Whatever, composites they would put on the Su 35, I doubt that it will weight less than 4 tons than the basic Flanker!

If they use TFTs for instruments instead of CRTs or old analogue gauges they will instantly save massive amounts, 250-500kg, maybe more!

The old computers behind the scenes are how old? Apply moores law for transistors and thats more weight saving. AESA radars – the newer APG-63(v)3 is supposed to be 400 kg lighter than the (v)1… What would the saving be like compared to an old mechanical dish?

For every kilo you save in dead weight [things like avionics] you can save 2/3/4/more in airframe weight – it all snowballs. With improvements in materials, both metallic and composite, its not hard to see a few tonnes being cut off the empty airframe weight.

Not to be the devils advocate here, but maybe it’s due to the lack of communication between Israeli and other non-threatening foreign powers? Including the U.S.?

http://uspolitics.about.com/b/a/207819.htm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/5216230.stm

Whose side is the lack of communications from? The UN or Israel?

As I said earlier… if it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, its a f__kin’ duck.

I thought that some members were labeling it as Fifth gen. fighter !!

I thought it was getting the old 4 and a few +++s designation? 🙂

Yeah, Typhoons with Meteor and ASRAAM will make mince meat out of the Flankers – just like Harriers with A-4s and Mirages/Daggers in 82.

You mind pointing out how the Typhoons are going to get close enough to “make mince meat out of the flankers”?

Last time I checked, the harriers were operating off a carrier.

LOL, if the F35 is outdated, what does that make the Typhoon/Rafale/Gripen?

All outdated.

But, to be fair, the Gripen has been on the scene for some time now.

Anyway, I do get the feeling a navalised F-22 [no VTOL – that is a fud of an idea for a A2A fighter if ever there was one!] would have been the best way to go, if it had been incorporated into the program from the beginning you’d now have F-22s in the USN, and the USAF, commonality of parts, much reduced R&D costs, better performance [i.e. compare JSF to ATF].

For the Marines they should have just updated the harrier. Lets face it, when is a baby carrier ever going to have to provide its own air cover?

But, I suppose, when the US Navy is involved, could you really expect them not to make a balls of the procurement procedure?

What is the likelihood that the old USSR/CCCP were able to develop stealth aircraft along the same lines as the American SR71, B2 and F117 during the last century?

A lot of aviation technological advances seem to cross east-west/west-east quite quickly at the hieght of the cold war and I find it strange that stealth doesn’t seem to have.

Or has it and the Russians are still keeping it firmly under wraps…?

Are there any pictures floating about on the web of any Russian designs and aviation ‘projects’ or has it all been left to gossip and heresay?

Uhh… the MiG 1.44/1.42 was on broadly the same developement timeframe as the F-22.

http://www.globalaircraft.org/planes/mig-142.pl

http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/row/mfi.htm

Uhm…. IMO its pretty much useless.

If you want a glossy book with loads of words and pretty pictures, go ahead.

If you want equations detailing the operation cycles of jet engines… look elsewhere.

I’d be surprised if modern fighters like the Rafale, Eurofighter, Gripen etc cannot sustain flight at 60deg AoA.

Uhhh – it depends what you mean by angle of attack I suppose, but if you count angle of attack as angle between aircraft direction and flight path vector, then no aircraft can sustain 60 deg AoA, drag takes over and quickly bleeds energy into a stall.

If you consider AoA as angle from the horizontal, any aircraft with a T/W ratio of 1 or more can sustain 90deg “AoA” attitude for as long as the T/W ratio matches or exceeds 1.