If that was the case, then edge alignment or canted tails would make little sense, canards would also only affect the RCS from above and as such would be irrelevant to front aspect RCS..

Canard is often said to be bad for stealth because the canard and the airframe are not one piece, you got some problem with discontinuity echo, since the canard is in front of the main wing , most of the edge scattering wave will came back to the source without anything blocking them (one reason why less control surface is considered better for stealth aircraft and stealth bombers goes for triangular shape ). Moreover, unlike horizontal tail, most canard are above the main wing rather in the same plane.

From one Raptor vs YF 23 report. http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/f-23.htm

The YF-23 was stealthier than the F-22 Raptor. The two ruddervators reduce the Radar Cross Signature of the YF-23 significantly.

One of the main reasons I believe the Pak Fa is stealthier than the Raptor.

The rudder vators reduce side aspect RCS of YF-23 compared to YF-22 because when you merged the vertical tail and the horizontal tail, there is no corner reflector anymore. Corner is the worse issue with stealth aircraft. Unless, PAK-FA get rid of its horizontal or vertical tail, the corner still there.

From the front, the Pak Fa has a lower profile than the Raptor. So its not like it didn’t gain anything RCS wise with that design.

I dont think PAK-Fa have lower profile than F-22. Its frontal area is as big, if not bigger than the Raptor,the main different is the wide tunnel between the 2 engines, making PAK-FA looks more flat.

the tone of the thread has always been that the Pak Fa has a higher RCS than the Raptor et al

Because, it has various features that are more kinematics oriented than low observable oriented such as variable intake, engine tunnel, not hidden engine face, a high number of control surfaces, lacks of serrated engine nozzle.

This is simply untrue. More of the engine face can be seen in the actual F 23 prototype than the Pak Fa

Nonsense, this is the PAK-FA engine face even with LEVCONs in pointed down position, and you claimed that YF-23 showed more engine face ??????.

And the differential in the production blueprint is not great enough for you to conclusively make that claim.

Look at the blueprint again. Production version has significantly more pronoun DSI bump

On your downward pic, you are not accounting for the engine being canted inward. Which it is. So your black line is just wrong and not where the engine is actually pointing.

Engine pointing at slightly different direction doesnot change the fact that a significant frontal area of them is exposed, so no , why black lines aren’t wrong. Why else would you think engineers made S duct or intake blocker if slightly canted the engine is enough ?

All this debate about the engine face makes little sense.. There’s obviously more to it than just hidden/not hidden..
If Boeing/Grumman, after having designed B-2A or BoP, and Sukhoi, after having evaluated S.47, still make a stealth design with engine blades visible, then it has to mean something..

Unlike YF-23 which is alleged to the winner YF-22 in terms of stealth and speed. X-32 is often said to have more problems than its sister X-35. There was concern regarding the exposed fan blade and RCS for X-32 too, and there were various plan to make radar blocker for it.After all it is a losing design, with spec allegedly worse than the winner. Iam not saying that PAK-FA isn’t a stealth aircraft, all iam saying is that its engine face isnot fully hidden, not to the magnitude of others stealth aircraft like F-22 , F-35 or B-2.It is likely that Sukhoi engineers will have to use radar blocker, whether there are RCS plenty in that is up to personal speculation ( personally , i feel like the discontinuties of variable intake will be more of RCS penety than the exposed fan blade) , we dont have any solid data yet so any one guess is as good as the rest

The engine and therefore the engine face is not parallel or square to the air frame and although you can see straight through the intake ducts to the engine face or airflow modulator/radar blocker a radar signal would be reflected to a different path.

I actully draw the line parallel to the vertical stabilizor so the exposed part is parallel to direction of travel. With that being said , iam not saying PAK-FA cant use a radar blocker, in fact i feel like that what the sukhoi engineer will go for

The S shaped intake is supposed the shield the engine face from frontal direction, you can draw some very specific line from below the aircraft that can exposed a very small proportion of the jet engine (the only exception probably is the F-35 since it only have 1 engine so hiding the engine face is easier) . However,when direction is from below the whole airframe make up a much larger reflective area in that case. Moreover, the exposed proportion shown in your drawing is the jet engine nose cone, so it will deflect radar wave around the internal intake instead of straight back

the high light of intake sucktion throat dimention is wrong in your drawing too

AGAIN!!! Show me where in this post I have made a confrontation between one and the other and not instead between the twotogether, in a same category vs the F-16E (a second one) vs the F-16 A to D and the different versions of the Su-27(third one)

You said there are more different between Su-35 and Su-27 than between F-18C and and F-18E, which is what i disagree with ( and i believed that i have explained why )

The F-16XL and the F-2 are in the same category than Su-35 and F/A-18 E to F because their own frame is greatly or even completely different from the original model.

I can kinda accept that F-2 is in similar category with F-18E and Su-35 in term of change. However, i dont see how you could even put F-16XL in the same basket. Even though, there are many change in F-18E and Su-35, their aerodynamic layout is still the same as the original design ( especially in case of Su-35 with the same wing area ). On the other hand, F-16XL literally have different wing shape and wing area, it even lost the ventral fin. You can deduce CL curve of Su-35 from Su-27 or F-18E from F-18C, the same cant be said about F-16XL and F-16C

For the rest, allow me to use Wikipedia English entry: Technological advancements have produced more compact and lighter hardware, such as the radar, shifting the centre of gravity to the aircraft’s rear. These improvements removed the need for canards and saw the abandonment of the “tandem triplane” featured on several Su-27 derivatives.[33][35] Also omitted was the Su-27’s dorsal airbrake, which was replaced by differential deflection of the vertical stabilizers.[38] Other aerodynamic refinements include a height reduction of the vertical stabilizers, a smaller aft-cockpit hump, and shorter rearward-projecting “sting”.
Now, I don’t know if the abandonement of the canards can be counted in (it’s the Su-35s a direct derivate of Su-27 or is passed through the Su-30 also?) but the dorsal airbrake remotion,the differential deflection of vertical stabilizers and their height reduction made almost three in my book.

It make a very big different depend on what Su-27 model you compare Su-35 with. If you compare the first Su-27 series with Su-35 then i think it only fair for me to compare F-16E and early F-16A.Which mean along with these change i listed earlier, there are also horizontal stabilizor size change, dorsar spine , CFT mounts , station 4/6 wiring , bigger air intake. Later F-16 series also have strengthen landing wheels.
The bottom line is F-16E , Su-35 , Gripen E ..etc even though get alot of change, they are still more or less the derivative of the original version with similar aerodynamic layout, and cant really be considered a completely different aircraft like in F-35 vs F-16 case or F-35B vs Harrier. So to compare their development time is pretty nonsense IMHO

Intakes I don’t know but they seems me just a secondary thing compared to the installation of a new engine with a three axis TVC (that completely change the way to control the plane also)

Fighters get new engine upgrade ways more often than they get intake upgrade

Larger Control surfaces.
Larger Air-intakes.

Are you sure about these 2 points ? i haven’t heard about that any where and they look pretty much the same for me

Actually Su-35 differ from the -27 more than the SH from original F/A-18

I dont think so
Between F-18C and F-18E

_New engine (stronger)
_New wing (bigger)
_New LERX ( much bigger)
_Longer fuselage
_New stabilator (bigger)
_New radar (more powerful)
_New FBW
_New air intake (with radar blocker)
_RAM on various locations
_2 Extra wing pylons
_ different EW systems

I would expect the data bus on F-18E to be different too ( since even F-16E get a different data bus from F-16 block 50/52+)

those key words are exclusively reserved for Su-35

Not even close.Nothing more than your usual deluded nationalistic attitude

it does. pay attention to news item periodically released

Same top speed, same wing area, same aerodynamic and inlet layout , higher wing loading. It won’t fly higher. You can keep going on and on with your so called keywords and add in your own interpretation of them.But physics won’t change whether you like it or not.

F-16C also carries CFT. nothing special creating a unrefined bulges. I don’t see 900km range increase with 2 ET. all I see is fuel increase not range increase.

If you stop being a morons and start to google the detail in photo, you will see mentioned of range increase.Or at least use some common sense. But as usual, you resort to be a moronic troll instead