I figure this kills all enemies so fast that you never tought was possible….unless a design alike comes along.

Laminated wood/fibreglass surfaces are one new feature…strong and lite….and RAM sticks to it like charm.

How exactly will it kill enemies fast? The MiG-25/31 are very very fast, yet they don’t kill by flying very fast, they kill by a combination of avionics/aircraft/missiles and again they are not primarily aimed at attacking other fighters, mostly other bombers and force multipliers.

What about the enemies, will they simply stay still so they can be killed? Even in combat exercises against the F-22, the shots from the missiles are simulated, they are assumed to be hitting the aircraft the F-22 is targeting.

In reality, most of these missiles will not hit the target because .. missiles don’t always hit their target. And in that situation the F-22 pilot will most likely choose to disengage rather than fight it out in close range risking a very expensive and valuable asset.

Aerial combat is much more complicated than it seems, where time/fuel and capability play the most important role.

What are your inception’s requirements?

Mach 2+ ?
AA only role?
3 internal Medium range weapons ?
range of ?

I suggest you lookup existing aircraft that match (or close) these requirements and see what equipment they are carrying. Then check out their size and identify why they have the size they have. Remove the planform completely, focus on the equipment only, then identify the areas you can offer smaller components, and then fit your layout over these components, then you will have a better idea of the required size.

You posted the cutout of an F-5. Although a very nimble fighter, the F-5 is a very very old design. The actual radar on the F-5 in all its versions was weak at best. For better or worst the F-16 is the norm when we are talking about modern fighters because it combines great performance in small package in relatively small price (used to anyway).
Look up a photo of the radar bay in the F-16 and see how big the equipment that goes in there is.

I get the sense that what you are imagining is a jet era “spitfire” gloriously defending the motherland going up by the tens or even hundreds to shoot down invading aircraft. Nostalgic but this will never happen.

Everybody would wish to have a smaller faster plane. There is a reason they don’t have it. They can’t at this level of technology.

If that drawing is accurate, then the plane has lost all of it elegance and sleekness.. it is just fat and ugly now.. 🙁

Just like Su-35S.

And not like the MiG-29OVTs fully articulated 3d TVC.

if I am not mistaken they can move independently and their motion is along 3 axis. It doesn’t really matter that they can only do the V shape thingy. It is still 3D TVC. Just not entirely free in all degrees of freedom.

Why bother Trident? T-50 SUCKZ I KNOW RCS BETTAH THAN SUKHOI crowd will always be on any forum. No matter how silly, wrong or dumb their arguments are; they are not willing to see how wrong they are.

I hate to play devil’s advocate here, but the same can be said for both sides. Just because one side of an argument is wrong, it doesn’t make the other side automatically right.

To put simply, just because the “T-50 has c**p RCS” motto is wrong, so is the “T-50 has an amazingly small RCS and all is hunky dory” motto.

Legitimate questions have been asked for all the LO planes. So are they asked of the T-50 too.

Some have been asked with a level of success other not so much.

You must remember when the J-20 first came out, how much the funboys claimed better RCS than the T-50 because the undercarriage doors were fine serrated whilst the T-50’s weren’t. Look at the latest modifications to the J-20, it comes closer to what the T-50 was than not.

This implies that not every decision made by the design team are set in stone and some may be more regrettable than others.

Reduction of 10dB is sound. Besides, that is for airliner engine, PD-14 i assume. From “Двигатель нового поколения гражданской авиации” and onward, irelevant for izd.30

thanks

For the life of me, i cannot find the laughable article a while back about how India’s T-50 will be super duper and with bigger share of composites. One of which was vertical tails being made into composite one etc. Anyone who remember more details about that article?

I think we are going back and forth here.
It is also important to maintain a level of realism. It is true that the west (especially the US) have traditionally spent an enormous amount of money into R&D for military projects. Every sane person would agree that US companies have access to more cutting edge technology than anyone else. You get what you pay for as with most things in life.

However history and logic point to the fact that it is not how expensive and cutting edge the weapon you have that decides the confrontation. It is how you use your weapons and how suited they are for the mission at hand.

Personally I don’t know how good the T-50 will be. I don’t think anyone does. The real question is, how well will it fulfil its mission requirements.
Logic dictates that the designers of the T-50 would base it around those requirements. There are very few designs so far in military history that failed utterly to fulfil all of their mission requirements.

Who knows how long before we find out..

S-500’s [mobile] P-band GaN AESA breaks cover @ New Delhi DefExpo. 600km lock-on for 1m^2 RCS target!! with 95% kill probability, >25 targets can be simultaneously engaged. 1,500km search range:

http://militaryrussia.ru/forum/download/file.php?id=29019&sid=1cb24ab258b5189a6e69330d3add3030&mode=view

So how far off would this pick up a T-50?