BronzeBuddha

That's the diagram of the PAK FA radar blocker cross section leaked by an insider a few years ago. Allegedly that's just one section of the blocker, and the entire blocker (at the time of the drawing leak) is supposedly about as long as the diameter of the engine. Radar blockers aren't even unique to the PAK FA. The F-18E/F has them and the F-22 has ceramic RAM blockers right before the nozzles to help with near quarter stealth.

I've read about the F135 being pushed to over 50,000 lb thrust, but I think that was a static test and it didn't have to drive the electrical generators (which are substantial on the F-35). Otherwise I agree with your points. The one who gets first look has the biggest advantage.

Some people here have the misconception that the advanced avionics as seen on the F-35 can simply be grafted onto older aircraft like the Typhoon and thus negate the F-35's advantage. That's frankly untrue because these sensors need cooling, and internal sensors like those in the F-35 and F-22 are cooled by a liquid system specifically designed with the airframe. You also ignore the fact that avionics and software development takes just as much, if not more time and effort, as the airframe. In fact, this is a problem with the F-22 because even though it has the cooling and space for additional avionics like an IRST and side-looking AESA, its software and processors are too old and expensive to develop and upgrade. Also, some people here seem to think that countermeasure effectiveness turns black into white. Modern SRAAMs with thrust vectoring and FPA sensors can recognize IR images and wreck just about anything if launched within good parameters. Short of DEW, your best bet is to flat out avoid WVR if you can.

Hummingbird, are you seriously trying to compare vortex strength and lift characteristics of low aspect ratio aircraft by eyeballing? That is absurd.

No, 15 g is probably the ultimate structural limit, and acts as the buffer for a design g limit of 9. Structure rated for 20 g would be unnecessarily heavy. From what I've read about the F-16, its design g limit is 9, and structural limit is 13.5. Side note regarding g, during flight testing an F-22 accidentally pulled negative 11 g during departure testing. After the plane landed they did a thorough inspection and found some warping. I think that aircraft is at a museum now.

According to Jo Asakura on Key Publishing forums, the starboard cowling isn't circular, which I'm not quite seeing.

No, the F-22 does have a missile warning system. It's AN/AAR-56 is actually the precursor to the F-35's EODAS. The F-35's system builds on the F-22 by having better reliability and IRST functionality and projecting the actual IR images into the pilot's helmet.

I thought the izdeliye 610 is the RVV-BD, unless that missile is the R-37M.

What's the source? Because it's pretty amazing if true. That's an average of 980 mph or Mach 1.48 from takeoff. To be clear, is it 4 izd.180 and 2 izd.760? Though out of curiosity, what is preventing them from putting 3 izd.180 in each main bay?

Out of curiosity, do the upgrades Eagles with EPAWSS and APG-63v3 have upgraded cockpits?

I've been hearing about this 2016 operational date, but it seems like 2016 is actually the date that the Russian Air Force gets the first production aircraft. So what is it? Okay, I'll take note of that. Still, I'm somewhat doubtful of the radioscanner claim.

Given that the T-50 has only started external weapons carriage tests earlier this year, I find the claim regarding the dummy weapons part to be rather suspect. Also, considering that the Indian Air Force thinks that the current T-50 with Izd.117 engines are underpowered, I have a difficult time believing the speed claims. Remember, the new Izd.30 engines won't be out until almost 2020.

I think what he's saying that the engines are powerful enough such that fixed inlet isn't the limiting factor when it comes to max speed. Still, the T-50 will lightly be more efficient and have considerably longer range compared to the F-22, since it's fuel load is much bigger and it has variable inlets. Insiders also alluded to lighter empty weight and MTOW. It would appear that RCS and VLO is compromised to get these attributes. Like how the T-50 used straighter inlets + radar blocker and the perpendicular joints in the rear fuselage.

F-15 fuselage lift provides enough lift to stabilize the plane with only one wing.

Here's F-15E with -220 engines.

Here's a video of an airshow by the old Su-35 with a weapons load. Seems quite impressive.

Really? I was under the impression that the v3 is better than the v2 in just about every way, i.e. lighter, better T/R modules, more efficient, etc.

I thought the Raytheon contract was for 179 v3 radars, so I'm not sure what's going to happen to the birds that already have the v2. Unless I read it wrong and it's 179 v2/v3 radars.

Actually, the Su-27SM is a modernized Su-27S, and is remanufacturered from existing Su-27S/P airframes. I think some SM might have uprated engines. However, there are some pretty big plans for the current fleet of 179 F-15Cs. Currently, the upgraded F-15C has the AN/APG-63v3, which is allegedly even more powerful (though perhaps not as sophisticated as) the F-22's AN/APG-77. It also has the AIM-9X and JHMCS combo with claimed 90 degrees off-boresight. Alternately, you also have the Israeli Python 5 missile. I think future planned upgrades include the EPAWSS, which is supposed to be an EW, RWR and MLD combo that uses tech from the F-35, and updated mission computers. The Eagle might also be getting updated cockpit displays and an IRST, pending funding. Another thing on my personal wish list is the F100-PW-229 engines (29,000 lb class!!). Then add in the AIM-120C-7 or even the AIM-120D. An Eagle with all of these upgrades would truly be a scary adversary.

AH-1Z uses a sidestick. Still looks damn cool though.

Well to be fair the old Su-35 demonstrated some pretty impressive maneuverability even with a weapons load. Videos below. Also, I don't think they would have as little as 2000 lbs of fuel in there, considering how much AB usage during an airshow routine. But of course it wouldn't be at full fuel (which, incidentally, is how much the F-22 carries in its airshows). (loaded Su-30 demo) Also, from an old article. Also consider thrse interviews by Mikhail Simonov, who was largely responsible for the Flanker design. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sponsored/rbth/6453948/Russia-Now-Interview-with-Mikhail-Simonov-the-inventor-of-the-Sukhoi-jet-fighters.html http://vayu-sena.tripod.com/interview-simonov1.html (for the record, I don't believe Simonov's claims about the F-15's climb method)

According to the unofficial ED schedule thread, JHMCS for the F-15C is under consideration. If this actually makes it in along with the AIM-9X, wouldn't that be rather overpowered? As a side note, might we see the AN/APG-63v3 AESA in the future? I can help but feel that such a setup would be unfair, even against an Su-27SM (provided they actually make the AMRAAM effective).

Can you elaborate on this? Does the current Flanker flight model not simulate ordinance drag properly?

Okay, thank you.

When I'm trying to land, I can't extend my flaps down even when I press F or Crtl+F. As a result whenever I land I almost always have to get repaired afterwards due to excessive speed on touchdown. Is there some kind of flight tutorial in the game? It seems like the current tutorials are a bunch of low quality videos from LOMAC.