Agree especially on the first point @Andraxxus,
only disagree on the last point, it does not take much of extrapolation to see that F-35 goes flat at M1.45,
and accelerate very slowly above M1.05,
so i would rather think that F-35 does not keep up after M1.2, and perhaps not even after M1.05

[ATTACH=CONFIG]221413[/ATTACH]

Since when was the F-22’s acceleration specs released? And am I supposed to believe that the Su-35S accelerates better in the supersonic than the F-22?

Sorry, you don’t seem to be getting the memo. And what I am fairly sure of, on purpose.
What in the blue hell does vertical stab strength have to do with max straightline speed? Buffeting at high AOA is a problematic area as far as stab loading goes, sure. But how the **** has it been tied to supersonic flight, I do not freaking know. If anything, smaller stabs would help it go faster due to a smaller wet area – seriously, do I have to explain this to people on this forum?

Strengthening may also be for greater supercruising duration. It doesn’t mean higher max speed in and of itself.

Lastly, have a good look at the bird and tell me one thing – what the hell would you gain in return for capping it at M2.0? Huh? Oh wait, yeah. Nothing at all.

Like using lighter weight composites instead of heavier and more heat resistant materials?

I realise that you (along with other interesting personalities on these boards – exempli gratia, Scooter) are probably extremely wishful of M2.0 assertion actually being true (cause noooooo how can that russian crap be going faster than raptor, hurr durr, not fair, americuh too strong) – but for crying out loud, just connect the bloody dots already.

Don’t get me wrong, I’m not insisting that the max speed must be Mach 2.0. I’ve simply seen this figure quoted before and it’s the closest we got to any official figure. If you have a better source for Mach 2.6, I’m all ears.

Hmmm…

Some of the insiders on one of the Russian forums, paralay.iboards.ru, to be more precise. One of the several Pak Fa discussion threads – either 2011 or 2012.

Is providing a link too much to ask for?

You can say that Pak Fa is MFI 2.0 of sorts (multi role fighter, duh, unlike some other bird in USAF service) – VVS wanted a specific bird with specific capabilities, according to its own doctrine and country specifics in mind. Look at the map of Russia – don’t you agree that longer loitering (lots of fuel = lots of range), as well as continuous high supersonic dashes (both wet and supercruise) would be perfectly reasonable for sorties in the country as vast as Russian Federation? Besides, Mig-31’s aren’t eternal. Not only does it make sense, it is pretty much a given that such bird is needed from a strategic POV.

Bondarev did mention a need for a MiG-31 successor. Whether that’s the T-50, a T-50 derivative, a MiG-31 derivative, or clean sheet design remains to be seen.

Don’t think I have to tell you that t-50 is an evolutionary approach on t-10 design, removing the weaknesses and and improving on the strong sides of the latter? Don’t forget, t-50 was never meant to be a ‘raptor killer’ or its Russian counterpart (unless you’re a twelve year old, of course) and was developed with entirely different SOPs in mind – while Raptor is clearly a ‘first day’ aggressor bird designed for using stealth in order to bypass SAMs and open up holes in PVO’s line of defence consisting of Mig-31s and Su-27s (with limited strike capability), T-50 is being built as a next-gen multi role fighter from the get go.

Did I ever claim that T-50 is “Raptorski”?

It’s funny you think I’m scoffing at the T-50 simply based on my judgment of its max speed. In fact, I think the T-50 is an advancement over the F-22 aerodynamically.

There is indirect confirmation of kh-58ushke one of primary weopon of T-50 can be launched from 20km altitude.

http://ktrv.ru/production/68/653/804/

higher mach aircraft tend to perform well at higher altitude loaded.

Okay, so what would be “higher mach?” And how does that somehow suggest Mach 2.5+?

Which is >Mach 2 and is limited by.. dun dun dun… the strength of the canopy.

And yet it still has intake ramps. Are you sure such ramps are essential for Mach 2+ speeds?

Now, about that Mach 2.6. Source please.

EDIT: I think the MFI had a Mach 2.6 top speed requirement. Which, by the way, is a separate program from the PAK FA.

I can’t remember the old numbers off the top of my head… but they are about somewhere.

I’ve seen old thrust figures of Product 30 at 18 tonnes wet and 11.5 tonnes dry.

18/11.5=1.56.

Still quite a ways off. And that’s assuming the same drag coefficient. I’m really wondering how you can assert a M2.0 supercruise with the sparse information we have right now. Air Chief Mikhailov reduced a speed parameter to Mach 2 in December 2004, and the context of his quote strongly suggests that it’s the max speed. On top of that, I think it was Sukhoi that actually requested this change.

В.Михайлов сообщил, что снизил на 0,15 число “М”, заданные в тактико-техническом задании характеристики скорости нового самолета”.
“К примеру, задана характеристика 2,15М, чтобы самолет летал с такой скоростью, однако это число – 0,15 влечет за собой необходимость усиления киля, увеличение веса самолета”, – сказал главком.
По его словам, “анализ эксплуатации самолетов типа Су-27 и МиГ-31 показывает, что эти самолеты, хоть и способны ходить примерно на этих скоростях, но редко на них выходят”.
“Зафиксировано всего лишь несколько полетов летчиков-испытателей на таких скоростях, это влечет сотни проблемных вопросов по усилению хвостового оперения и плохо сказывается на других характеристиках самолета”, – сказал В.Михайлов.

Mikhailov said that the number was reduced with 0.15 “M”, set in the tactical and technical characteristics of the job rate of the new aircraft. “
“For example, given a description of 2.15 m, so that the aircraft was flying at such a rate, but the number – 0.15 leads to the need to strengthen the keel, increased weight of the aircraft,” – said the commander in chief.
According to him, “the analysis of aircraft such as the Su-27 and MiG-31 shows that the aircraft, though able to walk around at these speeds, but they rarely go out.”
“Lock only a few test pilots flying at such speeds, it involves hundreds of problematic issues to strengthen the tail and has a bad effect on the other characteristics of the aircraft,” – said Mikhailov.

Just let the trolls address the western philosophy of designing increasingly obese and overweight aircraft in pursuit of questionable gains.
🙂

What’s the point of these cross sectional and Amax comparisons since the F-22’s are pretty speculated? Not only that, Amax is only one aspect of wave drag. We won’t be able to accurately compare distribution smoothness without actual manufacturer data. On top of that, wave drag is just one part of total drag, even in supersonic flight.

The nozzles do seem to be angled upwards slightly in those views, though it doesn’t appear to be as much as I thought it would be from the landing gear plane.

[ATTACH=CONFIG]220549[/ATTACH]

By the way, are the dry thrust figures on page 13 of this article accurate?

http://www.scribd.com/doc/113636888/Mladenov-A-2012-Russian-Superfighter-Cleared-Hot-Issue-8-2012

According to the article, the 117 has 9.5 tonnes of dry thrust. For comparison, Saturn’s site lists the 117S as having 8.8 tonnes. The dry thrust number in the article is pretty much in line with the accept value of 15 tonnes.