And there are no one claimed that PAK-FA isn’t a stealth aircraft. There is only you making straw man argument and try to win your own straw man argument.

And you managed to get every single one of your counter points wrong as many others pointed out. Your obsession to shovel your agenda that “PAK-FA is superior to all others aircrafts in every single aspect” down to people throat lead you to create a bunch of nonsense arguments like physical size is as important as shaping for stealth.

But PAK-FA is not the exact copy of F-22 or any American stealth aircraft. That the whole point.And FBW did mentioned that when 2 objects made from same material and have the same shape the smaller objects will have lower RCS so dont even try to create straw man argument again

And there are no one claimed that PAK-FA isn’t a stealth aircraft

Lots of people were implying it. And there is still people that say it outright. That Jackson character said it 2 pages ago.

But PAK-FA is not the exact copy of F-22 or any American stealth aircraft. That the whole point.

No that is not the whole point. I made a dead simple example that proves that smaller vertical stabilizers will get you a smaller RCS

smaller objects will have lower RCS

Right. So it is not a strawman to say that the smaller vertical stabilizers of the Pak Fa are an RCS advantage that the Pak Fa has on the Raptor.

I only started saying the Pak Fa was better stealth when ppl started saying it wasn’t steath. Fire with fire.

Actually neither, I am pointing out that your comparisons aren’t:
Comparative
Congruent with known modeling of Low observable characteristics, those characteristics refute your cherry picking of details on the F-22 vis a vis the Pak-fa.

For what it’s worth (nothing, as I am not an aerospace engineer) I “think” the overall shaping on the Pak-fa is very good in regards to LO principles given a clay model devoid of sensors/materials (as least from a frontal arc) There are some incongruities in the design which I expect to change as the aircraft evolves. Again, I “think” that Sukhoi is going about the process similar to Soviet weapon development: get the shape right, get it into service, and improve/modify as funds, technology, and needs evolve. The Su-27 entered service in 1984, but didn’t reach FOC equivalent until ’90-91.

Btw, not sure why you are quoting a wiki page to support your point on size. As I said, “given two objects of the same shape, the smaller one will have a lower RCS”. But that is not nearly as important as shape and materials. Otherwise, there would basically be no point to LO shaping. The whole point is to lower the RCS relative to the physical size.

We are both cherry picking. But you want your cherry picking to overrule my cherry picking without hard data.

Lets say in an alternative universe, that the Pak Fa is an exact copy of the Raptor just like the J-16 is a copy of the su 35.

If the Pak Fa was an exact copy of the Raptor except the Pak Fa had shorter/smaller vertical stabilizers, the Pak Fa would have a lower RCS than the Raptor.

and alternatively

If the Raptor was an exact copy of the Pak Fa except the Raptor had better shaped vertical stabilizers, the Raptor would have a lower RCS than the Pak Fa.

This is an objective truth. But you want to say that the smaller vertical stabilizers on the Pak Fa don’t matter.

Please. Stop. You don’t know what you are talking about, and can’t even explain it in a coherent manner. Physical size of the vertical stabs has literally ZERO IMPACT on RCS. It is the shape, angle, materials, how both the vertical and horizontal stabs align (without a gap). Look at the F-22’s control surfaces from below and to the sides, notice how the vertical stabilizers are covered by the horizontal ones, notice the planform alignment.
(Edit-obviously a tailless configuration is best for broadband RCS reduction, but not applicable to a supersonic fighter as of yet)

Having an (arguably) lower side profile does not appreciably reduce RCS compared to careful shaping. Your obsession with physical size and radar cross section is wrong, articles about RCS reduction say it is wrong, scholarly papers say it is wrong, every site describing stealth shaping will say that is wrong, the armchair RCS experts on here even know it is wrong. In other words, please stop repeating thing that are obviously dead wrong. Obviously, given two objects of the same shape but different sizes, the smaller one will have a lower RCS. But that is about the extent of it, why do you think that air launched decoys like MALD simulate different aircraft?

I actually had a question above for people who know what they are talking about that is buried in this mess you created over your insecurities on the Pak-fa shaping,

Does anyone have insight or answers on this:

Are you arguing that the Pak Fa has inferior stealth to the Raptor now or are you arguing that the Pak Fa isn’t stealth ?

Please. Stop. You don’t know what you are talking about, and can’t even explain it in a coherent manner. Physical size of the vertical stabs has literally ZERO IMPACT on RCS.

Someone must have been very butt-hurt angry to produce that work of art – what exactly is it trying to say? And what’s the problem with F-16.net?

Doubtful. Its all in good fun. I want to make a snakes & ladders Pak fa board game.

The F-117 Night Hawk was the ultimate in angled flat panel stealth shaping. Modern computers and programs can help achieve the same thing using curved surfaces but going much below that I don’t see how it can be due to anything other than using more advanced radar absorbing materials (paint & structure), innovations such as the F-22’s rectangular exhaust nozzles or the possible use of plasma stealth across the Pak Fa’s FOD screens and then there is the possibility of using radar jamming abilities of an aircraft to then claim effective lower detection range = Lower radar cross section for administrative purposes. Is a pea sized radar cross section even believable?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_F-117_Nighthawk

So you believe if they started with the F-117 shape today, and applied all of the latest ram tech, it should have better stealth than the Raptor ?

You should take a long look at yourself before you accused FBW of lacking grasp in tender process

.

Well what is it ?

You cant claim that the stealth requirement of the tender was made in good faith and that Sukhoi would deliver a stealth aircraft and at the same time, make it contingent on your personal inspection of the intake of the production aircraft.

First off, my comment about the use of a blocker or integrating RCS reduction on the IGV stage was not a criticism of the Pak-fa. Second, this whole flame debate started because of your obsession to prove that an exposed compressor face would not impact RCS. As many pointed out to you, there is no concrete evidence that the controversial picture shows the first stage, or that Sukhoi didn’t have a solution (and it is clear from the released details that they do). And yes, having a direct view into the compressor stage would be disastrous (Hence the whole premise of your argument from the start was absurd), but obviously Sukhoi knows this.

Instead, you wasted several pages with comparisons with two prototype aircraft. Even worse, BOTH had planned modifications between the prototype and planned production versions that would have mitigated potential RCS hotspots in the intake/first stage.

As far as “stealth absolutists”. Your grasp of RCS reduction is indicative of the flaws in what your arguing. The F-22 vertical stabs Vs. the Pak-fa is a perfect example of this misunderstanding. Simple size has little to do with it. The F-22 stabs are covered by the horizontal stabs from below and set at an angle to reflect RF away from source from the side. This is simple LO shaping 101. I have a disdain for “Eyeball RCS” reading on these forums. But worse is someone using flawed arguments to “defend” the Pak-fa in areas where no defense is needed. The last 5 pages of junk are a direct result of your ill-informed posts.

Not that there aren’t some incongruities with LO shaping on the Pak-fa, but it is clear that the design goals were very different from the F-22 to begin with.

Second, this whole flame debate started because of your obsession to prove that an exposed compressor face would not impact RCS.

The intake configuration was originally the go-to reason for people questioning the very stealth designation of the Pak Fa.

And yes, having a direct view into the compressor stage would be disastrous (Hence the whole premise of your argument from the start was absurd), but obviously Sukhoi knows this.

I was saying that there is no *direct* view and that the engine canting was also being overlooked. You are kind of leaving a door open here. Basically you are saying that you expect something different on the production model and you fully intend on inspecting the production model and if there is no big changes, you will have lots to say about it I presume. I highly doubt the configuration is going to change on the production model.

the prototype and planned production versions that would have mitigated potential RCS hotspots in the intake/first stage.

You lot were expecting the engine of the YF 23 production model to be full stealth bomber style. The blueprints show , that this wasn’t going to be the case.

Your grasp of RCS reduction is indicative of the flaws in what your arguing.

I believe that the tender stipulated a stealth aircraft and I believe that Sukhoi delivered one.

Your grasp of the tender process is indicative of the flaws in what you are arguing.

So, you take that official line at face value, but on the other hand would insist that the US administration was actually seriously providing money and weapons to the rebel groups (rather than the more likely suspects like e.g. Qatar) for the purposes of bringing down the regime?
.

The public policy was Assad must go. There was the DC leaks that revealed statements of support for isis. Also Wikileaks cables.

Then this kept happening over the duration of the war.

U.S. accidentally delivered weapons to the Islamic State by airdrop …
https://www.washingtonpost.com/…/u-s-accidentally-delivered-weapons-to-the-islamic…

and this

ISIS Overruns Syrian Army Base After US Bombings — News from …
news.antiwar.com/2016/09/18/isis-overruns-syrian-army-base-after-us-bombings/

U.S. Admits It Bombed Syrian Troops – The Daily Beast
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/09/…/did-the-u-s-just-slaughter-syrian-troops.ht…