Well to be fair, if the F135 did not have so much installed thrust, the F-35 would be a flying brick.
In other Words, the F-35 need all the thrust it can get. Given the fat draggy airframe.

It doesn’t take away the fact that the F135 is probably the most advanced engine right now.

Inner bays of the PAK-FA are quite good, above all if compared with the f-22 ones.
Still with a little more effort and the availability of new materials and of the izdelye-30 there is still a lot of possibilities to enhance it.
An additional sidebay or also the reshaping of the existing one to carry medium range missiles would allow to use the main ones for carring a full A2G load and still being able to defend itself against BVR menaces.

No chance …

The i960s used in the F-22 are general purpose single-core 32-bits RISC CPUs running at 25MHz.

They’re custom because the i960MX was made only for the military market where it failed to find any customer besides the F-22 AFAIK, not because they’re particularly suited at their task performance-wise.

Problem is not ADA, it’s finding contractors who can code in it. And it costs a lot (and takes time) to port all the software (signal processing libraries, drivers…) that is already written in C/C++ instead of simply reusing the code.

Valid points, however they are irrelevant to the performance of the F22

yes i do , and actually i mentioned it in this topic when discussing about radar gain
but i dont really get what you are trying to say by mentioning beam width here

No Falcon ,you can ask any pilots , radar engineers , weapon designers ..etc and they will all tell you ” fighter , missiles doesn’t have same RCS from all aspect ” , and ” even stealth fighter will have aspect that they have massive RCS ”

P/s : instead of playing guessing game let just explain your point

I am not, you are answering in a linear fashion. I am not responding to what you are addressing to joe. I am answering to what you posted as a response to my post.

Beam width is important because its properties change in space, to simplify.

in coherent about what ? , no aircraft have same low RCS from all aspect , even stealth aircraft are no different , i said that from the start of the thread , you can see from all these graph and simulation i posted , even something like Aim-9 can have massive RCS from certain direction ( 20 dBsm from side aspect ) , that not something that can be avoided , designers only try to reduce RCS from most important direction such as frontal

many people claimed that stealth fighter will suddenly extremely easily to detect as long as you have a low frequency radar , or that stealth only work in X band , now that simulation ( from professor , weapon producers ) showed that stealth aircraft still have relative low frontal RCS even at 1ghz .suddenly , people want to change their argument to ” very high RCS at narrow side aspect make stealth aircraft unsurvivable” ? really ?

I’ll go past everything you said, and ask you. You do realise there is such a thing as a beamwidth, right? If you look it up, you’ll realise that what you say makes very little sense. That is why I said pull it together you are incoherent.

Do you aware of radar horizon ? and Trigonometry ?
if you want to position your AWACs and fighter so that they can look at stealth fighter from that specific 30 degree angle off nose , how far these AWACs have to stay from the other ?

Man…. please pull it together, you are incoherent.

1) it a beam aspect with narrow angle , because the aircraft is constantly moving , that beam aspect will be shown to enemy for a very short amount of time, stealth aircraft can have side RCS of thousands square meters and it still doesn’t matter , the thing that mater the most is frontal aspect
2) aircraft havent been treated with RAM
3) RFP only mentioned frontal aspect

4) and unless your aircraft is a sphere , it wont have low RCS from all aspect

Wait, let me get this straight, you are trying to tell me that a strategic bomber, coming in for a strategic strike on country, the radars of which may be many many hundreds of miles away, will only be exposed to said radars for a fraction of the time at that angle?

Have you any grasp of how big the world is and how 3D geometry works?