…
BTW, the whole success of future US aerospace industry lies in the hands of the F-35.. How could have things gotten that far? If we account for the fact that it’s a single-engined F-15E-class fighter oriented for A-G work, yet sold as a lightweight one, to clients often primarily looking for aerial defense tools, I fear there is some flawed market strategy going on here.. It will sell, sure, but I think it will sell worse than required to retain current US market share..

The thing however is that the “know how” now exists. The F-35 (and F-22) have created a gigantic knowledge base (proven) for creating VLO fighters. This doesn’t exist anywhere else in the world right now.
This is where the PAK-FA cannot fail. As you said, the Russians will not get a second chance.

Like it or not. The F-22 has set The standard for PakFa program.
The challange ahead is huge for Sukhoi.
Can they use modern computer, CNC, program management to stay clear of any cost spiral. Think they allready blew the early projected cost frame..

None of this will mean much (for the industry) if they don’t meet their VLO targets. I cannot stress this enough, if the T-50 doesn’t have competitive RCS to the F-22/35, there is no point in investing all this money into it. There will be no investment into it, no foreign customers, no future faith in R&D, no global market share… Sukhoi will go the way of MiG in fighter design and prospects.

It has been patently obvious for years that if the T-50 has any RCS increasing features, it won’t be the engine faces. How this is still even a subject is beyond me.

Don’t take this the wrong way, I have been online on fora since the unveiling of the T-50, and it is not patently obvious to me why the engine faces will not be a contributing factor.

I got tired of the topic, only because nobody gave any solid explanation or theory. I got tired of getting cryptic answers like the one -with all due respect- you just provided in the quoted post.

Why is it patently obvious?
Any source?
So what is the reason the engine faces is not an issue?
When we say issue, what kind of magnitude are we talking about? 50% of the issue a classic design has, 25%, 0% ?
Other than the patent information which is nor here nor there, what else have we got?

a couple of photographs that contradict each other it seems.

any thoughts?

Err…. no. It’s a single barrel, single chamber gun attempting the same fire rate as revolver cannons and needs to be replaced, or overhauled after nearly every use, although it was supposed to last 5 firings.

source or it isn’t so

I just like to clear the situation so far:

1. Some people insist the plane has some way of being VLO when it comes to its nacelles.
2. some people accuse the same people of dreaming wild dreams but although they seem fans of the T-50 they offer no alternative explanation of why we all see the things we see.
3. A third batch of people (US & China oriented) just bash the T-50 for obvious lack of VLO principles.
4. A yet fourth group of people, just insist the topic has been discussed to death, complain when it comes up, yet as far as I can see going back dozens of pages in the thread, never offer a clear opinion.

Correct me if I have summed things wrong here…

Failing that, good luck *mapping* your 10m long banana-shaped 117S onto this:

http://www.knaapo.ru/media/rus/gallery/aircrafts/combat/t-50-5/t-50-5_05_hires.jpg

What are we looking at?

Rafale intake

Pakfa

Rafale rear, covered and serrated details

Pak-fa rear, engine covers metallic, exposed

Dude, that hook in the back of the rafale negates any contribution those serrated edges offer. Attention to detail is key.

– Gun together with other systems will be tested on T-50-KNS too.

Article below talks about weapons for T-50, not much new here either really. 6 new “rockets” (A-A only or including A-G?) will be ready in 2017 and 6 more will be ready before 2020. Currently 4 that can be fitted inside of the bays are being tested.

Six as in six new types or six as in six examples of the same type to be tested?

And it does, which is nothing unusual.

What is not unusual?