Aft sector is definitely better, serated 2 d nozzles, crossection faceting reminscent of X 32. No rounded curves such as Pakfa prototype to ruin rear aft sector stealth. Broad nose should generate alot of lift clearly MFI influence. 2 seater is significant, perhaps seen as fighter bomber from the outset?

Preliminary Analysis, PakFa , T/ Su 50.

First impressions….A Ray tracing approach to stealth not having a supercomputer and RCS prediction programmes at hand…

Clearly a VLO design. Shaping appears robust in X band, L band and probably S band in front and side quaters. Facets are large in the order of over 1 meter which satisfy these frequencies.
In the VHF band side on its flat profile should give it very good RCS versus F 22 / F 35 dominated by large if canted tails. Rear quadrant RCs appears disappointing with a clear emphasis on maneouvrability over YF 23 style aft sector facets to which the design clearly has been influenced. Cockpit canopy bow a disappointment but canted. Planform has more lobes than classic 4 lobe YF 23 layout but Lerxes will generate greater maneouvrability at high AOA and ability to dynamically control direction of lerx airflow clearly an innovation intended to work with 3d nozzles and total vehicle management / control surface scheduling system (a technology pioneered in the preceding rival MFI project).

Planform:

Clearly a hybrid between the Yf 22 and the Yf 23 this design appears to combine the best features of both, much as the Su 27 Flanker incorporated the best lessons of the teen generation that preceded it. Wing planform appears F 22 optimised for supercruise but with all moving butterfly tails an attempt to wring out maximum control authority from tails deliberately sized to reduce supercruise drag and side RCS spikes much as the Northrop Grumman McDonnell Douglas JSF contender utilised butterfly tails to reduce weight and reduce tail size increasing range. Overall crossection appears to be YF 23 influenced to presumably take a advantage of volume and RCS advantages inherent to a flatted diamond (in crossection) design. Forward fuselage appears to blend F35 cockpit canopy integration with the Yf 23 moldline presumably to maximise visibility from the upper half of the diamond crossection unlike the F 22 and Yf 23 that seated canopy moldlines far further up.

Operational Factors:

Clearly the Russians sought the range and volumetric advantages inherent of the Northrop design but without the limitations of this design in maneouvrability. Given the size and reputed loadout of 10 missiles, a Yf 23 design would be a logical choice. Likewise in regards to the nose and tail, the T 50 can be seen as an “2010 update” on the YF 23 concept integrating 3D nozzles for maneouvrability at the expense of aft sector RCS, a similar approach to that taken by the F 35 with its circular nozzles (driven by Stovl and weight saving factors). As such like the F 35 a small narrow lobe in the aft RCS sector may exist. Note in the much lauded VHF band this may even be true of the F 22. Other examples of this “update” include some very F 35 reminiscent shaping solutions in the front assembly and a willingness to try the umproven small tail concept proposed by McDonnell Douglas Grumman Northrop in their JSF contender and later X 36 demonstrator. Unwilling to leave the concept of supermaneuvrability we see some curious nods to Russian obsession with post stall combat; namely a moveable lerx lip above the intakes and integration of 3 d nozzles on a 5th generation design, a first.

Conclusion: A very Russian response to the requirements of range, large loadouts and low RCS performance leveraging the many RCS solutions proposed and / or utilised by the U.S.

You have no ideas what you’re about i’m sorry to say, the US are designwise MUCH more conservative than europe, bar the stealth features (including supercruise).

Sure they are lol, designing aircraft with post stall maneouvrability in a faceted configuration whilst employing thrust vectoring AND chines that act like canards to move center of lift forward at supersonic speeds (as well as enhance controllability) with a continously changing cambered wing shape is SOO much less advanced than sticking a canard on a jet.

The most inovative fighter design they produced was turned down i.e F-23 and close scrutiny reveals that the main SIGNIFICANT difference between F-35 and the european aircrafts is electric Actuators (ully FBW controls).

Close scrutiny? By what? Your eyes? F 35 has completely integrated electronics (only 20-30 million lines of code) that are digital throughout (How is Captor more advanced?) and designed for upgrade via programming rather than hardware. (Buy yourself a book on electronics)
Yet even the conventional jet (F22) is more advanced than European products which proves my point…

For ther reat it’s either repackaged existing technologies (even with some extra like DAS or with LESS but a hell of a sci-fi look EOTS) several generations of AESA radars when europe went through developement of 2 or 3 only…

Please inform yourself…

I could say the same for you but I stick to facts instead…

The rest is not so hot, once you wash out the “commercials” effect…

I’m not going to bash up Typhoon design again, so let’s stick to other FACTS.

Typhoon suffers from europe’s “US Buber Alles” syndrome. 🙁 Results; development of upgraded versions suffers.

Rafale D for “Discreet” WAS the original Rafale, the C01 first to roll out, its features were not abandoned at all to the exeption of (perhaps) more performance-restricting inlets, the rest was simple developed to be viable for production at lower cost (RAM paint extc.)

You may find it was going to be much more optimised , I don’t have the link anymore.

Rafale D wasn’t structuraly or aerodynamicaly different from the other production aircraft, it was a pre-production aircraft.

Only the protypes were the same; Dassault did consider making major changes .

The breakthrough you’re thinking of simply didn’t exist in europe at the time and these features couldn’t be part of their design, furtermore there wasnt any real requierement for full stealth, while there is for the next generation.

An excuse. Stealth existed since mid 90s when Eurofighter was still at the design stages; look at the differences between YF 22 and F22, the Europeans COULd have integrated the technogies during their long development timescales if there was the will…

And at an aerodynamic level i regard all european delta-canards as more advanced and comparatively performant designs, stick a resized TVCed F-119 in them and they’ll turn circles around the Raptor…
http://oea.larc.nasa.gov/PAIS/Partners/F_22.html

REALLY? Chines forbody lift is more advanced and I have yet to see Eurofighter or Rafale show any post stall maneouvrability features in their designs. (Chining, larger tails etc…)

Eurofighter and Rafale demonstrate above all else a European unwillingness to be innovative at the requirements stage (no steakth, supercruise etc, even the german post stall concept eas largely abandoned). Structurally both are impressive but a failure to integrate full stealth or redesign to achieve this, a certain unwillingness to invest in revolutionary technologies (aforementioned stealth, advanced turbofan, turbojet technology, AESA) means the 2 aircraft are as good as they could ever be.

Sadly the Europeans COULD have done better. Rafale in integrating the RBE2 was far more advanced than Eurofighter and its Captor and Rafale with its limited faceting and v shape inlets certainly is innovative planformwise. I remember there were plans to make RAFALE D which was a redesign to involve far more stealth but it was abandoned as unneccesary, I never recall Eurofighter being in a position to undertake a full redesign. Rafale with sharpened chines, canted tails and a more chined nose COULD be made more stealthy but it comes down to cost. The Europeans have always chosen to match advances but don’t fund breakthrough research hence their designs trailing the pack compared to the U.S for instance.

While I do not have the time to do a detailed debunking of Kopp’s radar studies now… I will point you to another man’s debunking of his Flanker study. What does this show?

It shows how badly Kopp does his research and the lengths he goes to to deceive his readers.

But, on a quick note, here are several discrepancies with Kopp’s radar study.

1. He used photos to do a RCS study!! He does not have a real 3D model of the F-35.

2. He only used a few sectional cross-section measurements to make his point.

3. He completely discounts ECM, RAM, and structural materials in his study.

I am sure there are others, but I just wanted to show the biggest problems I have with the report after reading it.

That DEBUNKING was hilarious. It established a primary assumption that the Aim 120D was longer ranged than the R 27ER giving a western airctaft 1st shot advantage. Obviously that “analyst” forgot to mention that a long burn R 77 is on the horizon as is the new Novator missile designed with the Indians. Even more amusingly, said analyst then goes on to postulate aesas in a jamming role, strange since there is no real funding for this capability in place at all, its just radar manufacturers speculating at this point. So vs a Su 35, no, a Western jet won’t get 1st shot unless meteor outranges the Novatar missile, likewise a ramjet R 77 is likely available within a few years of the Aim 120D service entry and certainly the novator missile and ram jet R 77 before F 35 entry (especially with its problems and delays in early development).

Such a debiunking is just one set of assumptions vs another. Kopps are more realistic for a 2013 timeframe.

The truth is we won’t know the truth for 20 years…

The Rand report was more whitewashed than debunked. I believe the error lay in extrapolating the F 35’s performance into a simulation that did not really mention it. However it did address classified capabilities hence its classified nature.