I don’t have the faith in nuclear deterrence to prevent major conflict that others do — which is not to say that I think it is irrelevant, merely limited. Nor do I think that investments in conventional capabilities by Pakistan are irrelevant. The gap between Pakistan and India is large and growing, but it will never reach the point where India could embark upon a major offensive without (what would seem in almost all conceivable circumstances) unnacceptable losses, costs, and risks. The gap between Pakistan and India is much closer than the gap between e.g. the United States and Iran, and yet the United States is understandably reluctant to enter into open warfare with that nation. The truth is that most nations don’t like to get their noses bloody — particularly when they have larger threats elsewhere to worry about.

A number of reasons. Some of which are:

– Better adherence to Mach-Area ruling.
– Variable contour (moving) LERX/forebody for body lift at higher alpha, which also contributes to a triplane longitudinal control system. It also will contribute to trimming the aircraft for subsonic and supersonic flight without a significant amount of trim drag and without reducing the authority of the primary control surfaces.
– Thinner fuselage making greater contribution to lift.
– The round PAK-FA engine nozzles have better propulsive efficiency than square F-22 nozzles.
– All moving vertical stabilisers.
– 3D Thrust vectoring.
– Wider lateral engine spacing allowing roll augmentation from thrust vectoring.
– Variable geometry intake ramps

Add the whole lot up, and each little bit better becomes significantly better. There are no doubt other things, these are just off the top of my head.

Compared to the F-22, Suhkoi have compromised the PAK-FAs VLO characteristics – so you shouldn’t be surprised that they have a better aerodynamic platform.

Yeah but America.

They do not have the know how to make nukes. Nuke proliferation has been extremely controlled since WW2 ended in 1945. Only China, Russia, America, Britain, France have the know how to make nukes.

Not sure what planet you’re living on. In addition to India, Pakistan, Israel and South Africa there are any number of nations that could make nukes if they felt like it: Japan, Korea, Turkey, Germany, Italy, Sweden, Brazil, Australia, etc. etc. Nukes are easy; a modern combat aircraft on the other hand…

I have seen an F-22 turn into a giant robot, so obviously it is superior.

To what end? What would a no fly zone accomplish?

This could be an interesting question a year or so down the track, if laundering arms through Qatar, etc. isn’t enough to stem Assad’s advance. The issue would then be whether to move up the escalation chain to a no fly zone. The objectives would be to (a) prevent an outright Assad (and therefore Iran-Hezbollah-Russia) victory and (b) to maintain the ongoing conflict so as to bleed the aforementioned axis at negligible US cost and (c) to maintain and further diplomatic relations with the Gulf States. The question would then be whether those objectives justify the costs and risks of imposing a no-fly zone: domestic-political, tactical*, international-multilateral, material — in that order.

* i.e. what if it doesn’t work and Assad keeps winning? Does America then quietly back down, or alternatively escalate further? It’s the Vietnam question all over again:

^ FAB already flies M2Ks so there would be minimal transition costs. And yeah it’s the UAE’s M2Ks that I was thinking of.

Are there any good English-language resources on the structure of Russian aerospace industry today? I am particularly interested in the powerplant side of things: behind all the Soviet-era names and models, how many distinct design groups and manufacturers are there?

It looks like it’s got twice the wing loading as T-50 and not nearly as much T/W ratio…

WS-15 is reporting targeting 180kN thrust…