According to an article way back, the internal launchers in the T-50 main bays are meant for 300-700 kg loads. Also, what’s the status of the izd. 760 (K-74M2) missile? Apparently this one is designed specifically for the T-50 side bays and have reduced cross-section. There were reports of delays in the October 2013 Air International article, but no updates that I know of since then.

One can agree with one aspect of the article while disagreeing with other parts. That said, the willingness of posters on both sides to so quickly appeal to authority is disappointing.

Regarding Pierre Sprey, I won’t deny that he made some valuable contributions in fighter design philosophy, but nowadays he has demonstrated his utter inability to adapt to changes in technology. Listen to his commentary on radar, the F-15, F-22, etc and judge for yourself.

Likewise, APA has some good resources, such as collating published data on radars and air defenses, but their commentary on tactical air power is only meant to serve their agenda of getting F-22 for Australia. And they will distort information to do that, like photoshopping or outright BSing performance figures. Just see how they endowed the Su-35 with absolutely magical acceleration and kinematic performance. Also note their article on the Typhoon.

Well, we alraedy have eyeball RCS analyzers, aerodynamics can’t be much worse than that.

An aerospace engineer who works in the industry can provide rough ballparks using images as well as piece of data that were released over the years. These ballparks can be useful for some discussions and comparisons, as long as everyone remember that ballparks are not perfectly accurate. Ditto for people knowledgeable about electromagnetics and people who actually worked in the avionics industry. They can provide some rough ballparks for comparison.

This is a far cry from the bile that JSR, Isengard, Scooter, and co. post. I value the estimates/analysis of an aerospace engineer much more than these idiots.

Isengard, you are giving JSR and Tu 160 a run for their money in terms of sheer stupidity. If everyone can eyeball analyze aerodynamics like you then there would be no need for those aerospace degrees, would there?

Also, can people please stop throwing around that ridiculous chart? The only remotely valid ones on that graph are the F-16, F/A-18C, MiG-29, and F-5E, since those were from an actual LM presentation. Everything else is pure speculation by APA. In the case of the F-22, they took the 51 second acceleration time from Mach 0.8-1.5 at 30,000 ft that was published in an unclassified SAR report and extrapolated from just those two points. In the case of the F/A-18E/F, Su-35 and T-50, they are outright BS.

Low frequency radars have never been the silver bullet against stealth. Certainly they are capable of detecting fighter sized targets, but their large size means that they themselves are conspicuous and soft targets. Stealth is not foolproof, but neither are VHF radars.

better eyeball analysis than that other guy lol

Wow, in case you didn’t notice.

[ATTACH=CONFIG]234858[/ATTACH]
[ATTACH=CONFIG]234857[/ATTACH]

@Isengard
Does Zelin know what the maximum speed of the F-22 is, much less the J-20 (which is still in the prototype stage). Higher g-load? From what I’ve read the T-50 is rated for 9 g, just like the F-22 and presumably the J-20.

And of course the head of the VVS would claim that they have superior platforms. It’s just about as credible as some USAF general calling the T-50 4.5 gen. Note that he didn’t actually specify any parameters. Frankly, you’re really not adding anything to this discussion.

Also, Berkut, I’m pretty sure Acatomic is right. Compare to the canopy of T-50-4, there’s definitely a difference in the rear part.

[ATTACH=CONFIG]234848[/ATTACH]