But the range is 0.1 to 1 ! and the other is 0.3 to 0.4! The one has a variation of 0.9 and the other a variation of 0.1 ! how is that good?

(still accepting that we are only making assumptions here)

Actually, I just realised what the dude said isn’t new at all but is just a word for word quote of what A. Davidenko has previously asserted *. So, one has to decide that either the T-50’s chief designer is dumbing down the F-22/35 to compensate for him and his team designing a turkey, or that their own RCS metrics differ from Western ones.

Erring toward the latter and using Davidenko’s numbers (0.1-1m^2 and 0.3 – 0.4m^2) consider the following:

F-22 has 2D TVC – a World first and unique, which results in a rear RCS of 0.4m^2

T-50 has a relatively ‘conventional’ back end resulting in a rear RCS of 1m^2 (but mitigating) it has a rear facing AESA with a jammer function and DIRCM, World firsts and (likely) remaining unique capabilities.

Which of the 2 has better SA and CM? Which of the 2 would leave you in a ‘World of hurt’ if you tried to sneak up on it, failed, and then had it turn to face you?

*http://rostec.ru/en/news/3958

Why do you keep deleting your posts? Yup, those are same buildings for sure. In a post you deleted you said that they must have been taken off at different strips because for -4 the building was “close” and for -3 it was far away and that had nothing to do with zoom of the camera. Well, lets enhance!

To the [observer’s] left of the main structure there is another shorter building that is not discernable from the pic you zoomed because of the greater distance. There is an also an absence of red boundary markers at the same location visible from the old runway…

… T-50-4 on the other hand looks to be using the new one.

That is, in fact, ‘053’ (also note red boundary markers) which would mean it has visited Akhtubinsk probably before and definitely made a take off since completion of the new runway.

However, it doesn’t disprove the insider’s claim of no ‘053’ flights post 06/06/14.

Most of the people here are working the problem backwards. They have their desired conclusion, then they try to invent justifications that make it true.

You would think asserting that fighters require compromises wouldn’t be controversial, but for a few here it is a totally unacceptable where their favorite plane is concerned.

The F-22 layout and dimensions are entirely dictated by 2 design elements, namely the humongous S-duct and post-production, thick RAM application.

These features alone are responsible for the ‘fat’ frontal and side profiles which by very definition will give it a higher Cd than the T-50, mitigated to some extent by the power of the F119.

Clearly you’ve failed yo realise the implications of commercially available accurate/predictive CFD software & design tools and processing power and how they differ from those available 20 years ago – that’s before we even get into materials’ development (an example of which Burbage called “the single greatest technological breakthrough on the F-35 programme”).

So no, the Russians aren’t using UFO tech on the T-50, but they are using tech even more modern than that used to design the F-35. You need to stop treating the F-22 as some sort of comfort blanket and get with what year it is.

Also, what is that tube on the side of the intake?

I would guess it’s a pressure sensor to monitor unstable normal shocks and the bleed vent interaction. Unstable normal shocks moving forward of the intake are known as ‘subcritical’ and may result in engine surges and flameouts.

I would guess its an octahedral radar reflector, perhaps if they’re calibrating rear sector RCS reduction by nozzle deflection.
The canopy modification appears to be a stealthy cover for avionics/OBOGS heat-exchanger vents.

Quite possibly components of the T-50’s ‘Himalaya’ (ОКР «Гималаи») spatially distributed passive ELINT/EW sensor suite (spiral antennas, left in pic), displayed by KRET @ a recent electronics expo.