Is it so outside the boble to say the F-22 has a better detailed signal management?
Hell just take another example, those air spill doors from airduct on top of F-22 and then look at the ones on bottom of PakFa(Flanker) air-intakes.

I’m sorry if it upsets people. It is what it is.
I like the PakFa over F-22 Design for several reasons, stealth finesse is not one of them.

I would say the F-22 is more boxy vs F-35 considering the F-35 has only one(huge) engine. And every airframe design is build around its engine/engines.

Upset, who?
When I sometime disagree with someone is not because I don’t appreciate him/her, right the contrary.
This is a discussion thread so I use to reply to persons I feel worthy to, not with someone that say always the same thing like a broken record (absit iniuria verbo).
The only one I get something upset is GarryA because it has this damn habit to take just one single phrase from my longer posts without reading all of it:angel::angel::angel:…

And I call F-35 boxy because it so short that really resemble a carton box, or a brick:dev2:.
A Su-24 has surely a even greater frontal area but is longer.

Sigh..
Let me try again. Being slim as the YF-23 and PakFa does not mean it has a lower RCS vs F-22.
It only means it has a slimmer side profile, but LARGER top/under Profil.

It a design choice.
From ground or above the PakFa has a larger fotprint.

To say it in Tomcat mode: anytime, anywhere.

Oh and the same when PakFA turns over from a peer point of view.

When ANY plane turns over the radar detection range istantainly fell down thanks to Doppler effect becoming negative.
Hence the choice to privilegiate the frontal aspect.

Yes, i’m sure Sukhoi want to cut some corners on cost, but that does not take away anything from the F-22 Design.
It may be the most expensive fighter, but its a very advanced product. I’d say that matter.

If the PakFa design advocates any advantage, i’d say it utilizing its internal volume a tad better vs F-22 more boxy airframe, and it also produce more lift from the blended wing/body layout.

As you have said it, it’s a design choice.
And the said choice have made the F-22 a terminated product.
They will instead produce F-35 whose RCS reduction measues are not so extreme, so it seems it’s US MoD that wanted to cut corner of costs.
And F-35 is boxy as the Nine Hells.

Sorry to be so negative, your argumentation about design choice is substantially correct but also captious into demostrating A is better than B anyway.

I don’t have launch weights available that can back up my claims, hence the use of the “likely”. What I will provide is F-18 NATOPS, which in Chapter 8 discusses launch weights and required power settings. https://info.publicintelligence.net/F18-EF-000.pdf
If we look at operational use of the aircraft though, the only example of a light launch would be an airframe test. Every other profile can be launched with suitable weight to reduce the opportunity for oscillation and even an airframe test is an additional opportunity for training on the jet.

Is there a single other mission profile that would result in a light launch?

Global Security has some good info on emals here, http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ship/systems/emals.htm but the pertinent paragraph is probably below.

Of the 10 Nimitz class in service 5 were built before 1990 with the Nimitz approaching 50 years in 2025 with each subsequent vessel every 4-5 years after that. Given F-35C won’t hit the fleet until 2019 and will be operated by the USN till at least 2060 it will almost certainly see more work on Ford class carriers than Nimitz.

41 years, really? I know how airplane design take a lot of time actually but such a lifespan seem me absurd, it would be like the MiG-15 or F-84 to be still in service (in their original service branches, not in some third world country) in the nineties.
It is true that actual 4gen fighters get an elongated life span but it was an exceptional situation due the end of Cold War, Soviet economy collapse and so called Peace Dividends in the West than a new standard.

Hopsalot, countries are not stores, simply as that:
they have this thing called internal market that made the difference.
So you would find that USA are one of the greatest producer of both oil and gas than manufactured goods, just their internal comsumption of such products is so high that they have to resort into importation of both.
On the other side nations like Norway having a comparative lesser oil production is still a great exporter of it because its own internal market doesn’t need more than a little fraction of it.
In case of Russia production of oil and above all natural gas is so huge that it cover ad abundantiam the need of a quite large population .
On strategical terms being an exporter of such products is quite the optimum if you want to build yourself great armed forces as they gave you a lot of money without having to spend it back on both machinery than workers wages as in the case of manufactured goods.
It is because of that gulf states can spend so much on weapons and subsidize a great part of their own populations so to grant survival of their own deplorable regimes.
Given that Russia actually not just produce but actually export a great deal of advanced weaponry, let’s figure it out how enviable its own position it on that regard.

Seem me this is a discussion with not much of any sense.
Original Gripen and F-35 were designed from completely opposite starting point in terms of requisites and ecquipment.
Swedish one was developed with a strict national defense perspective, limited range, NO AERIAL REFUEL, capability of take off from motorways and being manned by conscript, idea was to use the advance in electronics miniaturization to get the capabilities of the three different version of the Viggens into one, way smaller frame.
They managed to achieve it, although with the limitation of using external pods for attack and reconoissance missions.
At a certain point they developed a NATO compatible version, converted some of their originals to them and sold/leased them abroad with appreciable results (when compared with their previous models).
Now they have introducted a complete revamp of it with the E/F version, most notable difference would be a greater fuel fraction, thanks to a new organization of inner spaces, a development similar to the one of MiG-35.
And not without a reason as the concept that was underneath Gripen development (and generally of all the swedish fighters) was much more similar of those of former soviet Frontal aviation fighters, so similar would be also the way out from there into the actual needs: greater fuel fraction with not significant increase of empty weight.

F-35 a.t.c. was conceived from the beginning as a long range strike plane with a fuel fraction unparalleled by other fighters (except the Mig-31).

This, plus the need of carring its own weapons internally, lead to a very heavy plane with an empty weight akin to the F-4 and way more than F-16 or even F-15C.
So, just really apples and oranges there.

I don’t think you’ve been following the US-India/US-Pakistan relationship very closely. A next gen fighter i.e. the F-35 is very much available to India, even if critical elements of ToT aren’t (read: AESA, ESM, EO systems, Fibremat etc).
In terms of export, the Indian order is probably worth far more than all the rest put together (Algeria, Vietnam, Iran, Indonesia, Malaysia etc). In other markets, the PAK FA will be competing with the FC-31, if not the FC-20.
But in general, I agree, paying $5-6 bn upfront for ‘development’ is senseless for what is a license assembly/production deal. It basically amounts to reimbursing Russia for its own R&D expenditure.

The UK builds 10-15% by value of every F-35 produced worldwide. They’ve done very well for themselves.

In India’s case, more than ToT, production work-share commensurate with its financial investment would the natural goal. Remains to be seen what they actually negotiate.

So, you get F-35 frame without its avionics? It’s like to go in a three star restaurant and to order only the couvert and service IMHO.

Read above…

Read, thanks.

Otomat missile comes in two version.

French one dive high to get a preliminary look and after dive down, Italian one envisaged the use of an helicopter to made a mid-course update.

Missile doesn’t need external guidance to operate however, on smaller ranges it function as all other sea skimming missile does.
It was instead a way to compensate the target movements until the missile would have reached close enough to use its own radar, helicopter would so make just a brief popup, register target new position and correct missile course and dive down the radar horizon. again.
AFAIK only Lybian 550 corvettes used Otomat without having provisions for an helo aboard, [I]Minerva[/] never had it.