Pede

Yes please! Wish we had the Pakistani ones for the JF17.

6000 kts is approximately mach 10, so yes, that would be accurate.

I meant because you used the term CEP which is for ballistic trajectories and not for weapons with active terminal guidance because precision guided weapons don't have a normal distribution.

So not the anti-ship version then?

Master arm on, laser set to on, uncage Shkval, lock a target, select outboard pylons, align pylon with Shkval on the hud, hold weapons release, weapon impacts, make sure the laser timer is gone, lock another target and repeat. Those timers for laser guided weapons are usually a safeguard to prevent burning out the laser so I try to pay attention to them, and I'm not a good enough pilot to fire off on vihkr right after the other so the laser gets a few seconds break before I fire again. I do however burn out the TPOD in the JF17 quite regularly by firing right after my last weapon hit the target repeatedly, but I'm a much better Jeff pilot than I am a helo pilot.

Are you rippling off your vikhrs one after the other in manual mode? I've only burned my laser out twice and that was with KH25's.

Vikhrs will still technically fire however they won't guide. Theoretically you could try to use them as unguided rockets this way, but it might be better to find the nearest farp/airfield instead.

I have actually never tried this; I generally just go home if I burn out my laser. However it is always a good idea to put your Vikhrs into manual mode because in auto it will artificially limit how far you can fire.

With Vihkrs you don't need to switch from your laser rangefinder to your laser designator. Leaving it in rangefinder mode will generally prevent you from burning it out. Also the laser/shkval "reset" switch can be helpful if you run into issues in flight.

Should be self explanatory, UV-26 is capable of utilizing both chaff and flare cartridges so chaff should be an option.

My mistake, they overhauled the flight model so that the api could be applied to it, but the api implementation hasn't actually occurred yet.

Since we're being cheeky, technically a phased array has a larger effective area of antenna than a planar array because the elements are more densely packed together due to the usage of phase shifters but I'm guessing you didn't know that. I'm guessing you probably also didn't know that modern planar arrays actually feature a number of antennae elements to create a unidirectional beam and cut down on sidelobes which directly translates into greater fidelity. This is important because sidelobes can generate clutter meaning it is easier for a target to fall into the notch filter. So no, the radius of the antenna does not play a large role in the maximum range of the radar, which is why the APQ-120 on the F4E has dramatically shorter range than the APG-68 despite being similar in size and the antenna on the APQ-120 being significantly larger.

Can being operative word. There are a plethora of different antenna designs. The types of antennas on early aircraft radars are very very different from ones today even within the same type of radars. For instance the F14 and JF17 both have mechnaically scanned arrays, but if you so much as glance at them you'll see they are very different in design which led to very different capabilities in range and fidelity. Also that entirely disregards singal processing. For instance imagine that the aim120C-5 and SD10 are almost identical in design, the SD10 would have a larger array but if it was worse at processing incoming signals it could be worse or equal to the aim120-c when it comes to fidelity. These are just a few examples, we could create "what if" scenarios infinitely. For a more in depth explanation of why bigger doesn't necessarily equal better, MIT has a 6 hour lecture on YouTube on radar that you may find helpful.

It definitely could, but without actually knowing exactly what is inside the missile we're just speculating. Saying it's newer is meaningless because it wasn't designed by the same people, or even the same country. They could've identified design flaws present in other fox 3 missiles and gone an entirely different direction, or since it is China's first indigenous fox 3, made their own design flaws. Missiles are complex systems and without knowing their exact design and the designs of the systems within, it's just speculation.

There's a lot more to it than that though. It would be a mistake to assume that the SD10 and Aim120c5 have identical signal processing and power in their arrays. Potentially the SD10 could be more sensitive, but without very specific information we can only speculate.