I didnt know about this Riccioni guy but seems he came with the f-16 idea??, dont get me wrong, but is interesting that i have always thought that the f-16 is/was the most successful design in the US air force in the last 30 years -despite all their problems-….this guys seems to know what he is talking about

One can use semi recessed or fully recessed carriage which is ok for drag and for frontal radars like those of fighters however whith the Ground based radars its effect would be greatly reduced so it is much better to go with full bays if STEALTH is a priority that you really value and want your 5th gen fighter to have as a primary requirment .

I dont get it, anyway the top/underneath surfaces are too big to “hide” it, unless the plane is well aligned to the source, of course there are designs that would need an internal bay

I understand that radar has it expansive properties, but if the module is well designed, and the bombs/load have a good arragment the difference of the return wouldnt be important, of course a complete sealed bay would be “stealther” but again is about these fetichisms against a practical design ( cargo load, simplicity, etc..)

You know, is funny how you guys grossly overrate the “stealth” stuff, when the USAF chosen the less stealthy for it 5th generation fighter, and a very conventional design (a modified f-15).

I want to see the IR signature of an f-117/b-2 at day…….a flying black body

How u beat it, you dont need to be Einstein to figure out that, a search radar, and active homming missile, i wasnt surprised when i discovered that VHF AESA russian radar that use the same concept, and that concept was how the 117 was downed over serbia

… FAIL.

man dont try to be like me…you cant, accept that 😉

I thought the assistance was beyond any doubt ever since.. For hard cash Israelis have no compunction to sell anything – even if US are providing help, they shall not expect grattitude or loyalty in return.

To have some data from Israel sources -which i really doubt-, dont turn the j-10 into a copy of the lavi, even dont mean that they got some very useful data to being incorporated to the j-10 project, maybe some basics on FBW and unstable design…, that IF they got info from the lavi

Each airframe has an unique FBW design, the j-10 airframe has a closer configuration to the EF , than with the Lavi…that means the j-10 is a EF copy, or a Rafale copy?

I really dont get why you guys compare the pakfa with the f-23, when the f-23 has some basic layouts of the su-27, if the russians did chose the su27 as a base, then is obvious that in some aspects would look like the 23

Can some of u guys elaborate a bit more about these L-band Aesa modules?, im still a bit shocked by that…

Dont understand why u guys love to quote pilots…there should be reasons, these could be technical reasons, most probably these things were already counsulted, and the engineers just said no..

Again, isnt like the pilots just wake up one day saying “nice day to break a record”