I really don’t like the popular literature about planes, i have not bought that book, so i don’t care really, but i find a bit funny the later comments…on one side we have documenation debating the claimed “facts” on one plane, on other side we just have the “i was there that plane was a crap”….don’t get me wrong gents, but i know how operations can throw the blame to maintenance, and maintenace can pass the blame to logistics….in this case there is not logistics, so is easy to blame these dumb stupid soviet engineers…

My first and last comment about this, is not my interest to debate about a pop book

On both sides the claims were exaggerated, is just that the iranian exaggeration is believed on literature, because they used a western gear…

I don’t understand the article, how they mix USAF with Navy planes?, will the 18G be used by the USAF?, anyway…so much for the “USAF want more raptors” claim, form the start was obvious the program was doomed to become a graveyard

As a Japanese I would not give damn about how LM manages their cost. If I were to pay let’s say 200mil for a standard F-22 (albeit unavailable for me), I would offer 160mil for a downgraded version, okay, but surely not add up to 280mil. And whether LM has some additional cost with the downgrade… who cares? Surely not me. I am a customer, not their manager.

You should stop there, seriously is not worth to keep on discussing it, LM/raptor supporters will start their weird logic..because is the Raptor, and aliens are involved, and it technology is actually magic..etc, etc, etc…

I think the 290m is the real cost of a raptor if not more

but suhoi has more politician with mercedes-benz-daimler cars behind them and commercials like paralays blablabla…
and bytheways its airnautical institutes and academics establishmeants thats make recomendations for fighters.
and sorry there will be no pakfa this year maybe pictures tops. thats thanks to pogo drunk .he left SUHOIs to avoid imbarassment ,and turn things so people would think hes needed to get anything done in fighter market.

I agree, the 144 was a more interesting and practical concept than the berkut, but then , i doubt both were conceived for the same purpose.

The berkut, due it invered wings gained a lot of popularity among the asian comics fans 😀

Sukhoi gained the advantage in the messy 90’s political situation, but that does not denie their technologic achievements, the russian goverment had no choice other than unify all them in a single company, it was clear that, for example, Mig woudn’t have survived the sukhoi’s international marketing campaign

Is Tupolev also included in the “conglomerate”??

Neverthenless the sfc for economical power setting is not significantly lower – it’s something near 90% of max dry sfc.

Static testing power

only for fanboys, but not for any engineer who has to make a solution work or be as reliable and effective in every situation as the more conventional version.

Actally are the “fanboys” the ones who relate every piece on the 22 as something special or groundbreaking..

Note: I actually hate the term “fanboy”, that word should be banned from the forum

If the “T-50-49” is/was real, it could confirm the weight of the pakfa (around 15 tons, hopefully less), since for modern technology a single engine design would only fit for that weight, but then, i doubt on any information’s release on that program, we have seen also another “t50-XX” which is basically a copy of the 22, although that is not rare on russian development, since we have seen before f-15osky, 16osky in the development phase

Anyway, re the russians still using the “t-50” nomination?, was not “t50” the name of the early pakfa model?

Signal Processing for Airborne Bistatic Radar
Kian Pin Ong doctore thesis.

Ok, you have your opinion, i don’t want to debate on that document, since, anyway, is just a public forum, still i know the radar is not tilted back because RCS or stealth

A small hint; only AESA systems are using such arrange

Edit; BTW i’m not saying that potencially such arrange should not be useful for LO requierements, is just that the real reason why modern AESA are using that arrange is because the limitations of the system itself, for LO requirements there should be way better solutions, like receiver-emmiter modules and radar plates with an anechoid wall design