This is true- I wonder if the ALR-94 can also be used as a passive radar, rather than just an emitter locator? This could certainly provide some anti-stealth capability.
It seems that you prefer to rather play with words instead of delievering any meaningful comeback regarding techique details.
I guess thats another typical feature of an typical aerodynamicist-wanna-be.
The link I provided basically told you that very simple concept of lifting-body or body that creates the lift (whatever words you want to play with, LOL)And yes, lifting-body just means a body where generates lift, don’t dodge, and yes, NASA has built many subsonic, under-atomsphere, low mach lifting-body demonstrator where the aircraft has NO WINGS and the lift is created by the lifting-body.
So don’t waste my time, your amaterism has betrayed your wanna-be-ness, so we all know you just get pwned, I have no time to waste on you on word-playing where I am sure you are quite good at.
A lifting body is an aerodynamic body where lift is provided almost exclusively by the fuselage and wing area is minimized or nonexistent. Plenty of aircraft generate “body lift” but that does not make them lifting bodies, as they still primarily generate lift via their wings. The Wikipedia article you cited could have told you this.
Thanks. Ran across this:
LPI radar: fact or fiction
http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpl/freeabs_all.jsp?arnumber=1635166
and this:
Identification of LPI Radar signals by higher order spectra and neural network techniques
http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpl/freeabs_all.jsp?arnumber=4786788
Looks like I have some reading to do. 🙂
The F-22 fanbois were told some time ago that the “LPI” radar is a load of bull.
I’m intrigued- do you have a source for this?
Strange, when I go the pages 9 and 8 of this thread, I get this alert message :
“Avertissement : Visiter ce site peut ĂŞtre prĂ©judiciable Ă votre ordinateur !
Le site Web Ă l’adresse forum.keypublishing.co.uk contient des Ă©lĂ©ments provenant du site http://www.fyjs.cn qui semble hĂ©berger des logiciels malveillants. Ces derniers peuvent nuire Ă votre ordinateur ou agir Ă votre insu. Le simple fait de visiter un site hĂ©bergeant ce type de logiciels peut infecter votre ordinateur.”Basically, it says that the Key forum has some malwares from the site http://www.fyjs.cn !!!!!
Is this serious or not ?
I get the same Chrome error (except it’s not in French). Some of the images linked to reside on fyjs.cn. Apparently google has noted that malware has been distributed from fyjs in the past. However, as the only things loaded from the site when you are visiting this forum are images, and you are not accessing the fyjs pages, there shouldn’t be an opportunity for harmful pages to load. I checked the page source, and the only thing that came up was a single .jpg stored on the site, which shouldn’t be a security risk.
At least I hope so.
I could be wrong, but I’m certain enough to be reading this forum anyway. Anyways Chrome + decent antivirus + Windows 7 (or even better a well patched Linux distro) and you’re probably safe, especially since you’re not actually visiting the fyjs site directly. Just don’t go to any actual web pages on fyjs.cn.
Wrt the weapons bay- Matej and Otaku nailed it down over on the Secret Projects forum.
I don’t know if SP allows direct linking of images on their site, but I doubt it is an issue.

Thanks, guys.
Curiously, the doors seem to lack the panel alignment on the PAK-FA. Then again, the images aren’t the clearest so it is hard to tell. They have the sawtoothing on their other panels- it’s hard to imagine that they missed it on their weapons bays.
first flight of F-15 was several years before that defect of Mig-25
The F-15 was designed as a response to the Mig-25 though. Based on satellite images, US intelligence suggested that the Mig-25 was some sort of “super-fighter.” After Belenko’s defection they found out it was more of a high speed interceptor.
Since when has this become a political forum?
I apologize. It wasn’t meant as a political statement. I’ve cleaned up my post and I’ll try to stay on topic in the future.
Anyways, it might be interesting to create a “new” F-22. A lot of analysis goes into aircraft design, as we all know. My understanding is that the F-35 uses RAM built into its structure, rather than extensive coatings, making the a/c easier to maintain. Perhaps this idea could be applied to a new F-22 as well?
Structural RAM like that used on the F-35 I think is usually some sort of CFRP absorber with frequency selective surfaces. This would probably change things like composite fibre angles, which would mean having to examine structural and aeroelastic effects in addition to signature and emissions management, which would in turn could mean having to make slight FCS changes. My understanding is also that absorber analysis is usually done after optimizing shaping, which could also mean a less than optimal match between the new absorber and the F-22 shaping.
Avionics could be updated- fortunately they are already doing this with the APG-77- updating it to use newer T/R technology from the APG-81. There is space for the AIRST, perhaps the EODAS from the F-35 could be placed there? Once again, you still have to watch for emissions and signature management issues.
Then the production line for the F-22 would likely have to be restarted, and a supply chain for the new parts would have to be set up. And by the time everything is all said and done, you would have a warmed over 1990’s design, and still have an expensive aircraft. It might have make more sense to do a clean sheet design- something like NGAD perhaps?
And I stopped reading right there.
The J-20 is still in a fairly early stage and next to nothing about it is known. It’s not even using the final engines as far as we can tell.
Modern combat aircraft are incredibly complex and are the sum of a myriad of systems. What are the specs of its radar? What passive detection and ECM systems does it use? What is the sensor fusion like? We can’t even decide what role the aircraft is built to perform. Strike? Air superiority? Basing an article on a few pictures, rumors, and a handful of vague official statements is absurd. Comparisons are somewhat moot at this point, I think.
Its unrealistic to think the US will maintain the same relative strength as before if China continues its present growth.
I quite agree, but China still has a ways to go before it catches up. But then again, perhaps we are making an apples to oranges comparison. China’s military and foreign policy doctrines could be vastly different from those of the US.
You need to post a link to the source for a news story.
This is the first picture I’ve seen of this radar. Thanks, MSphere. 🙂
Does anyone know where to find more info on this radar? For example range/modes? Also as I recall, there was a RAND report on the F-2 which basically stated that the reason the USA pushed so hard to base the F-2 on the F-16 was so they could involve US companies and gain access to Japanese technology such as composite wingboxes and the F-2 AESA. Swerve, I think you posted it here once.
Sooooooo pretty! 🙂
I opened that up, and I was surprised to see my current desktop wallpaper. It is a good picture.
if wikipedia is correct, for 2008:
– europe: ~$400 000 000 000
– USA: ~$620 000 000 000not the same budget by far in my book:
In addition, since there is only one American military to provide for, many things are not duplicated across multiple countries the way they are in Europe.
Gripen uses a British AESA.
It does now.
As I recall Saab wanted to integrate the RACR radar on the Gripen, and the USA refused to let this happen in order to push the F-35. Or something to that effect.
http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/the-dewline/2010/12/wikileaks-shows-us-played-aesa.html
Scummy, huh?