Well, LM might be good at making stealth- but the undisputed kings are Northrop Grumman. It appears they’ve gone down the ‘large composite panel largely devoid of saw-teeth joins’ route-

http://www.as.northropgrumman.com/products/nucasx47b/assets/lgm_0001.jpg
http://www.as.northropgrumman.com/products/nucasx47b/assets/UCAS_gear_up2.jpg

…can you guess the other aviation concern that has adopted a similar philosophy in it’s recent product?

http://sukhoi.org/img/gallery/wallpaper/1_29_01_10/1002101_80.jpg

Did one notice the edge-aligned composite panel (surrounding the aligned lens window)for the EO-DASSki installation?:

http://www.knaapo.ru/rus/popup-100×100.wbp?picpath=/media/rus/gallery/aircrafts/combat/t-50-4_1st_flight/t-50-4_09_hires.jpg

The alignment(s) even protrude outwards:

http://imgwiz.com/images/2013/01/18/vcFy.jpg

It goes without saying that all the CAD and some RCS predictive software is more modern than that used on the F-35, because it was all imported:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DpQ0sDmv7Nc
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2rlB3Igc9w4

Now no-one would deny that the design of the tail-boom (thought to house an AESA) is a stealth shape (as is the EO installation above it) so ask oneself why did they bother if those “great honking things” are going to give the game away?

Then there’s India. With their recent rapprochement with the US, I would highly doubt they wouldn’t order the F-35A in a flash if for one minute they thought the PAK-FA was sub-standard, especially with the recent Chinese revelations.

There’s nothing the US would love more than to have India as a strategic bulwark against China spearheaded by their very own ‘bird of freedom’, and I’m sure they would make special concessions to keep the Indians happy, much as they did with the Israelis. Yet LM has never really been in with a shout, even after the 2-seater FGFA was quietly abandoned, ToT /IPRs are limited and the term ‘JV’ wears thin.

Also there’s the unit cost of PAK-FA- the number bandied about is huge (iIrc in the $110m ballpark) and it will probably rise further, hence the cut to the IAF’s numbers. Does one think that given all the inherent cost advantages of Russian production (labour, raw materials etc.etc. notwithstanding most of the capital manufacturing machine tools & composite fabs will have to be imported, see video above)- that @ this eye watering price OKB Sukhoi will deliver a lemon? The guys bank-rolling the project (the Indian MoD) certainly don’t think so.

One doesn’t need to be a fanboy to appreciate these efforts- just employ a rational, objective mind-set of deductive reasoning.

Variable intake ramps & auxiliary intakes are an integrated solution for the intake notwithstanding the incorporation of sub & supersonic flow diffusers- this is apparent in the official patent. Hence, I think one can rule out the CARET intake.

I do agree that MiG-31 & Su-27 experience may call into question the tactical usefulness of all out AB topline speed substantially in excess of M2, and instead regular & sustained top-end supercruise is far more valuable, especially given Russia’s vast expanses.
That the T-50 is designed specifically to fly, fight & manoeuvre @ these speeds is impressive in itself, and it’s not like the Vmax came down from M3 to M2 or anything- it’s pretty incremental.

Having said that, now that they’re required to undertake something they wanted to avoid- structural reinforcements and associated weight gain, maybe this offers a window to nudge up the speed limit a little further (I doubt that though).

I think you might both be wrong – could it be AESA Bars for the Indian Su-30 upgrade? Reasoning: array depth appears to be narrower than either N050 or PESA Irbis-E, while it does appear to have Bars-style IFF dipoles (which neither N050 nor Irbis have, thanks to dedicated wing-mounted L-band arrays).

Not so fast Mein Herr! An AESA array of that slimness would make it easily the most advanced in the World!

But I agree on your observations on the IFF dipoles. How’s about we say it’s the upgraded ‘Bars’ antenna intended for the 1st stage of the IAF’s ‘Super 30’ upgrade (and probably already installed on the RuAF’s new Su-30SMs).

That screengrab is not new and is taken from a report about a new technical production facility that was opened @ GRPZ (ГРПЗ), a couple of years ago. AfaIk, all ‘N050’ were located @ developers Tikhomirov-NIIP and transferred to KnAAPO directly, for installation.

http://www.grpz.ru/production/war/brls/irbis/
http://www.grpz.ru/production/war/brls/Bars/

Is Product 30 going to have a different engine core?

IIrc, ‘Type 30’s’ new core already exists. Detailed digital designs for the entire engine were due to have been completed last month.

I would hope you are correct but if not then it looks like those who said it’ll have a similar RCS to a clean SH or Rafale were bang on. In other words it’s not really a stealth fighter if it sticks with those honking great things.

Maybe the Russkies will be happy if the back end of the T-50 has a RCS similar to the front end of a clean SH or Rafale. Did you even consider that “those honking great things” look as such because the profile of the aircraft is so low?

Besides, I’m sure the rear-facing AESA & EO-DASSki will put paid to any sneakiness.

That’s ‘Irbis-E’, TR1. This is the PAK-FA AESA:

We do not know the conditions for lowering the specs by another 43 seconds which sounds strange to me.

Lowering the bar is a direct consequence of poor transonic performance resulting in buffeting, the 3 variants’ buffeting issues vary (these downgrades are independent of load out, fuel load considerations):

• The program announced an intention to change performance specifications for the F-35A, reducing turn performance from 5.3 to 4.6 sustained g’s and extending the time for acceleration from 0.8 Mach to 1.2 Mach by 8 seconds. These changes were due to the results of air vehicle performance and flying qualities evaluations…

• The program announced an intention to change performance specifications for the F-35B, reducing turn performance from 5.0 to 4.5 sustained g’s and extending the time for acceleration from 0.8 Mach to 1.2 Mach by 16 seconds. These changes were due to the results of air vehicle performance and flying qualities evaluations…

• The program announced an intention to change performance specifications for the F-35C, reducing turn performance from 5.1 to 5.0 sustained g’s and increasing the time for acceleration from 0.8 Mach to 1.2 Mach by at least 43 seconds. These changes were due to the results of air vehicle performance and flying qualities evaluations.
…Due to the difference in wing design, transonic buffet becomes severe in different portions of the flight envelope and is more severe in the F-35C than the other variants.

The program is making plans for investigating how to reduce the impact of transonic roll off in the F-35C with the use of wing spoilers; however, detailed test plans are not complete.

The whole report is pretty dire. Whilst LM are busy trying to remedy the many problems cited in the report, it’s unlikely the points for this year (and in all probability 2014- when the flight regimes were intended to be opened up), will be achieved.

The indiscriminate axe of sequestration may have been avoided, but the F-35 programme will face spending cuts from 2015 onwards for sure. So LM have around 2 years to get their house in order.

Official Ka-62 presentation last Spring:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KYCGbDf6wu4
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e4pRiESrPgo

Fenrir ;):

http://sukhoi.org/news/company/?id=5051