Unless I’m mistaken, the Japanese design aims to compensate for the linear intakes with some form of radar blocker, so it’s fine. With the PAK-FA the complaint seems to be that there’s no blocker to be seen, leaving the engine face visible to radar.

The PAK-FA will receive a whack blocker which already has had patents filed for it. Try to keep up.

Jonesyvich… the rumor on modernization is that they will fit the ship with a multi-missile capable VLS system, including capability to fire off the massive ranged Kh-555/101 variants.

A nuclear powered battle cruiser to provide area air defence to a defensive surface group operating in range of its own shore based air cover?. You dont see the problem with that?.

Jonesy, Jonesy. You are such a close-minded guy….

What is the airfields got destroyed? What if those jets are busy doing something else? What if the they are out of range of the battlegroup? (Flanker is nicely ranged, but far from unlimited).

That air defense also stretches to anti-missile defense. Which the aviation would be hard pressed to do.

PAK-FA simulator has a center-stick.

Russian insider sources:

Photos for Bort 2 soon, videos in roughly a week.

Enjoy gents 😉

What a fail article….

“Oh.. a Topol can only carry 8 warheads…”

but a *heavy* missile can carry….. ……….. ……….. 10!

What kind of sad “heavy” missile is that? Sigh… I hope that’s fail journalism..:rolleyes:

That’s one long-ass duct on the Su-34. 😮

You’re the one who comes across as condescending and dismissive of any position contrary to your own. Instead of focusing on a mature discussion, you choose to question the qualifications of posters.. enough with the squid tactics OK..

You seem to be confident enough to speak for Sukhoi. your words I quote :

Originally Posted by dionis
Russian engineers have said it already: focus on shaping is from the dinosaur days of stealth. These days it’s about materials and RAM.

So in your mind, shaping is no longer a factor and its all about RAM? I hope for their sake Sukhoi don’t share your viewpoint otherwise they’ll fall even farther behind in stealth.

I’m sure you can google who Denys Overholser is if you don’t know who he is.
Shaping is still the primary factor in reducing RCS and its no where close to being the “dinosaur” you think it is.
http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story_generic.jsp?channel=dti&id=news/DTI-Bomber.xml&headline=Ultra%20Stealth&next=10

How low can LO go? One paper, co-authored by a principal in DenMar Inc., the company founded by Stealth pioneer Denys Overholser, refers to the development of fasteners for a body with an RCS of -70 dB./sq. meter — one-thousandth of the -40 dB. associated with the JSF, and one-tenth that of a mosquito. DTI queried RCS engineers who don’t believe such numbers are possible; but then, when mention of a -30 dB. signature leaked out in a 1981 Northrop paper, nobody believed that either.

Oh man, I give up! How could I be so blind! This one paper said something, therefore it is the only way something can be done. :rolleyes: This is wrightwing-syndrome, I suppose.

I also never said anything about a Sukhoi engineer specifically, simply an engineer who gave an interview, who was related to the PAK-FA program. Lots of agencies were involved.

I was not saying RuAF is not professional just that most of the top air forces in the world stopped using wierd camos long ago.

As for the colours TR1 its personal choice in my personal opinion (I am sure some others will agree) the glossy Russian camo is sickening and takes the beauty out of fine aircraft. The J-20s superior looking finish is mosly due to the black paint.

How much more pathetic can your standards be? What do you know of air force professionalism? If you don’t like the RuAF tactical jets, look at the strategic bomber fleet (how’s that for the professional AF look?)…

Israel’s AF, the best smaller AF around, uses camo schemes too. :rolleyes: Why don’t you take a crap all over them too while you’re at it?