NOLA

Old picture. Camo is like seen here: http://www.knaapo.ru/rus/gallery/events/combat/su-35/su-35s.wbp

Intake ramps are nothing new... It didnt make MiG-25 stealth. There will be another device inside of the intake dealing with hiding of compressor blades.

I wasnt aware that raptor could fly backwards. Is this Iranian technology?

Issue is that the patent doesn't talk about any particular position, so extracting 0.1 as frontal from it is nonsensical. Patent clearly speaks of average. It can be average in terms of position only (fixed frequency) or average compared to frequency (position fixed, lets say direct side only). Or of course both at same time. For example, if we take first example, and i am just inventing numbers here. Frequency is fixed at X-band but position vs radar is changing. RCS direct front: 0.001 RCS direct side: 0.5 RCS from directly behind: 2 RCS from directly under: 1 Average for those numbers is 0.875 m^2. If i had just 0.875 i wouldn't be able to know RCS from direct front. And that is the situation with 0.1-1 number.

Ahem. http://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=1978041&postcount=1928

And it was one of the sexiest airliners ever. http://www.airliners.net/search/photo.search?aircraftsearch=Tupolev%20Tu-114&distinct_entry=true

No, it is not irrelevant. One can compare time from prototype to IOC. IOC for T-50 should be around 2017. Where did you get 0.1m^2 frontal from?

The requirment was 1.6 if my memory doesn't fail me. 1.7 is commonly known number, and i believe an USAF paper refers to supercruise of F-22 as 1.7+. As to "how old" F-22 is, i think it is best to compare oranges to oranges. "Real" F-22 didn't start with YF-22, but with first actual F-22 prototype that flew in 1997. T-50-1 is NOT on YF-22 stage. It is on F-22 prototype stage. So, F-22 is 16.5 years old and T-50 is 4 years old at this point.

No, that info is completely wrong. http://www.aviaport.ru/conferences/users/21479/posts/8.html What you posted is translation of recent Butowski article, who is very accurate and knowledgeable 99% of the time. In that article he had several mistakes tho, including the part you quoted. I have a feeling to certain degree he based that part on this: http://vif2ne.ru/nvk/forum/archive/2524/2524609.htm Which was fishy and with mistakes when it came out, and shortly afterwards proved to be utterly and completely wrong.

-7 will be static frame. I wouldn't hold the breath. It is very possible stage two will use same round exhaust, possibly with tooths at best.

It is just you. What? It has been with TVC all the time, since first prototype.

Also, i completely forgot about it :doh:, but patent itself is saying exactly what i was talking about: http://www.fips.ru/cdfi/fips.dll/ru?ty=29&docid=2502643 Some recent pics:

Yes, mathematics stay the same indeed, but American's and Europeans like to cite the lowest figure; which is of course head on at an optimal frequency. I believe Russians tend to use an average number for the plane instead of frontal. And yup, RCS wary wildly depending on frequency. It did with F-117 for example, and it was designed with a particular radar in mind. Northrop's design had overall lower average* RCS. *average as in vs frequencies, not vs frame position against radar waves.

That is some pretty bad graphics. How the F is MiG-29 supposedly 3 square meters while Tu-160 is 15? And Russians measure RCS differently from US/EU method.

I don't think i remember pictures of either tbh. Just text about testing. Still have the pictures? AE = R-77, pretty much. SD however is modernized.

Which is fine and dandy: But that is technically RVV-SD. Discussion is whether R-77 have been stocked/operational. It goes without saying that RVV-SD will be bought for Su-35S, Su-30SM and so on. Everyone is aware of that. And hey, they have fired them in Akhtubinsk too... Before all the recent new frames, there was only two frames in RuAF capable of firing R-77, atleast on the paper: MiG-29 9.13S and Su-27SM.

"That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence." - Christopher Hitchens. And how exactly is it insane to ask for proof? I have asked you, you haven't shown me a shred of evidence. I can claim that there is fairies and lepricons; And produce no evidence for this claim. And if you asked me about evidence for my claims of fairies and lepricons existing, you would be the "insane" one? What kind of backwards logic is that? Anyway, i am done with this discussion in this thread so i won't answer more here.

That is completely irrelevant for several reasons: 1: We are talking about R-77. 2: I didnt ask for a full load scenario picture, which is of course by far rare, for any X missile. Carrying one missile =/= carrying full load of them. Another fallacy. Why wouldn't they carry R-77 around is much better question. They DO afterall carry around R-33, R-60, R-27, R-73. So how come is R-77 magically not carried around? I could display evidence for every missile above, and yet you cant display evidence for R-77. Anyway, to go back to the thread. Some excellent MiG-31 refueling shots here: http://www.avsim.su/forum/topic/57345-%D0%BF%D0%B5%D1%80%D0%BC%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%B8%D0%B5-%D1%81%D0%BF%D0%BE%D1%82%D1%82%D0%B8%D0%BD%D0%B3%D0%B8/page-228#entry2545927 And here: http://forums.airforce.ru/foto-video/2911-mig-31-a-48/#post104744

Extremely simple evidence; At the very least a picture of a RuAF* plane with R-77. Surely that can't be hard, can it now? :) *RuAF =/= company owned test plane. Many can't grasp that.

We already had a lengthy discussion about R-77's use in RuAF. The pro-use-of-R-77-in-RuAF had ZERO evidence whatsoever about it actually being in service. All talk, zero proof. So until such proof surfaces; this is a finished discussion.

As to that MiG-31 crash: It is repair plant that are being lazy/corrupt/moronic again. Apparently two Su-27's have crashed due to their "repairs". This makes it third aircraft they have killed off.

Drugs are bad. :) And last i checked aubergine =/= black. And thank heaven it is painted properly now in proper camo and proper stars and not that utterly horrible POS aubergine color.

I think (but not sure) i have seen more than two pictures of operational Su-34's with Kh-31's. None the less, one would think the crowd that was so certain that RuAF has/uses R-77's would have coughed evidence up by now.

I know missiles has a certain number of flight numbers. Doesn't explain the fact that they have never been seen hung on actual RuAF aircrafts.

Bit silly to have missiles in service which pilots apparently never train with... And as said, no reason to keep them secret.