But that’s the point, neither the 117s had ecm but their missions were always planned with ECM support, they don’t carry ECM.

Besides that i doubt the 22 does not have active ECM in it, the same reason why the 117 did not have flares and the 22 does have

Remember, the F-22 and F-35 were designed to be able to operate in environments where S-300/400 level threats were present. No fighter radar is remotely comparable to the detection capabilities of these systems

Remember what? you are just babbling the same fanboy trash, the point here is in which conditions?, the point is if the s-300 has the capability to attack even in heavy ECM environment, so the problem is not only ECM but to reduce the RCS of the plane as well, and use both for the missions.

the wing has lots of devices

Control surfaces?

Let’s see if this plane “is like the raptor”….the things i’m reading is that the plane does have separated engines, is more flattened, probably with separated intakes? (since i hardly can imagine closer intakes with such “flat” airframe)…but this, by default, is not a raptor.

One thing that is bugging me is why they would go with 4 full movable flats in the rear of the airframe…Do the “insiders” (lol) know it the plane will get flats?, or just these vertical “flats”, of course the russians might be exploring some high concepts on maneuverability, but in general the deal was aways to fit controls in other places to make arm/torque combinations

Anyway, waiting for the pictures, BTW, happy holydays

Nice pictures, first time i see more defined the panels on the 22’s airframe

The arsenal of this “long-range, ISR/Strike” aircraft may eventually include directed energy and network attack, says Lt. Gen. Dave Deptula, deputy chief of staff for intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance (ISR).

Not really my problem/issue or interest. but is still funny to see how neither the B2 or B1 have replaced the B52, which is still the main USAF strategic bomber…and these guys are thinking on lasers and science fiction, wonder who is promoting all these funny ideas..

The logic step would be to develop a platform with better availability , readiness, range, performance than the B52s…at the end that’s the real deal, no pre-emtive stealth strike garbage, no risky low penetration, but just a platform with enough endurance for patroling, flying with enough cruiser missiles, and the 52 is still the king, because of that.

And they are thinking on lasers now..

Is really funny how the plane has been maintained for shows and public exhibitions, always nice painted and well cared, the fashionable garbage and great pictures here and there, now that is doing the real job for research and testing, is badly painted and maintained haha 😀

There is any picture of the berkut intakes? i don’t know if the air duct is curved upwards, or just in the horizontal axis.

IMO there won’t be resizing for these doors, these are simple doors, and bay doors can’t be much wider, there is a reason why the 22’s doors fold, and probably, some requirements of the PAKFA are demanding simple and not so complex doors (for example for carrier landings/rough airstrip operations) seems the actuators are placed in front and back to the door, i don’t see space for them from the sides, my guess is that the pakfa will use 2 of them side by side (or 3…who knows), seems to be they are designed for that.

The canopy has always appeared to be slightly blue colored, i’m not sure if it is a light effect, but that color is consistent in some pictures, wonder what is it.

Probably a double engined would suit better than single engined for the recessed / open bomb bay

The “S-duct” replaced with blockers.

I don’t really see the urgent need to remove the variable inlet for RCS requirements, considering all the control surfaces a plane does have, considering that even variable geometry wing has been considered for a 5th gen aircraft, removing it saves weight though.

It would look like a double engined plane with Mig-29’s intakes arrangement (separated intakes) and the rest with a mirage 2000/3 airframe

Add stealthy flavor

*So the USAF is saying the 22 was unbeatable (probably referring to the main exercise)
*The british “source” was saying the Rafale lost badly against the 22 and the EF and Rafale did not meet
*The frenchies are saying they actually won against the 22 and typhoon

Asides the rules of engagement , is funny how different are the “facts” regarding the source

The problem is that you are not saying specifically what “stealth demands” did pressure the increase of weight..

The structure was tested in the yf-22, it did not have RAM, or RAM coatings, but it had the geometry and structure, the program did not demand a high proportion of RAM anyways

But were well known the structural problems the airframe did suffer, were well known the problem of having a high temperature core engine in middle of a composite airframe..

Composites were not meant to keep it light for the “stealth factor”, but to avoid a heavy structure that could resist the g envelope, supercruiser demands, weight of the hardware, etc, etc, etc..they did test composites, they failed, no stealth stuff involved, no really

A-12** 16,000lb
A-6E 6,000lb

look at the estimated payload, of the A-12, compare it with the A-6….bet its 17 tons have more to do with this than with “stealth demands”

For the sake of the stealth myth..people like you are not looking at the real problem, which is more mundane, but is way more complex