Compared to the F-22, Suhkoi have compromised the PAK-FAs VLO characteristics – so you shouldn’t be surprised that they have a better aerodynamic platform.

But it would be surprising if it turns out that the F-22 (with the VLO characteristics) is still on par (even if slightly inferior, which remains to be seen) with the T-50.

Because with the current status -weapons, sensors etc, VLO overcomes flying capabilities.

We must never forget, that if the T-50 is not equipped with effective weapons against VLO and LO targets, then it doesn’t matter how good it flies.. right?

The 2 aircraft don’t even remotely look like each other.:rolleyes: The front end of the Yak reminds me of both the Tornado and the MiG-25.

cockpit position, wing position, lift arrangement, twin tail, tail prongs..etc.

obviously they don’t look like one another, I said lineage, if the yak 141 had served with the US, the F-35 would naturally been considered a successor.

I seriously cannot fathom what it is so hard to understand. All the weaponbays so far on all T-50’s and Su-47 have had that gap, so clearly it is on purpose and not some ****ty manufacturing. Obviously they had their reasons. Have some of you ever had chance of opening a normal car door lately? Noticed that there are gaps on purpose and those gaps have rubber along them?

Are you pretending to not understand what I am saying?
Gaps introduce radar reflections (to put it very very very simply) caused by radio wave surface propagation. That is why it is avoided in US designs and that is why the gaps are minute in those.

This gap intentional or not, hints at two things, either they know about it and can’t do anything for it, or they simply don’t care. Either way, knowledge so far says, a VLO design should avoid gaps.

They don’t. Also:

I don’t get it, are you showing us the connector that hangs there? What has that to do with the bay doors?

I see panel fitting still leaves a lot to be desired.

I am still puzzled by these gaps in the weapons bays.

Russian missiles seem to have a system where the wings or small fins bend 90 degrees and thus fit a small space.

which ones?

Yeah, it is. Since they deleted the airbreak for more fuel they are using the rudders. The 902 shot i was referring to was this one:

http://www.sukhoi.org/eng/img/gallery/wallpapers/new/_SPS1828.jpg

No idea is SA can do it, but why would it need to anyway? It still have the airbreak.

And as promised to mack8:

Source: http://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=1302476&postcount=6

Works for Sokol.

PS: And don’t hold all yours breath for restart of production of MiG-31. Listen, i am a *massive* fanboy of MiG-31, but restarting the production is just pipedreams and not sustainable. RuAF doesn’t want it. They want new aircraft. Intention of “revealing” a MiG-31 replacement program is in works is an obvious one from political standpoint. This reminds me about the M1’s US Army doesn’t want, but will still get. All because of lobbying (read: corruption) and to j*rk off some local politicians.

What I would want to ask, is if the identified issue with the Radar is intended to be fixed/ corrected somehow.

I may be dreaming alot…and I have said time and again…that this could be possible..not at the moment but maybe 2040. See that my TIKI without the rockets and inbuilt large concealed bays ( just small ones ) is 3 metre shorter..only 19 ft long…whereas GM-1 is 29.5 feet long. How come people went to 120 km altitude in Space Ship One without space suits ? How hard it is to pressurise a 1 m3 space with 1 inch thick cockpit with kevlar/carbon structure and 1 in thick plexi and seal it air tight…and bring oxygen in there ? Really ? We are 50 years fast first space flight…and reading this ???

yOU AND i KNOW WHY THE JETS ARE BIG..LOOK BELOW. Sorry cap locks on…missiles below where supposed to be carried in LA-250.

People in Space ship one were not expected to pull high G manoeuvres against other spaceships !!