Welcome to rational thinking, something you’ve been struggling with on this forum. Just because you agree with the source does not make it valid. Again and again, your citing information that has been disproven. If you want to look ill informed, continue to defend APA. I am not attacking the source per se, I am pointing out their lack of qualifications.

They discredited themselves in public, at an official hearing, that does have an impact on how anyone views them. As far as Dr. Kopp goes, please show me where I’m wrong about his research. Please show evidence of his expertise in any of the relevant areas: aerodynamics, radar systems, low observable technology, or modern air warfare.

The highlighted is still ad hominiem. The discussion is not Dr Kopp. The particular sub discussion is Russian design philosophy.

The public exposure of the Sukhoi/KnAAPO T-50/I-21/Article 701 PAK-FA was on 29th January, 2010. The test flight has provided sufficient high resolution imagery, video camera footage, and incidental disclosures to perform an initial technical assessment.

The report that I referenced was made on the 15th February 2010. So if there is technical errors like engine models and stuff like that, it does not discredit the point about design philosophy.

So again. The central point about Russian design philosophy is this. Plan long term, then to spread developmental risks across the series of planned new aircraft types and variants as well as parallel design/development activities.

Have you ever noticed that the Mig 29 looks similar to the su 27 even though they are separate aircraft types and within those types, there are other variants ?

If you don’t think they look similar, get your eyes and a few other functions checked.

They do look similar whether you like it or not. With that in mind, what does it say about Dr. Kopp’s basic point about Russian fighter aircraft design philosophy ?

It is quite obvious you only post drivel about the topic at hand, given that T-50 has NEVER flown with 117S, and most certainly does not have a sensor suit derived from the Su-35S.

I wrote

The point was not to get some technical fact right or wrong, but to give an insight into Russian design philosophy. (is the engine wrong or something ? My God !)

He counters with this

Your entire premise and attempt to characterize “Russian design philosophy” (lol) in a few words is based on a description of PAK-FA systems that is across the board nonsense and incorrect.

Then he goes on to LOLLOL and mutter some petty politics about my source (Carlo Kopp) and the picture I used to back up my actual argument. None of which supports his apparent argument ? that Russia does not employ any evolutionary design philosophy whatsoever. (not even sure what is argument is) And since he was embarrassed that I called him on his petty little claim about the engine before he even said it, he just skipped over it hoping nobody would notice.

Then we get this doozy..

Originally Posted by TR1
T-50 has NEVER flown with 117S

Lets go back in time…

Originally Posted by KGB
The point was not to get some technical fact right or wrong, but to give an insight into Russian design philosophy. (is the engine wrong or something ? My God !)

He keeps up this condescending tone with low information posts (no information posts) in the hopes of picking up allies. Which he has. One of the allies he picked up had this sage insight to offer the discussion:

Now that is funny! Kopp is about as quality a source as Kermit the frog…

Your entire premise and attempt to characterize “Russian design philosophy” (lol) in a few words is based on a description of PAK-FA systems that is across the board nonsense and incorrect.

Is this normal for TR1 ? Seems so.

He has not ONE counter point to the actual topic at hand. He just says “huh ur wrong lol huhu” I don’t think he has the cognitive capacity to make a counter point or even fully grasp what a counter point is. I assumed that the author got the engine wrong or some basic fact like that and he just dressed it up in as condescending way as possible. But he doesn’t even have that.

Lets summarize

First one poster said that Mig had nothing to do with the new UAE/Rus 5th gen development project. That was quickly put to rest by this FACT.

Russia, UAE to collaborate on 5th-generation fighter – UPI.com
http://www.upi.com › Defense News
Feb 20, 2017 – The new light combat aircraft to be developed jointly by Russia and the United Arab Emirates is expected to be based on the legacy MiG-29.

Then another poster correctly pointed this out.

Sukhoi did it by morphing SU-30 into PAK-FA.
MiG can do it by morphing MiG-29 into a Gen 5 for UAE.

Then I just pointed out that Carlo Kopp, had the following to say about the Pak fa

In the broadest of terms, the PAK-FA is a fusion of ideas and design features seen in late model Flanker variants and demonstrators, but incorporating specific stealth shaping features. No less importantly, the PAK-FA is by Western standards a low risk design, following the Russian philosophy of “evolutionary” design, rather than the “Big Bang” approach currently favoured in the West, of trying to start from scratch with most or every key portion of the design

Development of the Flanker family of aircraft has been, firstly, to plan long term, then to spread developmental risks across the series of planned new aircraft types and variants as well as parallel design/development activities.

The basic layout or configuration of the PAK-FA airframe design, which is demonstrably based on the T-10 Flanker series,

^huhu wrong lol geez man lol wrong dumb crazy haha heehe hoo hah basic wrong fail man im cool crazy hehehahweo cant see nottin here brah. No evoutionary design here brah. Total new . Just like the F 35 concurrency brah

There´s not much more of the SU-30 on the PAK-FA with the exception of upgraded AL-31´s in the form of the AL-41F, and that for the first few dozens of aircrafts. And the way that the Mig-29 can be turned into a Fifth gen aircraft its be design an entirely new one.

Russian sources indicate that the prototypes will be fitted with a derivative of the existing Su-35S avionic suite to reduce risk and cost. It is likely that this strategy of risk reduction by the use of existing production hardware will apply to other key internal components. The use of the 117S series engine common to the Su-35S in PAK-FA prototypes is a prime example.

Another example is the basic layout or configuration of the PAK-FA airframe design, which is demonstrably based on the T-10 Flanker series, with a large centre fuselage carapace, a pair of long serpentine engine inlet ducts, with inlets beneath a large LEX, the engines mounted in blast resistant tubes, which also provide the means for reacting empennage control surface and TVC loads, and a blended forward fuselage raised above the engine centrelines, not unlike the Flanker and F-14 series. The forward and centre fuselage design is therefore closer to the Flanker and YF-23 than the F-22A. The wing planform is closest to F-22, reflecting design aims in VLO shaping and supersonic cruise performance.

Where the PAK-FA departs most strongly from the earlier Flanker, the F-22 and the YF-23 is in the aft fuselage design, and the moving LEX or Povorotnaya Chast’ Naplyva (PChN) design, intended to provide extreme manoeuvrability and controllability

You can’t simply convert a MiG-29 into a 5th generation stealth fighter. By the time you were done it would be an entirely new aircraft.

Nope. Russia’s whole design philosophy starts with something. That’s the only way they do it.

It is important to note that the Russian approach to development more than often differs from the Western approach, particularly that of the United States industry, with a much stronger Russian focus on risk management and risk minimisation. A powerful approach evident in the development of the Flanker family of aircraft has been, firstly, to plan long term, then to spread developmental risks across the series of planned new aircraft types and variants as well as parallel design/development activities. The benefits of such an approach are clearly obvious.

No less importantly, the PAK-FA is by Western standards a low risk design, following the Russian philosophy of “evolutionary” design, rather than the “Big Bang” approach currently favoured in the West, of trying to start from scratch with most or every key portion of the design.

Mig did “zilch”… And yes, unless you believe that sudenly the ADLA, and the Luftwaffe, and the Flygvapnet, etc, are all going to acquire entirely foreign hardware, the pockets of severall European MODs do seem to be big enough to fund the development of such equipment, several of them have bigger pockets than the likes of Turkey or Korea.

Russia, UAE to collaborate on 5th-generation fighter – UPI.com
http://www.upi.com › Defense News
Feb 20, 2017 – The new light combat aircraft to be developed jointly by Russia and the United Arab Emirates is expected to be based on the legacy MiG-29.

Russia, UAE To Develop Light Fighter Based on MiG-29 Jet: IDEX …
https://defence.pk › Pakistan Defence Forum › Country Watch › Arab Defence Forum