Rear facing radar!!!1!1111

An asembled segment of the tail with the same color of the radom and the nice “caution, radiation” warning sign…

Its a radar?

Most likely, now, any confirmation about it?

Let me be the prophet of doom…

That missile will become in a complete failure, and at the end will be used as a propelled dumb bomb, to their save facing.

Cheers

Quite apart from the fact that, as Sintra points out, I doubt anybody here is in a position to make a reliable quantitative (rather than qualitative) comparison of RCS for these aircraft, you risk comparing apples to oranges in the first place. There is a lot about certain relevant aspects of the T-50 that may well change before it enters production – are the current airframes the equivalent of the X-35, F-35AA-1 or F-35AF-1 in terms of development progress? We have no way to be sure, so any quantitative assessment at this time is pretty much void from the word go.

If these charts are real, i think russians did quite good job, seems to show the rear lobe RCS values

While we are in the missile debate.
I found an outdated article, but never the less very interesting from “Constant Peg”

That proved to be a very important test. “In 1987 we had the AIM-9P, which was designed to reject flares, and when we used US flares against it would ignore them and go straight for the target. We had the Soviet flares – they were dirty, and none of them looked the same – and the AIM-9P said ‘I love that flare’.

they do not know how it operate hense they do not know exactly how to counter it?

What is he talking about, that every flare was different each other?

If that’s true, no wonder why the system was successful, and probably still is.

I remember having seen a mock up of a faceted Su-47 on a desk of a russian aerospace designer/representative?.

Now the big question is, has been the 47 design considered with a faceted version? adding LO features?

And if the answer is ‘yes’, then why?

The other good question is , Is the Berkut still being tested?

And another nice question is, Was the Berkut used as T-50 testbed?, or the T-50s technologies were tested in the Berkut program?

I believe the Su-47 was never used as a PAKFA testbed, is ridiculous, because both designs, parameters, and objectives are completely different, I believe the Berkut program added some PAKFA technologies (as the bomb bay doors), for the Berkut program, not for the T-50 one.

Stuffing a lot of missiles in one place is OK for point defense missions, but then, for point defense a big aircraft is a dead bird.

So you get the Tu-160, a poorly maneuverable aircraft…for point defense…good luck with that.

For interception stuffing a lot of missiles in one place wont work at all, because you need to cut every possible corridor the target is taking or could take, for this you need many planes, small ones, and distribute all your AAMs in a larger area.

So the Tu-160 as ‘missiler’ is pointless.

Is bad idea to have a big plane like the B-1 acting as an interceptor, interception depends a lot on numbers, so having many small planes…and missiles in different places gives you a better result than having a single big aircraft with many missiles in one place.