The one in the middle has the same lines as the others.

I don’t think so…

The line beneath the nose end has always existed, there is a short line between the nose bottom and the intakes, that was normal, but the dorsal fuselage was pretty flat, they did extend the dorsal fuselage, the new su-47 has a very cute belly 🙂

There was a modification, if you can’t see it, you are blind..or i’m crazy…:)

This one is the original berkut with his old flat fuselage

http://photo.strizhi.info/v/airwolf/airwolf/airwolf_030/

Also the S-37 has been busy @ Zhukovsky this week:

http://photo.strizhi.info/v/airwolf/airwolf/luftwolf_003/?g2_page=1

Nice pictures, it seems the 47 is still being used for testing these bays, how many su-47 are?, only 1 i think.

As you can see the modification was not easy, i doubt the original s-37 had internal bay, there is a clear structural change on the dorsal part of the fuselage to accommodate this bay, wonder if with the bays and the subsequent modifications they made enough room to place missiles inside, for firing tests, so i don’t really think the accommodation was easier on a new airframe that did not have any stuff to shoot something than on a well known airframe (su-27) with enough room to fit pods, fuel tanks, etc, etc, etc..

Would be hilarious if they are going with FSW, despite official claims , don’t get me wrong, it would be a great and a real progress for the technology, not the bland stealth/composites/electronic gizmos, but a real progress for the general layout, but after all the people have said FSW are nono, it would be pretty hilarious.

Looking at the facts, there is a probability that they are going with at least the 47’s fuselage, although i still think some 27’s evolution is more probable, due industrial issues, but i’m doubting this lately…

Can somebody confirm what were all these plates on the 47 fuselage bottom?, i have always thought that were just covers for an unfinished conformal bay (ala 1.44), not sure though..if were plans for a conformal bay, with such modification, then is probable the bay has enough room to shoot something.

BTW, from where the plane got that landing gear?

For example if a certian IFF code is received by the JSF then it could be programmed to shut down the radar, start transmitting “here I am” over all frequencies and finally sets the engine to idle… this is the sort of thing you might not want embedded in your costly new fighter.

You are probably exaggerating here

IRS-T
ASRAAM

Any radar guided hardware/ordnance?, just to know, from the start i have thought this adaptability issue is just another bashing over the JSF, but would like to know if there is such integration.

No euro F-16 has been adapted with european hardware?, missiles or smart bombs, i would like to know.

Probably LM is afraid that new european hardware could be good enough to steal market for ordenance, but then, i would like to know any example of euro hardware mounted on US designs, and used by european or non-USA forces.

I have not read, for example, any concern from MBDA (the meteor manufacturer?) regarding the source code mess…

I’m still unconvinced that for integration you need the source code

PAK FA looks approximately so. The basic racks of the chassis as at Su-34, two-wheeled.

And what is your source?

The funny thing is that if Sukhoi selects the su-27 development, it will be bashed hard by fanboys, but actually, such design will most likely get better LO characteristics than the F-22….

BTW, how the engines are covered in this scheme?

But since the Su-27 came out before the Black-widow, wouldn’t it make scense to say the Blackwidow looks like the 27

There are similarities, but both are very different, the BW did not have vertical fins, i think, even the early proposal did not have, both are different, probably you are implying the early BW was based on the Su-27?, no i don’t think so.

EDIT

I still doubt that design will be chosen, why then Sukhoi did not test the bomb bays on a Su-27?, it would have been easier on a demonstrator, and the aerodynamics applied had been closer to the real deal, this doubt i have is just recently, (last time i read the thread, actually :D)…why then Su did test this “critical” device on a Su-47 and not on the Su-27?

Unless is a manipulated image, but i have not read anything about it

Perhaps the shape will be the approach MiG had with the MiG 1.44 (an evolution of a more or less familiar shape)?:confused:

Why do you think that? 🙂

No, i think such layout is completely discarded, would be a great surprise though..

Probably Su is not interested on a unstable plane, but the aerodynamic concepts on the Su-47 were very advanced, the plane’s charm was not only the FSW.

The evolution of the pakfa could be end to be similar with the Yf-23 evolution, when the original Northrop proposal had similar layout, nose, wings, only 2 stabilizers and overall the same design, later it was “stealthified”

But then, who knows

IMO, US was better off inventing new ways to jam enemy’s radars (maybe deploy strategic supersonic jammer – B-1A f.e.), than developing LO, which takes a lot of resources and later maintaining, while is comparatively easy to counteract.
_____

ECM jamming is as well a logistic issue, one problem in the Gulf war, was that despite the air strikes forces were strong compared with the sam and air defense forces that were supposedly completely destroyed (….) after the first raid of tomahawk missiles, still the iraqi radars were a problem…the main issue is that for real airstrikes (not fancy laser surgical bombing that did almost nothing), you need numbers, you need tons of bombs, and you need many planes ….that need their support, lack of ECM support was blamed for many unsuccessful missions, the standardization of LO technologies are meant to decrease the number of ECM supporting planes, thus managing better airstrikes against defenses

Is the ultimate “fanboy” belief that cool looking bombs will perform better than Harpoon/HARM missiles, just because the later don’t fit on bomb bays