Who cares about ultimate AoA?

The things to look at are:

Maximum sustained turn rate with altitude as well as the speed at that rate.
Sustained roll rate.
Roll response.
Pitch response.
Throttle response (acceleration).

Talking about max AoA as a real barometer of aircraft performance is about as useful as two gays arguing over who has the bigger d_ck. Pointless as it is very unlikely in either case that the subject of argument is ever going to be useful.

Not necessarily- having controllability at high AoA, can contribute to the care free handling qualities that a plane exhibits.

The US tends to be able to ‘persuade’ governments of former Soviet bloc countries to do what it wants them to.

It’s amazing how influential one can be, when the country in question is thankful to not be under Soviet control, and thankful for it.:cool:

Your opinion is baseless without recent evidence.

That’ll be all, “sir”. :rolleyes:

What evidence do you have to counter his claim?

Whatever the number is, it’s certainly larger than the number of stealth aircraft sferrin has flown.

Not if the answer is zero, which is the point he was making.

funny to hear that from you… when you ask for links, you don’t read them (nor even aknowledge them) but just ask for the same link again 5 pages later.. when you state something, you never back it up..

I say that F-35s nozzles are like a beacon for any radar looking at it from behind, for all those metallic blades that you can’t hide back there. What’s more, it will also attract anything IR with the heat generated (you have the report of the navy stating exhaust gas temps of 1700°C). From there on, I say it can’t be stealthy from the rear aspect.

You say F-35 is stealthy from rear aspect? prove it.

What do you suppose the exhaust temperature for any aircraft using full afterburner is, seeing as how you’re using a very specific condition(i.e. verticle landings w/ full A/B).

As for the construction, I wonder if you’d be so kind to provide the materials that are used in the nozzle, internal radar blockers, etc…, seeing as how you’re claiming that LM/USAF are incorrect in their assertions.

Deleted canards from Su-35 was a weight saving measure. A modified control system connected with TVC nozzles took care of the job once canards did. It was quite heavily discussed on militaryphotos few years ago when first slides showing new Su-35 design appeared. There was no mention about RCS having anything to do with that.

As I said, the non-existence of a canard-equipped stealth fighter is by far not a proof of canards being unsuitable for a design like that. The proof is in the pudding, you are right,that is why I don’t understand certain people here pretending they know more than the rest.

The deletion of the canards was to save weight, reduce drag, and to reduce RCS(since one of the Su-35’s objectives was to seriously improve the barn door RCS of earlier variants).

That is exactly as lame reasoning as the one of “sferrin”. I don’t know why USA never went for canard fighter. And I don’t care. Each concept has + and -. I have kindly asked sferrin to provide any evidence about canards spoiling RCS and he answered back with throwing imbeciles around, it’s clear that he has no clue, just like the rest of us. That’s all I need to know.

Three European, one Israeli and one Chinese manufacturer decided to go for canards. They surely had their reasons to do so even if I don’t prefer designs like that (purely aethetically this time)

Have you ever heard the expression, the proof is in the pudding? Sometimes you might need to infer things based upon empirical observations, as you’re likely not going to find open sourced answers to every question about a sensitive subject. You might also note that the Russians deleted canards from the Su-35 and the PAK FA. Hmmm, is that merely a coininkydink?

As for the other designs you mentioned, what were the requirements in the designs? I suspect low observability wasn’t the preeminent one.

well, let’s see by the definition given a little before:

does it have an all aspect stealth? no (look at that huuuge round nozzle in the back)

A huge round nozzle with sawtooth edges, among other LO treatments.