Search results

I mean don't trust on me too, maybe I forgot the details, BUT this looks really similar, also the landing gear and TEBER-82

Everything you have said is wrong. 1-Stealth is not sacrificed fro manoeuvrability 2-Engine outlet not buried≠not stealth 3-WTF is wrong with intake? There is a S duct inside, the intake is absolutely not a problem Surface not being smooth is probably related into rendering

Another thing to add is munitions loaded into pylons look like Teber-82, you might say L-JDAM but their front fins are not that big

GUYS PLEASE CALM DOWN. THERE IS NOTHING RIDICULOUS ABOUT THE PICTURE!! I don't get why you are so keen on them showing pylons? Didn't we also see them in KE illustrations? They are OPTIONAL, I mean can't you see that big a*s internal weapons bay? This thing really looks similar to what I saw...

it is optional, as you can see it also has a big internal bay

There are lot more Pantsirs destroyed by TB-2

Şimşek?

I mean they are not even Su-57s, they are T-50s...

Oh boy here we go again..!

Why are we trying to replace F-16s tho? Just replace most of its job, literally using it just as a BVR platform would be relieving for our F-16s.

i think it just didn't show up on FR24 until it was at/around the border

Can you please send me the link?

Yes, or just VERY crude "let's see where the target is"

Probably, maybe RWR or Datalink emitters just like F-35/Su-57

My concern is not the canopy but intake, it looks like a DSI with your outlines

i will try to find a better angle

Sorry can't see

Good question, it is something I don't think that would be hard to nationalise if it gets embargoed, so not really a problem I suppose.

Air defence

And with chances of? Because if it was really effective, they wouldn't be thinking on ground based SM-6