Well, well, well up to now this has been a very quality discussion.
Now, let me add that those changes were not without reason, at the contrary for what were the ATF mission requirement they made quite sense.

In those times stealth technology was still an highly secretive matter: F-117 although having reached IOC in 1983 was revealed to the public just in 1988, so it is not surprising that the ATF requirements when published were not so centered about it as instead the real thing would become.
Obviously the fact that such an high level of stealth was required for the mission lead to a never ending spiral of cost overrun, technical difficulties, weight increments and above all on a lot of time lost.
When twenty years after RFP F-22 went operative it was surely respondent to the project requirements, thanks to superb engineering skills of those involved in its development but external conditions were dramatically changed, stealth was not any more such a overwhelming factor into the airpower equation as quite efficient and cost effective countermeasures against it had been developed in the meantime.
F-22 will remain a superb fighter and will remain unmatched when it comes to the stealth level reached, but it was designed to a a very specific mission, a mission that is not possible anymore.

just as a premise: I don’t take ANYthing said by sputnik as granted or even credible.
The differences between F-22 and others depend mainly by the role it was designed for.
Or better said it was the Air Dominance role that was invented just for it,
Basically the idea was to have, thank to stealth, a fighter able to stay for a long time deep into enemy territory, practically invisible to enemy AD, so not allowing them even to let their own plane to take off.
For gaining this a 360° stealth was an absolute need as F-22 would not only need to push itself deep into enemy territory but also to stay there for a consistent period of time, hovering and attacking enemy planes that would pop up.
Other missions won’t need this at all.
An attack plane, like the F-35 would instead just rush into, using its own best RCS aspect, bomb and run away. The worst RCS it would have running away is more than compensated by the range reduction enemy AD missiles will have in a tail on engagement.
Same for an intercepting fighter, working in team with an integrated (metric wawelength) AD radar network:after the scramble it would just need to point its own nose toward the intruder to gain advantage of its best possible RCS value.
Needless to say, actually the level of stealthness that would be required for gaining air dominance is absolutely impossible to gain anymore: some of AD network radars would be able to detect and track an incoming aircraft with enough precision to almost guide fighters against it.

Performance of a radar depends a lot from its own operating band, but also by its own operating mode.
The famed 400km range against a 3sqm target of Irbis radar refers to a spot on mode while in the wide angle search (+/- 120°) it is almost halved.
Same with the F-22’s even more famous LPI mode: everyone cite its capacity of cheat conventionalRWR but no one mention that it is absolutely incompatible with any other mode using the Doppler Effect (look/down shoot down, SAR, clutter reduction and so on…)

First question would be: there is any operational necessity for an UCAV to go supersonic ? My 0,02 is absolutely not.
Second one would be:it is technically feasible, easy, cheap and convenient to do so starting with Taranis design? IMHO no,no,no and no.
Third: would not in any case be better to equip it with high velocity cruise missiles as a payload?

We have concluded that the Sukhoi does things a little different if we are to compair them to other entities.

Sukhoi has a long history about their Directors coming from the “floor” with engineering degrees and many awarded features on Aviation development.

http://www.sukhoi.org/news/company/?id=5697

Does this also happend in company like Boeing, LM etc etc?

Even if actually Sukhoi is a very large company comparing it with american ones is misleading to say the least.
Russian military project development is not changed much from soviet times as the core of it is still in the OKB concept: these comparatively small structures just produce the initial prototypes and after acceptance trial are over, just some others one that are given given directly to the armed force involved in project for the State trials (i.e.operational testing), in meantime OKB take contact with the selected Production Association i.e. one of production plants their same mother company own to set up an assembly line and begin initial “serial” production, that is really not anything such: just individually built pre-serial aircrafts passing through the line instead than on a fixed bench.
Real serial production start only when State trial are over.

So it’s quite normal for russian defence companies to have Directors coming from the “floor” i.e. from the research department: in Soviet Russia research department got their own aerospace companies, not the contrary.

Repeat question: maybe this numbers refers to the flight ours performed under Sukhoi design bureau direct supervision.
Once same items were taken into charge by VVS and used for State trial (also becauseof T50-5 incident) they were not counted anymore.

Not any sense in doing such a thing, better to develop a stealth weapon bay like the ones boeing made for Superbug and put them on a modern LO fighter.
Or get a functioning Ucav for A2G roles.
Let’s face it: in last decade efficent countermeasures against stealth have been developed, so no airplane, no matter how low its own RCS is, would have the same practical invisibility F-117 had.
A Gripen sized 5gen aircraft would cost more than a Su-35S or even a Typhoon with Captor-e radar, without being a match for them as its own lower RCS would not be enough to compensate their greater radar performances.

Now now, is this necessary? I have a legitimate post, you dont agree with, and your 1st reaction is to make ad hominem personal attacks, and national, racial slurs.
If I had made comments using denigrating names for Israelis, Japanese, Chinese, or others you would try to have me modded. Can we not use that word Muricans?
Its a personal attack on my country and culture.

Ad hominem attack? your country and culture? Calm down a little, would you please and don’t make it a too big fuss.

‘murica is like to say russiaSTRONK and chibots, usual way to make fun of certain national stereotypes that often emerge in this kind of sites.
One stereotype in which you with your own reply seems me to fall completely into, I would dare to say.

Just worth to note that my own supposition proved to be exact anyway.
Piece of cake, consider just those two things on an airplane is a sort of Mantra for americans, so you can recognize them easily.

Now for giving you a more serious reply: russians would do ANYTHING except than to go back to a single engine configuration.
With their own typical blended wing/engine pod configuration they just got a perfect shape for 5th fighters and would not leave it for any reason.

So, it just more probable than they would just beef up the Yak-130 (sthealth, armor, afterburners, you choose) to cover some lighter niches than any plane with just one engine.

F-22 fires Aim-9x for the first time:

http://www.janes.com/article/51375/f-22-notches-first-guided-aim-9x-sidewinder-firing

http://www.airforce-technology.com/news/newsusaf-test-fired-two-guided-aim-9x-sidewinder-missiles-from-f-22-raptor-4575760

Eleven years after aim-9X entered in USAF service and three years after the last F-22 was delivered…