Most comparable aircraft pack two engines, not one. The volume of the exhaust gases will only be fractionally lower than those expelled by the F135. The difference in temperatures will likely be substantial. In addition to the higher bypass ratio, you have the LOAN nozzle and other ‘classified’ aspects of its construction (supposedly dealing with how the exhaust is modulated/shaped).

Bypass Ratios –

F100 0.36:1
EJ-200 0.40:1
M88 0.30:1
F414 0.25:1
F119 0.20:1
_______________

F135 0.57:1
Al-31 0.59:1
F110 0.76:1

[I don’t know what to make of the last one. Refers to the GE-132 (Blk60/61)]

For the F100, the BPR of the -220 on the F-15C is 0.63, while the -229 has 0.36. Also, the YF119 has about 0.20 BPR, the production F119 engine is around 0.30.

Exhaust temperature is dependent on turbine inlet temperature, turbine work extraction, bypass ratio, and nozzle pressure ratio, so it’s not as simple as all of you are making it out to be. But who am I kidding, you guys keep speculating.

Sorry for late reply, was busy.
ATM I have not seen not any report or evaluation about the PAK-FA mention any substantial weight increase when compared with Su-35. In every case it can be, let’s wait and see.

I never said the T-50 is heavier than Su-35. I said Su-27, and both the T-50 and Su-35 will be heavier than the Su-27, moreso the Su-35.

About the between the twoF-22 weight increase: good grief what they have put instead of composite? Lead?
Because you know there are about four tons of difference between the two, a little too much for outer skin alone.

It’s not the outer skin, it’s the structural spars. Remember that the YF-22 didn’t have any of the avionics or LO coatings, and its structure wasn’t required withstand fatigue of the life cycle of an operational aircraft.

The same can happen to the F-35 when against T-50, J-20 or J-31. In the end, the WVR engagements most likely will matter a lot.

Elaborate? In the end what really matters is who can get the first track and put the adversary in their missile’s effective engagement zone (the so-called “no-escape zone”). Then it boils down to stealth, avionics, and kinematics, but it will be predominantly driven by the first two.

I don’t see how the single engine requirement affected the position of the bays. However, the STOVL requirement forced the engine to be sufficiently close to the lift fan, so the engine had to be placed like between the rear of the bays.

Uh, do you have a source to back up this claim?

That forced the bays to be separated by a significant width, unlike on the F-22, where the bays are right next to each other.

Without the STOVL requirement, the bays would have been placed right next to each other with the engine ( or 2 engines ) right behind them. The plane would have been longer, so would have been designed more in length than width.

What do you mean “significant width”? That’s a lot of unsubstantiated claims right there. Also, how can you be so certain what the configuration would be without the lift fan? The bigger reason for the aircraft’s stubbiness is mostly due to length constrains and conventional tail. Given the current conventional tail configuration, I don’t see how fineness ratio can improve much unless you get tandem weapon bays. Now, it’s true that without the LHD storage requirement, the aircraft might’ve been longer, increasing fineness ratio. Alternately, if the design used canards instead of conventional tails, for the same length the fuselage would’ve likely had been slimmer and have better fineness ratio. Again, based on my readings the biggest reason for dropping canards on the JSF is for Navy carrier landing. Pinning the F-35’s aerodynamics problems solely on STOVL is single minded and imprudent.

Why? The planes were repaired even in worst condition.

Is it economical? The F-35 that burned on the runway last year suffered even less damage, but it was written off because repair costs didn’t justify it.

There’s no reason why the F-35’s stealth at higher frequencies can’t match or exceed the B-2, or the F-117 or F-22. I think some of the biggest advances in stealth when it comes to the F-35 is in the coatings and material, which makes it much more capable of maintaining its design signature through wear and tear. As for the F-117 compared to the F-35, their dimensions are on a similar scale, as are their control surfaces. At least in something like the X-band, it’s perfectly possible for the F-35 to maintain superior practical RCS compared to prior stealth aircraft.

VHF stealth is another story, but then no fighter-sized aircraft, be it F-35, F-22, T-50, J-20, or F-117 are immune to that. But then those radars still have clutter and precision issues, not to mention that they are large, conspicuous, and expensive in their own right. Stealth is an effective tool, but not a magic bullet, and neither is VHF radar.

It also depend a lot from the possibility of evolution of a given design.
Russian were indeed extremely lucky in the eighties with the blended wing /engine pod design of their own Fulcrums and Flankers as it will turn out being nearly the ideal one for what will become the main requisites of both the 4,5 and the 5 gen fighters.
Eurocanards were ideal for the 4,5 but they can’t deal with the 5gen requirements at all (weapon bays and double tail are a no go there) while the more conventional fuselage of US ones (that worked extremely well on f-15E) lead to a huge weight hike on the F-22 and turned the F-16 successor into a flying brick.

Problem with that argument is that the F-22 is not a design evolution of the F-15. In fact the company that made the F-15 was on Northrop’s ATF team which made the YF-23. And as for weight, I just don’t see how that’s something unique to the F-22, given that the T-50 has dimensions similar to the F-22 (smaller than a Flanker) yet will have similar weights (heavier than a Flanker).

It’s not so much raw resolution (which is still important) as it is the software required to make full use of the EODAS. Judging by SLOC and budget, the F-35’s software ambition seems unprecedented, and a pretty big reason the US is very stingy about keeping the source code to itself.