Dont try to retract.. “Saying paint is off because of low quality labor/design”, wow 🙂 funny..

Don’t put words in my mouth, where did I say it was a design fault? Back it up please.

Who said anything about design fault? Stop being so defensive man!

I was more interested in what those marks implies in terms of inlet structure.

As I said, no use in ordering ANOTHER two engine fighter for the IAF.

http://paralay.iboards.ru/download/file.php?id=12050&mode=view

Hmm, some of the superb-finish paint came off apparently, so that forward inlet section moves I guess?

Yes, I have also read about the increase in Russian/Indian components of the avionics suit with each batch..though from the start it was by no means an “Israeli” avionics suit as some have claimed.

The canard was previously added to shift the A/C forward to help supersonic trim because the new and massive radar makes the flanker too nose heavy. There are side-benefits such as added lift, agility and pitch control authority but they come at a cost of extra weight and drag.

Apparently the Russians have been doing a very good job making better radars these days, they have got the CG back where it was in the original Flanker design, and let the canard go.

It hasn’t got much to do the the TVC, IMHO.

Well original Su-27 without canards has N-001 which weighed 575 Kilograms, Bars from canard MKI was over 600kg. Canardless Su-35 has Irbis, but I have trouble finding any source that actually specifies how much its weight is less than Bars, if at all. Su-35 with canards was supposed to get N-011M, but no way the hefty Irbis-E antenna (there is more to radar weight than just antenna ofc) weighs less.

I assure you the IAF will not get T-50s, but FGFAs.

They will likely be very similar at the end of the day.