Meh…the flight of 20 year old technology isn’t all that impressive 😉

By far the biggest news of the week was this:

tss.. subsonic garbage

Human habitation puts too many performance and cost constraints on an airplane.

• The pilot and ejection seat add weight. More weight = less performance.
• The crew station adds volume and weight because it must be pressurized.
• The power and environmental control systems have to be enlarged to keep the pilot cool on the ground and warm/pressurized at altitude.
• The pilot requires displays, controls and lighting that enlarges electrical and cooling power requirements.
• Enlarged power requirements sap power from the engine(s) reducing range and available thrust.
• The canopy/windows increase RCS which reduces survivability.
• The human can only maintain vigilance for about 10-12 hours before becoming too fatigued and committing mistakes. This limits the endurance/range of the airplane.
• The pilot cannot withstand high Gs or continuous buffeting, limiting maneuvers and choice of flight paths.

How much does this take? 500-1000kg? for a high performance aircraft of 14000-20000 kg?

The pilot cannot withstand high Gs or continuous buffeting, limiting maneuvers and choice of flight paths.

For sure you are one of these guys who think a 14-20 tons aircraft will sustain 20gs because will be unmanned?

Maneuvers or flight paths are way more limited by the airframe strength and aerodynamics than by the pilot resistance

Pilots are still important, and will be, for a long time

Real time decisions are important…no machine/remote control can fulfill this important role

The canopy/windows increase RCS which reduces survivability

This is probably the most childish justification

Wonder what will happen to the European international arm’s market

Russians are stealing orders from France’s customers

But then, Russia and France are cooperating in common programs aswell

Hope both, russia and france will join together in other fields, i think the pakfa is an imminent threat for the france’s industry…would be interesting if france joins the pakfa program…but this is just a dumb dream

Please, if we are talking only about the airframe, designing a new one is much less expensive that doing a technological leap in avionics

Exactly.

Both of you are so wrong…

the main headaches for aircraft programs were always in this order

1) Engine
2) Structural design
3) Aerodynamics
4) Avionics

Is there any report of the size/weight of this aircraft?, to tell the true, these engines seems big compared with the AL-31 ones on the Flanker, since both planes are using more/less the same engine, i think this plane is actually smaller than the Flanker, but then it could be just me.

Looks like they went for reduced RCS to me rather than going whole hog in the stealth department.

At least, for the frontal RCS this plane looks better than the 22 and 35…just in it shape, a flying wing configuration, a well placed bomb bay, aligned surfaces and much smaller tails

Thank you

perhaps aesa will makes sense to you when your favorite plane gets it

Aesa jammers makes sense

Aesa radars used as jammers don’t make any sense 🙂

aesa can use multibeams by using small groups of transmitters in the antenna

AESA technology can be used for jammers, this does not mean that an AESA radar is a jammer, same as any other technology

With AESA, you’re not talking about just 1 beam though, which is why it’s not a dumb idea. Additionally, the speed with which an AESA scans, changes modes/freqs makes multitasking transparent to the pilot.

You are wrong
I won’t explain
I don’t really care