With MADL & LOS, you only need LOS to a another node which is why MADL is designed to support 25 nodes.

Given that shape is the largest contributor to RCS management, designing a twin seater would not be that hard.

There has just not been a need.

Sorry, but I think you forgot the main reason:

– costs

How can cost be “the” main reason to have a two-seater as they have shorter ranges & higher crew costs?

So you think that the engines are pointing down ? They aren’t. It is known at every source that I’ve checked so far, that the pic which shows a fan a foot or 2 inside the airduct is photoshopped

There is simply no way that the front of the engine can be 2 feet from the end of the air opening.

Evidently the air ducting is more aerodynamically streamlined on the Pak Fa than it is on the F-22 Raptor so the Americans resorted to photoshopping the air intakes to confuse everyone and make claims that there are no S ducts at all.

So Parlay is now an American as his line drawing above clearly shows that the engines are tilted down slightly and that you can see the center of the face of the engine from the front?

[ATTACH=CONFIG]248183[/ATTACH]

Why put a man in the back seat to control UCAVs?

Wouldn’t the controller(s) be more effective if he was on a ship/base in the area?

There are three main reasons why there has been a requirement in the past for a two seater.
1. Trainer
2. Information Management
3. Situational Awareness

1. Trainer – 5th gen fighters to date have been easier to fly than their predecessors so type-specific airborne training has not been needed.

2. Information management (aka RIO) – In the days of Federated sensors that fed raw data to the crew, a RIO was needed to sift through the data, compare information, and manage the systems. Modern computers can do that automatically now.

3. Situational Awareness – In previous generations it was difficult for the on-board systems to determine what was around the fighter, both in the air and on the ground. It required a 2nd crewman to help build a picture of the battlefield and present it to the crew. Modern systems like FLIR, HMDS, EODAS, datalinks, etc allow that information to be gathered, classified, and presented tot he pilot without the need to manually process it.

Did you calculated that with the gear down? :rolleyes:

I think you are assuming a head-on shot.

Btw, “sleek efficient design” has little to do with making an effective RCS, just ask the F-117.

Do you have any profile comparisons to make that claim that the F-35 has a larger frontal profile than the T-50 (like this)?

[ATTACH=CONFIG]248149[/ATTACH]