Actionjackson said The surface angles of the yf-23’s side surfaces were significantly more canted than the f-22’s.

The angle of the f-22’s side surfaces are 55 degrees from horizontal, the yf-23 was around 35 degrees. This accounts for the difference in allround RCS.

The PAK fa has some surfaces canted at 65 degrees like the f-35 and j-20, however it also has surfaces at 75 and 85 degrees like non-stealth fighters have (this has not changed at all with the new prototypes with the new engine cowling either) so from a stealth shaping perspective the t-50 is more analogous to a clean rafale or

Another thing you’ll notice on the actual VLO aircraft is sharpened (blade-like) leading edges and meticulous attention to reducing surface discontinuity reflections, neither of which have been addressed in the latest PAK fa examples.

Are you just eye balling the jets and coming up with the angles ? Nobody knows what the angles look like on the computer or on the test platform. We dont have the RCS’s of both jets to compare. What we do know is that they are taking their time to build a stealth 5th gen jet. We can be arm chair RCS testers all day but we really have no idea.

FSB said
No it doesn’t, look on underside of Pak-Fa inlet. If u want to respond, move it over to appropriate thread.

Its 2 totally different designs. The Pak Fa is basically an under engine design with each engine separated with levcons on top. The air is free to go around each engine. The F 22 has a blended fuselage/intake design. And in that design, there is more potential for dead air where the intake separates from the fuselage.

He’s talking about the boundary layer spill ducts. Look on top of the F-22 near intake.

.

Looks like a mess compared to the Pak Fa. Any air that doesn’t go through the engine on the Pak Fa, has a straight path right out to the back of the jet.

Sigh..
Let me try again. Being slim as the YF-23 and PakFa does not mean it has a lower RCS vs F-22.
It only means it has a slimmer side profile, but LARGER top/under Profil.
It a design choice.
From ground or above the PakFa has a larger fotprint.
Oh and the same when PakFA turns over from a peer point of view.

Yes i’m sure Sukhoi want to cut some corners on cost, but that does not take away anything from the F-22 Design.
It may be the most expensive fighter, but its a very advanced product. I’d say that matter.

If the PakFa design advocates any advantage, i’d say it utilizing its internal volume a tad better vs F-22 more boxy airframe with the air-intakes inside vs under the airframe.
PakFa also produce more lift from the blended wing/body layout.

Let me try again. Being slim as the YF-23 and PakFa does not mean it has a lower RCS vs F-22.
It only means it has a slimmer side profile, but LARGER top/under Profil.
It a design choice.

You are implying that the ratio’s are the exact same and that the Raptor is taller in the exact number that the Pak Fa has a bigger top down profile. And then you are implying that the top down footprint is more important than the incoming profile. The YF 23 is shaped more like the Pak Fa and it got better all around stealth than the Raptor.

Yes i’m sure Sukhoi want to cut some corners on cost, but that does not take away anything from the F-22 Design.

OMG… I said OPPORTUNITY COST. Not production cost. Meaning, they deemed the advantages of the slimmed down option did not outweigh the advantages of the protrusions.

It may be the most expensive fighter, but its a very advanced product. I’d say that matter.

Again. I was talking about opportunity cost. Which has exactly nothing to do with the value cost of the jet.

looking at the rather conventional approach to stealth in T-50 it may seem that during 80’/90′ they simply underestimated its importance.

Honestly what the hell is that supposed to mean ? What is conventional about the T 50 ? The T 50 is the lowest profile jet. It looks the most like 6th gen concepts as anything with the smallest horizontal stabilizers. Sure smaller than the Raptor. The only other super low profile 6th gen looking comparable is the YF 23.

U.S. Air Force Official: F-35 Could Beat Russia’s Stealth PAK-FA or China’s J-31 in a Fight

http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/us-air-force-official-f-35-could-beat-russias-stealth-pak-fa-18992?page=show

That’s a low information article made to read by the general public. Not hardcore enthusiasts

@KGB, how would you choose which 2 roles and how would you justify the extra $30-40 Billion in dev combined with the higher cost to produce?

I mean they should improvise. Like keep using the A10 instead of retiring it.

Generally it is said the X-32 failed to convince people of its approach to vstol.

What if say, the Navy, Marine, and Air Force decided separately to choose their own variant rather than the “one decision for all” approach that was use.

would the X-35 would’ve still won over the X-32 in all three branches?

The x 32 was just too ugly and unconventional to ever get produced.

Evidently 2 entirely different aircraft should have been produced though. Because the F 35 is a jack of all trades but a master of none.