our mods. We had a long discussion here in this forum.

So far I can not confirm the link by two good pics to compare that side by side.

Now, Sens, why would you tell people that there are external similarities between the AGAT and SD-10’s Louyang seekerhead if you’ve never even seen the SD-10’s?

You can’t pull this trick with someone who knows that picts of the SD-10’s seekerhead has never been released 😉

Otherwise you can not show the both too, to deny the claim of common heritage of seeker head.

There is not evidence of common heritage to begin with.

If you make a claim of relations denied by the people involved then you need to put up evidence. And saying that you’ve seen “external similiarities” between the two is not what I call good evidence. Especially when there are no pictures of the SD-10’s seeker 😉

Sens, both AGAT and Louyang has denied it and AGAT called the claim of an AGAT SD-10 seeker “hot air” and “fantasy.” It’s like they are talking directly to you 🙂

If it is really true another question arose. Why did China waste money for an inferior R-77, when the better indiginous SD-10 is around the corner? :confused:

Tell me how you are going to crowbar a Chinese AAM into a Russian system like the SU-30MKK 🙂

The only plane in the PLAAF that can fire the R-77 is the MKK.

Now ask me why China needs to import the even more inferior R-27 if they have the R-77?

Because the Su-27SK could not fire the R-77 and its lone bvr weapon is the R-27.

Externial similarities of seeker-head with AGAT are coincidences as always. 🙂

Show me a picture of the SD-10 seekerhead and the AGAT one and tell me the similarities.

And I know you haven’t seen the SD-10 seekerhead because I haven’t seen it.

Never pretend to state a fact based on pretense. There are people who would that you’re pretending, Sens 😉

Sens, this is about AGAT. Not your off-the-cuff “hot air” and fantasy” about the SD-10 AGAT seeker that AGAT itself has denied.

I’m just pointing out your “facts” such as the AGAT seeker in the SD-10 has no place in this particular discussion 🙂

At least a claim for an unknown enviroment. :confused:
Which mode for 90 km? 😉

Will this Agat seeker “produced” in China too? (SD-10)

Hmmm, Sens, is it your habit to continue to spread false information after we’ve discussed the facts?

Post by google (19th August 2004, 15:57) concerning Jane’s on AGAT and the SD-10. Richard Fisher already report Louyand (SD-10’s developer) denying this in 2002.

AGAT denies any knowledge of China utilizing their seeker. From tomorrow’s edition of Jane’s Missiles and Rockets.

“Recent press reports on China’s new SD-10 radar-guided air-to-air missile have commented on the similarity between the front section of the Chinese missile and that of the Vympel R-77/RVV-AE (AA-12 ‘Adder’). This has led to suspicions that the seeker of the Chinese missile is based on the Russian weapon’s AGAT 9B-1348 active-radar seeker, or is a customised 9B-1348 variant developed for China by AGAT.

Export contracts have conditions of confidentiality and information can only be released by the agreement of both sides, commented Akopyan. However, the Institute is not working with the Chinese, he said, dismissing the concept that the SD-10 has an AGAT seeker as “hot air” and “a fantasy of reporters”.

For some reason, Belarus, came into my mind. But the Frogfoots were almost certainly flown by some kind of east european mercs (which is becoming common trademark of African air forces that are actually engaged.)

Here’s an earlier BBC story on the mercenaries having field day in the Ivory Coast and fighting on the side of Gbago.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/2909769.stm

Ivory Coast mercenary warning

The United Kingdom has warned a UK company against recruiting mercenaries to work in Ivory Coast.

. . .

Mercenaries from eastern Europe, South Africa and Angola have been accused of fighting on the side of the government since September’s military uprising against the government of President Laurent Gbagbo.