it will not matter that PAK-FA can beat f-22 statistically, the US just got too much of everything to break a sweat

It would be much more simple just look at what is actually happening : had the presence of the F-22A, of the Typhoon or of the F-15E deterred Moscow to act in Syria?
And have the presence of Su-30, su-34 and Su-35 deterred the international coalition to act in the same place?
So, let’s say that the presence of a whatever type of plane has not a great deterrent force in itself.
Neither the contrary happened, thank to God: having the F-22 doesn’t led the USA to act in a more forceful way against not just Russia and China but also against states like Iran and N.Korea.
Nor in the most recent case of Hasakah the fact of having the F-22 instead than another planes had a great relevance: Syaaf just skipped a strike or two and kept on with them later when US planes went away, Us special forces were relocated the same and a new accord was negotiated between Kurds and Government to settle up things.

Well, surely the man regardless of age has retained intact all his capacity of concision.
Let’s split the two things: technical achievement on one side, and in this is something no one can deny in both cases IMHO.
real usefulness of both planes in the middle and about this one I would say that things are way less definite and open to a possible debate and on the opposite side the development/purchase/ productive aspect where surely a lot of BIG errors were made.
Still we can’t put the two together IMHO as both F-22 and F-35 suffered different and some case opposite problems during their own development.
Probably the common feature was that in both cases the difficulties of developing a fifth gen fighters were in the same time strongly underestimated and made even more complicated by way too ambitious and/or complicated requirements.
Nothing new here, the same MOD and the chief of staffs have recognized that there have been such problems (even if I am quite dubious that they have really learnt the lesson, looking at the new post 2030 fighter requirement) so please don’t be more royalist than the king itself.

Well, now that we have an idea of how all the contender would look it seems me that they generally share some common grounds, like the capacitiy to operate into high AoA, probaly even superior to the max requested by the RFP ,usually trough huge lerx surfaces a laF/A-18, except Northrop’s one that provide to it with other technicals solutions but they differs instead quite radically in their engine and consequently cinematics choices.

No it wasn’t, you provided a list that doesn’t really prove anything and neither the programs put together prove that there was an acquisition best-practice that has emerged. SAAB and sweden have done very well, but there are plenty of other examples where unit cost has been high, numbers have been reduced resulting in higher cost still. Each and every capability you have mentioned has a counterpart elsewhere such as IRST, gimbaled radar, Digital EWS, high AOA etc etc etc. so again, let’s not get into politics or semantics as you have done here and not really for the first time rather than talking about acquisition practices, shortcomings with quantifiable examples and an understanding.

We were talking about concurrency and data shows that even if we add a good 25% margin to it it still makes up a very small amount of overall system acquisition cost which in totality is still very competitive given rate production and what you get in return. Then we shifted to bad political choices and somehow this was taken to how the US seems to be the only nation where bad political decisions are made resulting in poor acquisition in military systems. Again, the discussion which could have gone into much smarter acquisition reform and best-practices was derailed to essentially a pissing contest.

This isn’t the first time. There was something very similar here, in fact using much of the same language and massively taking the discussion OT.

And where you have taken the impression that I was referring to programs like Eurofighter as an example for acquisition best practise?
Surely it would have been the penultimate bestiality I could even say and this just because the A400M one was surely the worst one on this side of Atlantic.
The whole thing of comparing the innovation potential of Typhoon and other Eurocanard and all other things were not said by me but by others of your same flock.
So please, bring-on-it.
Let’s go really back to square one and re-read what I have written.
Not casually the only two armed forces that I’ve cited by name in my own post were USN and USMC.
It was just to highlight that restricting the acquisition practise between just the ones of F-22 and F-35 is putting yourself between a rock and an hard place with your own hands, when even in your country there are different and surely less catastrophic ways to handle things.
Are you convinced instead that these two are instead the best way of doing things? That the way USAF and MOD keep on in their acquisition practises are the best in the word? That you are living in the best of possible words?

Well, my dear Pangloss, rest on your own ideas, keep on in such a way , be happy and bonne chance for November.
Just doesn’t put in my mouth words that i’ve never said nor thought.

For the rest, it seems me that also other persons from where you are are equally if not more critical about the developmental/acquisition part of such programs (given that no one there criticized instead the technological part of them).
Are you offended with them in the same way you show to be with me?

Since when were the Euro canards pushing the envelope for high AOA manoeuvring? the F-18 has always been the best western jet fighter in this regard; infact, even better than Soviet/Russian designs for the longest time, since the Su-27 and MiG-29 are both limited to 25-30°.

Whaaat?
Men ,you seems me quite outdated in your own info, Vanilla Su-27 reached 33°, Mig-29 has a limiter for security reasons but could from the very beginning override it just pushing a button and all the successive iteration of both increased such values.
F/A-18 is certainly a great item for AoA also, no doubt.
Its problem was combining this single performance with G numbers and accelleration, both things Eurocanards have in scores instead.

Something completely new or a significant upgrade vs currently fielded systems like:

–Most powerful single fighter engine, whcih can also do VTOL
–VLO shaping
–RAM you can walk on without special booties and is actually part of the plane’s structure as opposed to an add-on coating
–Fully fused data (ie not just fusing pre-determined tracks)
–Completely customizable large single display
–Direction LPI datalinks to connect 25 nodes to share raw data (not just tracks)
–Combining IRST, FLIR, & LTP functionality into a single system
–360 IIR based MAWS that does that and also tracks all WVR airborne objects, tell you where a SAM is heading, detects groundfire (AAA, mortars, RPGs, etc), providers self-BDA, and acts as NVGs
–HMDS that displays anything you want from the system, including video
–No HUD
–Software programmable radio suite
–AESA radar-based ESM connected to the rest of the ESM system
–COTS/VM/Middleware/modular based avionics
–Automated maintenance system (ALIS)

Well, thee are new features introduced in a plane that get IOC in 2015/2016.
Gripen get operative in 1997, Rafale in 2000, Typhoon in 2003, F-22 in 2005, Mig-31 (first airborne ESA radar) in 1981, MiG-29 (high boresigh missiles and HCS) in 1982, Su-30MKI (trust vectoring and gimballing Pesa radar) is from 1997 and so on…
The object of discussion is not who introduce the most innovations but the fact that there is not just one players introducing new technologies while all the other just follow.
Consequently one cannot use innovation eventually introduced in a new item as an excuse to eventual wrongdoings or just plain errors made into development/industrialization/acquisition part of the program .
Certainly , the same apply for everyone: Typhoon suffered greatly in this also and A400M is a developmental/acquisition practise FAIL fully comparable to F-22 and F-35 in that regard.
Thanking God we foreseen it and opted for C-130J instead.
And with the knowledge acquired we modernized G-222 into the innovative C-27J and sold them worlwide, US included.

That’s the difference between creating new technology and buying off the shelf.

So how it comes that all other military producers are creating new technologies, introducing new models of planes and vehicles and not wasting such amount of money?
Or you really think that the only innovation in this field are “made in USA”?

I just read some rumors about a hand-over this afternoon and more reports are popping up with the same theme !!

It is rumored that LRIP J-20s have finally been delivered to PLAAF Flight Test & Training Base today !!!

Still awaiting confirmation and esp. images …

via: http://www.fyjs.cn/forum.php?mod=viewthread&tid=1836564&extra=page%3D&page=4

Deino

Now, Deino, you as the more expert there in chinese matters would please tell me how the introduction procedure of a new model works in these parts of the world:LRIP thre means that development phase is done or is something that imply that the development is still ongoing but they are at such a point to form an operative test unity?
Or to be more clear: have they reached some sort of IOC/ model freezing or we are still talking about prototypes?