I don`t think it is only political issue. Dimensions of the internal bays may also pose a problem. Much heavier load needs additional strengthening plus you could have issues with CG.

The F-22 can definitely carry 2 JDAM internally + sidewinders in secondary bays. That is exactly the same as the F-35.

There is even the possibility it can carry 2 JDAM + 2 AIM-120 + sidewinders.

That puts it up on F-35.

We don`t know the specific fuel consumption of the 117 engine, but if you look at AL-31FM2, they are much powerful than basic AL-31F, yet they have lower specific fuel consumption.
Sergey Bogdan also stated that 117S engine has less thrust losses at height compared to AL-31F. That way you can cruise at higher altitude where you have less drag which translates to lower fuel consumption.
We also don`t know if the PAK FA is dragier or not than SU-27, but with internal weapon bays we can be quite sure that it has less drag in combat cruise.

Too many unknowns to say of course.

It is pretty safe to say it will have more range than the F-22, its not quite so safe to say it will have more range than Su-27.

Comparing the T-50 aircraft with an American fifth-generation fighter F-22 “Raptor”, he said that our T-50 came later, so all the shortcomings that were identified from the Americans, were taken into account when creating a Russian aircraft.

Interesting.

IMO there are three areas of the F-22 that aren’t ideal, one of which is political.

1. Ongoing maintenance issues.
2. Smaller than ideal fuel fraction/less than ideal range*.
3. Limited A2G capability (the political problem).

*For instance, the MiG-31 can fly faster for further than the F-22, despite the much vaunted supercruise.

Obviously, the 3rd issue is not technical, so can be discarded – if the USAF/LM wanted to solve it, they would.

The 2nd issue, well, since the PAK-FA is supposed to replace the Flanker, one can assume it has a very large fuel fraction. With bigger thirstier engines, that might not translate into more range than the Flanker, but it should be more than the F-22.

The 1st issue… hmmm. Many of the F-22’s problems are surface related, more specifically surface join related, bad joins affecting RCS. The PAK-FA has went with big panels as an attempted fix, there may also have been compromises made for ultimate VLO in an attempt to keep the thing easier to maintain. Which would be a very Russian approach.

To expand further on the last point – if there was a large scale shooting war – yes, in a perfect world, the F-22 would have significantly lower RCS in most situations. However, in the real world, there isn’t always time and facilities to maintain things as well as they might. As a result the F-22 may suffer more and actually have comparable, if not worse RCS than PAK-FA in many situations.

It is mostly speculation on my part – I have no data from either program to back that up. But, I do recall reading multiple reports on F-22 panel fit problems and their effect on VLO properties.

The patent does exist, and supposedly the reason why the ‘stage ii’ engine will have so much more thrust than the 117 is because the square nozzle design will cut its effective output by 10-20 percent.

Those numbers are in the right ballpark (for circular to rectangular nozzles).

The US had long range AG guided weapons at least a decades before Europeans (SLAM ER-250 km, JASSM-370km, JASSM ER 900 km); yet they still invest in F 35.

Oh I wouldn’t say that.

The British were developing stand off munitions in the 50s and fielding them in the 60s…

Could I ask posters to refrain from quoting the clown?

It is adversely affecting the effectiveness of my ignore list. Thanks. 🙂

That would not be his decision to make, it would made by the people paying for the plane. Does Sukhoi’s chief designer have any aerial combat experience?

Aside from the obvious question of… WTF does combat experience have to do with his/her ability to engineer?!?

There is of course the other question of; does any pilot in a VLO aircraft have aerial combat experience? (in a VLO aircraft)

I do not speak/read Russian, so cannot interpret his article.

However the excel sheet was quite clear!

RCS = RCS/ RCSmin

***not quite sure what the differential is between RCS and RCS in cell row 933 and cell row 956***

RCSmin = (Frontal area/2)(No. consoles”/6)(coating)(form)(plasma)

‘ What is EPR?
” What is number of consoles?

Either way – you are assuming factors for RAM coating, shape and plasma effects. Assumed factors that have little basis in engineering analysis.

Otherwise, apparently but uncertainly, a significant small turn radius than MiG-35 with obviously faster speed performed by PAKFA according to the video presented.

Looks to me like a coordinated turn emile. [At around 75 deg bank – which would be around 4g.]