Is NPO Saturn considering technologies like ceramic/composite turbine blades to lower radar reflection?

hardly think so. is there need for them if you have blocker?

And on a different note, what happened to Klimov’s old proposal for a 14-ton class engine?

It sank.

IIRC the X-32 had a rather complex system of inlet blockers in place. Also it had a belly duct like the F-16 and not Flanker-type straight rectangular ducts leading straight to the engine face.

I have a guess that you need to look at these photos once more.



and compare to this

Any reasons, or just no? 😉

I Just know.

I think the issue with the R77 is the grilled control surface is bad for RCS

main issues are that ‘potato mashers’ tech left at Kiev’s ‘Artyom’
plus they are not as good at high AoA as it was thought initially

Marina is staff photographer at http://www.itar-tass.com/en/
It’s a little bit cooler than Sukhoi, believe me

RVV-MD have the same lenght- 2.92m as the R-73M2.
Same thing, only an improved seeker head, thats all.

who said that RVV-MD goes to T-50? 😉 we yet to see AAMs for PAK FA…so far I know just one Article which officially said to be part of T-50 weaponry. and it’s not a missile. well, one other Article is shown in T-50 bays in KTRV video presentation. yes, it’s a missile. but it’s not AAM.

Which goes to show, if it will open/close, it have to be outwards.. which would be blocking some of the missile seeker view..

now imagine, for a moment, that missile extracted on trapeze launcher, moving it’s seeker further forward than wing LE in plan view…and don’t forget that PAK FA should receive lock-after-launch SRAAMs as advertised in famous 2006 Vympel presentation (while obviously that launch method has known energy-loss disadvantages)