marcos

Now if Hamas got hold of one of those it would really piss off Israel.:D

Everyone has been making like turning performance for the F-35 isn't an issue because HOBS LOAL missiles can pull off any kind of wanker shot, but the truth is that they're not infallible and are more likely to get a kill from a traditional forwards shot. There's no reason to suppose that an engine blade might crack either but that's what you get for dealing with Pratts. There's a reason why the primary fighter sensor has been the radar and there are strong reasons as to why that may change. The most revolutionary aspect of the F-35 is not its stealth or its radar.

Maybe the missile will have a better chance if it doesn't have to do a backwards somersault before heading for the enemy aircraft. And suppose you kill some BVR such that it ends up fair WVR. Suppose being able to detect a rocket at >800 miles with EO also makes it possible to detect stealth aircraft at >100 miles. Think about how far away 800 miles is. Many countries aren't even that wide or long.

HOBS and LOAL provides a huge advantage, but the AIM-9X-2 is not a 100% missile. http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/aim-9x-block-ii-performing-better-than-expected-381569/ Forward shots are probably more likely to succeed than rearward ones. It's also possible to have an evenly matched WVR confrontation without it becoming a furball with smaller numbers. I believe this is why they still design these fighters with manoeuvrability in mind.

Either 12 or 14, depending on whether the Cuda will fit in the AIM-9 bays width-wise.

Not as useless as you might think. I can see why they used them in WWII.:) Rocket Bear.trk

Don't confuse me with you. Seriously, you provide cigarette packet drawings and say they're from Sukhoi. They're not so much of a problem, depending on the angle. But there's a lot of crap going round the internet, so who knows.

What you've posted is a load of rubbish. Protecting the compressor face from radar reflection along the flight line is all well and good, if that's the direction the radar is coming from but that may well not be the case. As shown on your bog-roll schematic, the compressors will provide plenty of radar reflection for a plane coming from just underneath the flight line. Seriously? How is this hidden? Doh! Where are you even getting this trash from?

Lockheed Martin aren't stupid, if there is a problem it's that they're too clever for their own good. Too much attention to profiteering.

My point was that the engines can't possibly start where they're shown on NOLA's images. If you look further back, you'll see that's the point I'm making. The fact that some forum members can believe they're more intelligent than the best minds in the Sukhoi Design Bureau is extraordinary.

Sadly someone has dubbed over the sound with crap music.

My sarcasm obviously bypassed you.:)

The PAK-FA is nearly 20m long. The intakes about 12m. The engines are <5m long, yet somehow they begin just after the start of the intake.:lol: You can draw diagrams on bog-roll all you like but it won't prove anything.

:thumbup: Really?:smilewink: I thought all intakes designed for over Mach 2.4 had about 1ft between the front of the intake and the start of the engine (like this).:lol: Funny thing is that it seems to be in a different position on each of these photoshops. Very near front. Further back.

No. You've provided 2 more pictures from the internet. Russia know that having a visible engine face will not provide stealth. Remember this picture? It was the first one where the engine started appearing. Did PS remove it or add it?

Funny thing is that it was an LP blade.

A-Tenor

Here's another effort using similar principles. http://www.jaxa.jp/projects/aero/sst/data/htt.pdf

1) Because the engine is in the wrong place. 2) The Russians are not completely thick. Anyway. Since you didn't take the photo, yet claimed to have the original, I shall now assume you don't know what you're talking about.

http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/details-emerge-about-lockheeds-cuda-missile-382670/

Not good. Should have selected Rolls-Royce.:lol: http://www.navytimes.com/news/2013/02/dn022213-f35-grounded-again-mil/

I did.:D FWIW most of the high tech equipment on the F-35 is also Northrop Grumman. AN/APG-81 Radar, AN/AAQ-37, EODAS, EOTS etc.