The overinterpretation of why PAKFA carrying dumb bombs really amuses me.

It is one poster who is clearly trolling the PAK FA thread.

Whatever test. Ofcourse free fall bombs are cheap and if you don’t care about collateral damage and don’t face any serious type of airdefences they are good enough. But arming a 5th gen multirole fighter with free fall bombs looks utterly inappropriate, not to say it’s a complete waste IMO.

This theory that Russia does not care about collateral damage is trash. Russia did no more collateral damage than the US did in their wars in the ME. And when Russia did have an incident, the US bombed out a hospital in Afghanistan.

So don’t give us this garbage about not caring about collateral damage.

[ATTACH=CONFIG]246403[/ATTACH]

I think those panels never been off before on all prototypes. With the T-50 b/n 056 they`ve made them removable and space behind them is occupied for the first time. The lateral AESA panel is surely made of radar transparent GRFP, as has always been since the T-50-1, therefore no RAM paint there.:)
The access panel behind probably holds required electronics aggregates for the first time as well and its surface should be painted with RAM, unless we see better detailed photos.
Check these pictures, unpainted and painted T-50-4 and compare to the b/n 056, tell me the difference regarding panels we are talking about?

Also note that all countersink rivet rows on the T-50-4 front fuselage section is nicely visible even after they`ve applied the splinter camo. On the b/n 056 all these things disappeared due to a layer of RAM, several tenths of millimeter thick.

[ATTACH=CONFIG]246210[/ATTACH][ATTACH=CONFIG]246211[/ATTACH]

M

Interesting stuff. Could you put red pointers where you are talking about on the pics next time ? Just easier to get what youre saying

In the vast majority of mission sets the question of what platform carries the stand-off effectors is ever more in the background. The missions where pure dynamic airframe performance counts are less and less. The manned penetrating tactical bomber mission is in high-threat scenarios de-facto dead. In low-end scenarios some F-15E incarnations can do the job for another 30 years. It’s sobering that the overall best Western tactical aircraft is an almost 50 years old design.

The design team thought they had it locked up because it performed better than the Raptor in a few big categories.

No because that is moronic.
It is about as stupid as calling the T-50 a stealth modified Flanker.

I thought so too. But there is similarities. I think former US Defmin Chuck Hagle said that the J 20 is a 30 year old design. What a crass thing to say especially in that position.

I dont think so.
If you look at those whom are really monitoring the planes progress you will find
none of us expected huge changes.
J-20 has followed a totally different path.
Its more like a stealth version of Mig-31.
Pak-fa is aiming more for an f-22 version.
I would like to see the j-20 come up against the pak-fa in aerial combat by long range and close up.

Is it commonly accepted around here that the J 20 is the old Mig 1.4 ?