NOLA

I have never ever heard anyone say that. Sources or are you just inventing this?

IRST can designate ground targets, but on this frame IRST disappeared some time ago. Either way, i don't think there are dropping anything in Zhuk area, such trails happen at where they usually are based at, Akhtubinsk. :noexpression:

You are free to believe what you want. :) I know this from a *very* reliable source without going into more detail. Correct.

No radar blockers are installed on *any* of the prototypes.

I have the original, and it is not a fake.

I will repeat, which pictures do you assume are photoshopped?

I agree that the nose looks a bit like YF-23, but the rest definitely doesn't. As much as i love T-50, i wouldn't mind if the Chinese blatantly copied YF-23. Atleast we would see it fly again...:( Which ones, exactly?

99 is no more. 98 is alive and kicking tho, saw it live this last year. Impressive beast.

Fullback prototype cockpit to be precise.

Yeah, it is not exactly an easy plane to land.

I see your U-2 trails, and raise you with C-130...

PS-90's are much larger in diameter. These are D-30's, Chinese ordered a lot of them.

= shut up. But nice try. There were no circle jerk. Weta43 was interested in why i thought that info was for most part BS and i provided my analysis. Unresolvable how? There was no arguing between me and Weta43. Seriously, stop trying to curb a discussion just because you clearly have nothing to add to it. Please, point out where i said i know T-50's range? Clearly you have not being reading carefully, because the only thing we know is that it carries more fuel than Flanker. That is it. Which was exactly my point, beyond that guessing is pretty much pointless.

It is good that he posts pics and updates etc, but do you think he should call me and Weta43 out on our supposed ignorance ("something nobody knows about") when he has himself displayed it? Unless he can correct me or Weta43 out on something specific (like i did with the quote he posted) what gives him right to say that and shut us up? The way i read it he is talking about the actual top speed set in specifications. MiG-31 has limit of 2.83 although i have heard about pilots venturing into higher numbers than that. From time to time pilots do high speed dashes (they don't do it often as obviously it wears on the frame) and i know that atleast in 2010 they were flying up to atleast mach 2.53. Some series are limited to lower number because of the windshield. And yes, i think "narrow channel" (i am not deep into radar specifics so those with more knowledge on specifics are free to correct me :P) is something that AESA gives option of. I think that was possible to some degree on Zaslon as well? Correct. That sign is very typical on Russian fighters, you often find it on Flankers and Fulcrums for instance. And earlier planes as well of course. However, i can't recall ever seeing it in any other place than on the nose, aka for the radar. Whether this is actually rear view radar, i am highly skeptical about that. I have followed this program for a long while and i can't recall any mention of such radar to be installed. Different band radars have been known to be installed in different areas for a good while (even prior to PAK FA being shown, thanks to a certain Polish resident...) but rear radar has not been mentioned. I am inclined to think it has more to do with EW/ECM. ECM of PAK-FA is probably the most secret part of the program, along with its weapons. If my thoughts are correct, that must be some really powerful stuff back there to merit such sticker... And no, Su-34 DOES NOT have rear view radar...

Argument =/= discussion. And atleast i know more about it than you and don't post pics full of mistakes or quotes full of mistakes. :)

No problem. I was being somewhat sarcastic, as obviously the exact number of BS isn't 99 %. Measuring of BS is no joke, it is a very precise science. :) C-in-C Ru AF that played instrumental part in setting specification of the project. From 2004: Might things have changed since 2004? Definitely. But i have't seen any concrete proof they have, so imho this is the current truth. In same interview he discussed number of rockets needed by 5'th gen ac, saying that it doesn't need 12 of them but 4 is a better number overall. I tried to find the complete interview yesterday (i have read it before), but no luck. IMHO speed recruitment has not changed. Ferry range of Su-34 is a bit more, 4100 something iirc. I remember it from pilot telling Medvedev that. I would have to find the video to give the precise number. My problem with the number is not that it is overstating or understating capabilities (as i don't know the true range either), but that it says in the article like it is the truth. It is estimation, nothing more, an estimation i would also be able to pull out of a certain place. Although as i said it is known PAK FA carries more fuel than Su-27 it doesn't necesserily carry more than Su-35S. Flanker series and especially Su-34 is much larger than PAK FA, although it is also very compact plane. Basically it is very hard to tell. Surely you mean MiG-31 and not MiG-35? Problem with that number is same as i described above. Su-34's max take off is above 45k, as it has been tested with almost 12 tons of armament. 8000 kg is a very very conservative number... Source of my doubt is logic. PAK FA is smaller than Su-35S and lighter by a few tons. It might tops have the same fuel capacity as the much larger Su-35S frame, but if one subtract the empty weight one still ends up below Su-35S. Doesn't matter how the wording is, up to or not up to. Simple point is that it CANT be eight. It is clear as a day where the external point are located, and has been so since first flight. And yes, it totally counts as BS because it is a matter of simple counting. First off, PAK FA will not use R-27, that is laughable. Same goes to R-73, derivative of R-73 will be used. When it comes to internal bays, insiders have said 6 hardpoints and infamous Su-47 picture says the same. Well, it shows only one weaponbay obviously, and there is clearly 2 ejectors in there. Hence there is two racks for each of the big bays, and one for each of the small. 2+2+1+1 = 6. Heck, if my memory isn't failing me KTRV themself have hinted heavily to that. Not really, they are entirely different types of radar. Maybe some "back parts" are somewhat the same, but overall they are entirely different. When it comes to Irbis, but yours truly... :P Listen, don't understand me wrong here. I am not dissing PAK FA, in fact i think it is highly impressive plane and i have closely followed on the program for a long time, and have contact with an insider. I am just not fan of pulling numbers out of the arse (which the article did imho). Now when it comes to tracking/engaging i can't recall if numbers like that has been released. And if they are not, the guess is as good as my grandmothers. Engaging 16 is obviously wrong, considering PAK FA cannot engage that many no matter how much it wants to. Considering Irbis is one hell of a beast, N050 is no doubt amazing piece of radar as well. PS: I hope you realize your two pictures are not real and are purely CG? They are rather old as well. In terms of number of missiles the upper is correct.

I will soon be engineer, smartypants. And i was referring to the quoted bit. Since you apparently took it personal, did you write it? The machine has a maximum speed of 2,600 kilometres per hour. - Wrong. PAK FA's top speed has been known for ages, and that is not it. Its ferry range is 4,300 kilometres at altitudes of up to 20 kilometres. - 20km is fine to guess, but no range has been disclosed. I might say its range is one bazzilion km. Surely that is true? All we know is that it carries more fuel than Su-27. With a maximum takeoff weight of 37 tons - What i said above. GSh-30-1 30 mm cannon - Correct although designation may wary. Up to eight external and ten internal suspension points can be installed to attach armaments... - Wrong. Someone is unable to count, where are you supposed to put eight external stores? It is 6 external and 6 internal. This all has been known since 2010. The fighter is equipped with innovative radar systems designed by the Tikhomirov Scientific Research Institute, which, coupled with the two onboard computers, ensure target detection at a range of up to 400 kilometres, tracking of up to 60 air targets and shooting at up to 16 targets at a time. - Useless to say the range without saying against what. Rest isn't correct.

Nah, it is not. Just angle, picture depth etc. It is something worse, Chechnya. :smilewink:

Yeah, carefull with mixing things here. NATO/Russian designations are following: Typhoon/Akula Akula/Shuka Totally different subs with different jobs. And that picture can hardly be used for comparison. Borei is in fact almost as long as Typhoon.

99% of that is pure BS.

0 mid-air refuels of course.

Unsure if it was used during Buran program, but it niche seems to be engine testing. Atleast Kaveri and NK-93 was tested on it, iirc PS-90 was as well.

To be frank, MiG is in reality Sukhoi's b!tch, for a lack of a better word. :) Somewhat sad, but that is how the things are.

Ok, now we have established Sukhoi are just a bunch of stupid people. Good. :book: Have you read patent for T-50 layout closely? Basics of F-35 has been ironed out in 2000 you say? Ok, lets just simply agree to disagree there. Su-47 duct or S-duct on F-22 is not anything revolutionary as you say, that is exactly my point. You don't think that if Sukhoi *wanted* to do an S-duct they would? It is not a matter of that they couldn't do it, obviously they didnt like its drawbacks and decided to think fresh (again, hint, T-50 layout patent). Obviously the drawbacks were just too big and they felt they could get same RCS lowering by doing it in a different way. It is funny. If LM did what PAK-FA does in terms of intakes people would call it revolutionary. But if Sukhoi does it, obviously they are too dumb to do such a "basic" part of 5'th gen design that enters it to 5'th gen design club. :)

Sweet Jesus on a pongo stick. A - It is a freaking prototype. RCS measures are not installed. Suggest to take a look or two to see difference between X-35 and F-35. B - There will be a lot of things going on in the intakes instead of the "perfect" solution that Russians are too stupid to do, that is S-intake. They did it on MiG-23 for shit and giggles, while it was pure luck Su-47 had it. PS: Marcos, a lot of mistakes in that electronics sum up...