Are you guys trying to re-write history ?
The X-32 was a modern take on the Harrier ?

If I recall, the Harrier can take off vertically, while the X-32 failed miserably, even over the pit, ie out of ground effect.

Don’t tell me what the X-32 would have been able to do and how well, as I’m sure a lot of developement troubles would have come up with it also. Don’t forget, the F-35, or X-35, was going to do all sorts of wonderful things also, and for a very low price. How did that work out ?

The X-32 was a much more compact and dense design and as such, had less growth capability. Its original design with a delta had to be modified to swept with a tail for a more horizontal attitude for carrier landings. And although Boeing assured everyone that its RCS and flying qualities would be unchanged, I don’t think anyone wanted the extra insecurity.
I also don’t think its RCS was in the same class as the F-35. That big opening at the front had to expose compressor blades and even if a screen were used as a shield ( so I’ve heard ), it would only work for a certain range of wavelengths.

I suggest you guys re-read the IAPR article in issue #1, and I remember seeing a NOVA program on the JSF competition on TV. It may be available online.

probably same reason as pakfa. fan blocker design to block specific type of wavelength, but not for other.

theres pictures not really fair because they are special aircraft.

ugly oes should be the common airplane a country use

and most ugly ones usually come from this one country

like these

all their airplanes look pregnant.

:confused::confused::confused:

https://russiandefpolicy.wordpress.com/2012/12/29/su-34-growing-pains/

thank you for the link friend. it confirm my suspicions.

MIG-35 is heavier because it usese 20% more powerfull engines. It has larger nose to accomodate larger radar. and there is no evidence its draggy or short range than Rafale. infact top speed, climb rates (max altitude) with load will be higher for MIG. There is reason MIG-29K is selected for carrier operations. while Rafale/EF influenced obsolete design J-10 not.

actually rafale is also selected for carrier operations and is in use with french navy. mig35 hneed more powerful engine because the mig is heavier and larger so it needs more power to lift such a heavy draggy airframe. but it cannot supercruise so obviously not enough power like rafale or eurofighter or even gripen. j10 has aesa and modern avionics, can beat mig35 easily.

Delta wing has more fuel?. Does EF/Rafale carries more fuel than MIG-35/K despite having slightly larger wing area.
J-20 wing area dont look larger than Flanker. It will take some time for Chinese to realize that it is unworkable design. I am not going into enormous drage of such platform along with weight penalty.

mig is much heavier and larger than rafale so it is very very draggy. beause its draggy it has to use more fuel to fly so it is shorter range than rafale. they had to add a spine to it to give it more fuel but it ends up being even heavier and draggier than before, so it does not solve that much problem.

China is not a modern superpower so it always need to resurrect soviet stuff. and it has great difficulty to operationalize newer designs such as L-15 which is 1990s design.
Tu-22 has many advantages over Soviet era carrier. as it give flexibility of using 5tons to 9tons bombs. with modern avionics upgrade the weight will be reduced by 4 to 5 tons. so it is very modern and efficient design.
and i wont rule out upgrading it with NK-32 engines whose production is going start not only for aircraft but trains. so there is economies of scale.

china open up its economy in the 70s but russia had to wait until the 90s when the country crash to open up. so china has 20 year advantage ove rrussia in getting money, new technology, etc, etc. you can really see it in the design of the j20 and j31. they look like modern american 2000 design but pakfa looks like in between flanker and yf23 so somewhere in the 80s.

it used a radar blocker to mask the engine front, so, not such a big deal…

and for RCS measurements, nobody here can speak about it with real knowledge about the values, either because nobody knows or because some who do know can’t speak about it publicly anyway

blocker is bandaid solution thats one reason why x32 lost. not as thorough as sduck which is design ground up to minimize radar returns. if sduck so easy then everyone would make straight through inlet like the flanker and just add blockers. boing value cheap and simple design over front stealth that is why they made it straight through

Related News:

India Receives Second Russia-Built Stealth Missile Frigate

how is it stealthy when so much antenna and wires are all over the top

this is stealthy