I dont think money is an issue here , than proven experience with 3D Circular Nozzle and Philosophy/Approach.

The Russian has given priority to Super Agility by going for 3D Nozzle and Control surfaces on the design over all aspect stealth. ( it still has good frontal stealth )

This will work great in dog fight/BVR even against say F-22 , but this will be a nightmare when penetrating a dense SAM environment , where the conventional Aft and lower aft fuselage will betray its presence to ground based radar operatring in different bands.

I still think with 2D Nozzle the PAK-FA maneuverability/agility will be as good as say the MKI , but it will gain a lot of ground on LO and all aspect stealth

May be some one who is a jurno here can put this question to Sukhoi folks on the trade off gained by such approach.

The Su-30MKI is more sluggish than the Su-35 and PAK-FA by a fair margin. The AL-31 on the Su-30MKI might have 2D TVC, but it does not have improved thrust. In this manner, the Su-27SM has better “line” agility (thanks to the AL-31FM2), while the Su-35 and PAK-FA are quite a bit superior in overall agility.

Sacrificing rear stealth is hardly a compromise, as once the PAK-FA runs away, most weapons won’t be able to catch up unless it was running from a dogfight.

Do you guys think that the external pod will affect RCS even if had enough RAM treatment?
Also, another issue is that how will it affect maneuverability? Since in the picture show that it will store the short range AAMs for WVR so the pilot can not cut them loose to prepare for dogfight.
I think that the weapon bay in the drawing is also too shallow since the bay should be able to accommodate long range AAMs, or KH-58 for anti ship purpose.

Look at this picture from paralay:

Do you think that the outer diameter of the engine on Su-27 and PAK-FA is the same? I think the one on PAK-FA looks bigger or is it just the size of picture is deceptive or PAK-FA looks shorter therefore its engines look fatter?

The engine nozzle size changes with thrust – so who knows? Almost impossible to accurately assess.

AFAIK the Foxhound could carry six R-37s.

The MiG-31M, not the MiG-31B or BM.

8 AAM for the PAK-FA would be pretty disappointing considering two weapons bays.

I don’t give APA much credibility. Their analyses tned to be driven by their biases and vested interests. They have zero access to official data on either the F-35 or F-22 and rely on whatever speculative reports exist in the public domain but don’t hesitate to make sweeping and authoritative conclusions based on such.

Ah yes, but the KeyPub star analysts would never do that? :rolleyes:

probably not good enough. it solves some of the problems of the standard MiG-29A, like bad range, limited roles.. yet its improvements do not give it capabilities beyond what the Rafale or F-18E can currently do. More closer to the F-18C/D at best. Thats why the Indian Navy is already asking for bids for new naval fighters, of which MiG is not invited.

Bringing the MiG-29K to “MiG-35” standards will let it do anything the Super Hornet or Rafale can do.

Condidering the “K” is built off of the MiG-29M, I’d assume it would not take too much work.

Useless thread. Better close it and take this talk to the Saga thread.

Meh, if the Russian Navy has the budget, then why not.

This thing will be useless in the Pacific and Northern Fleet.

Might want a few in the Baltic and Black Sea. . .

Any news on fleet deployment planned? Black Sea for sure, others?