I meant compared to an F16, F18, gripen, rafale, typhoon, mig 29 etc…The F35 with its high wing loading due to internal bays and high fuel fraction cannot compete against 4th gen jets as far as maneuvrability is concerned. You can’t have it all. there is always a compromise. That being said F35 strenght is not in maneuvrability but in stealth and sensors which is relevant in the new paradigm of AtA warfare.

But if you are talking about video/demo, it is far to equal the high pace maneuvre of the hereabove jets. The F35 is flying for more than a decade and it has never done a demo than can rival 4th jets fighters. In comparison, EAP or rafale A only a few months after their first flights were showing first class high pace demos.

Yes I don’t believe the F35 can perform “effectively” a vertical loop (I meant in a reduce vertical volume like for a demonstration). I don’t beleive it can perform “clean” (on axis without sinking) fast successive barel rolls.
If the F35 was at ease it would have been demonstrated in flight.

As far as average turn is concerned its ok for one turn (I wouldn’t say it equals 4th gen jets from the video) but it will bleed its energy much faster than 4th gen jet who will always be much more performant in the vertical, hence being able to get an easy lock in a traditional dogfight (which is of course irrelevant nowadays).

So, you suggest a sort ofnegative proof there: if the F-35 would be able to achieve a flight paramether better than a legacy fighter LM would have madea big propaganda of the fact.
They made it with subsonic accelleration, as far as I can remember, so it can certanly stand, almost as a theory…

Seems me there is a total confusion of planes, what is completely absent in western media, also the ones more impartial (and they are very few) is about sources.
Where the russian media has their men and woman on the ground, making a professional work and showing often uncut footages, you see state media like BBC or DW resorting completely of information coming from “activist” or “citizens journalist” that would in the quasi totality of cases, be banned to entry in any western state.
From the beginning of war it became clear that any western journalist send to rebel zones would be captured and sold for ransom between different groups so they doesn’t send any and relies on the most insane propaganda outlet to feed their own “narrative”.

AND THIS NARRATIVE EXIST, IS EXTREMELY PERVASIVE AND IMPERVIOUS TO ANY CONTRARY NEWS THAT CAN OCCASIONALLY EMERGE.
[ATTACH=CONFIG]250376[/ATTACH]
The fact that the absolute majority of the claims of such biased sources turn out to be absolutely inhexistent instead never surface out.
For the rest , internet and above all twitter are REALLY your friend here: just look at it with regularity and check what are the percentages of news that turn out to be correctly published by pro regime sources and from the pro rebels ones instead.
Difference is, with a pair of exceptions, abysmal.
And in there the debate and even critics to operational decision of government is well present and real.

None is surprised. Similar to the F-22A the J-20 has ETs to allow a usefull endurance at least without Mid Air Refueling.

I’m surprised: J-20 was sold by a lot of western commentators as a long range interceptor instead of a true fighter with a fuel to weight ratio much superior to the one of F-22A, that was instead criticized for being quite short legged.
Now instead first wing load is made of 4 big fuel tanks , enough to spoil RCS.

J-20 (Prototype 2012) with 4x drop-tanks:

This would give us an useful reference for get the J-20 exact lenght.
For the rest, how far PLAAf want to go with such a configuration? Attacking Pearl harbour from Mainland China ?

“автоматическое обнаружение в ИК диапазоне воздушных целей (ВЦ) и ракет”

ИК=Инфракрасное=Infrared

I am not so convinced by your theory. Why go with the IR-system for Su-35S, if it has such issues that they don’t want to use it (or more developed version of it) on their 5th gen project? To my knowledge we saw both systems for the first time in 2011. Su-35S’ IR system on the first production plane which made its first flight on May 2011 and 101KS-U on the T-50-3 during the same year. KS-U was also shown on MAKS 2011.

I am a bit skeptical that 101KS-U is actually an UV system, but if it is, it would support one bigger theory. That PAK FA is meant to be operated as a low-altitude fighter.

Reason being that a stealth fighter is harder to detect when it is flying low and ground clutter is aiding its efforts to avoid detection. PAK FA’s primary role is to protect Russian airspace from a violating force and that threat comes from air-based systems like AWACS and fighters. This is very different from the threats that shaped the development of US’ stealth aircraft. For their more offensive-minded doctrine it was (and is) crucial to be able to operate in enemy airspace where the biggest detection threat comes from ground-based radar systems.

I think we can see this difference even in the stealth preferences. In this regard it is interesting to compare YF-23 and PAK FA. Both have a tunnel between the intakes/engines, which from certain angles probably poses a signature management problem. On YF-23 the tunnel was placed on the top of the plane to keep the bottom as simple and clean as possible whereas on the PAK FA the opposite was done. Because for YF-23 the main threat comes from below and for the (hypothetically) low-flying PAK FA the main threat comes from above.

According to current understanding one of the PAK FA’s sensors (101KS-P) is a high-resolution thermal imager specifically to aid low-altitude flying and that would go well with the theory. Having a DIRCM on a fighter aircraft is unusual or even the first? But if PAK FA is to be operated as a low-flyer then it would make a lot more sense as MANPADS would be a substantial threat to an aircraft operating in the hypothesized manner. This is also where 101KS-U as an ultraviolet system fits the picture. As an UV-based MAWS has an advantage over IR-based MAWS on dealing with ground-launched missiles and directing DIRCM, because of the high IR background clutter.

There are of course issues with this kind of employment of the aircraft. Effective range of both missiles and the aircraft itself is diminished and even AAA can threaten an expensive aircraft, but especially on homefield these may not be such big problems.

Not seems probable to me as in orderr to get an advantage from clutter it would need to fly at a really low level, something like Tornado and Su-24 did.
Certainly the final one product is thought as a multirole, although A2A oriented plane, so it would have the capability of operate even at lower quotes than the hyperspecialized F-22A , hence the necessity of a Flir pod and DIRCM.
You are instead right when you talk about a plane able to operate in strict connection with Russian AD network instead than in the offensive air superiority mode you have well depicted for F-22, hence a stealth configuration centered over frontal aspect instead than an all round one.

Sorry, maybe it’s my faulty English but i think saying “targeting pod integrated” is quite an oxymoron…
For what i know EOTS is an internally carried targeting device derived by previous Sniper pod: did you mean this for integrated or something different?

Thanks for the array of info.

Would the state trials for the four prototypes be similar to IOT&E of USAF, or is there also no direct equivalent of state trials either?

No, State Trials made the greater part of the whole development process of a new plane, IOT&E are just for proceeding from the LRIP into full production.
Russian doesn’t just have anything comparable to LRIP, their first serial serves a much more limited purpouse i.e. to set up and optimize performance of assembly line itself.