are you serious? look again. there's quite a bit of difference, especially in fit and finish
only a lay person who is totally unfamiliar and has never seen either aircraft before - and whats the point of the comparison??
training, systems and logistics make the difference
what israeli radar?
The only Israeli radar I heard the Indians were looking at (apart from EL/M-2032) was EL/M-2052 for the LCA down the track. But I doubt that system would be anywhere near as capable as the current AN/APG-77, or even the Russians AESA that comes with the car.
Yeah they stood out to me as well, must help plenty at high AoA. Anyone think the vertical stabilisers were effecting stability in the turns (heard someone else mention it), they are mighty small.
couldn't you almost consider them canards that also just function as chines / a bit more blended into the wing during normal operation (frontal aspect)? or is it different because they will have an effect on airflow into the inlets.
The whole aircraft is small, to me. At least compared to the Flanker series. There is a shot of it next to an SU-27 floating around the net and it appears to my eye to be considerably smaller than the SU-27 series. The stories about it's enormous internal fuel, weapon loads and sensor systems, seem just that to me. Stories, because on appearance alone, the airframe is considerably smaller than the SU-27.
I'll try to find a good photo with them next to each other so we can address this question with a little more accuracy.The whole aircraft is small, to me. At least compared to the Flanker series. There is a shot of it next to an SU-27 floating around the net and it appears to my eye to be considerably smaller than the SU-27 series. The stories about it's enormous internal fuel, weapon loads and sensor systems, seem just that to me. Stories, because on appearance alone, the airframe is considerably smaller than the SU-27.
If the FCR is a much smaller array than the current series, than this might indeed, indicate that the Russians are getting their act together in relation to fighter based radar systems.
It also poses significant question marks in relation to their current systems, despite the championing for them in some areas, IMHO...
(high-res photo - click link)
Don’t quote me on this but I don’t think so, they probably wouldn't have too much effect on pitch performance comparable to a proper canard. I'd wager the increased vortex generation may compensate for the extended wing sweep at high AoA, but I'm no expert on aerodynamics.
Anyone else notice that in this photo the engine face is clearly visible??? i.e. No S shaped intakes. I wonder what that does for frontal RCS?
The wing area looks huge but the internal volume must be small. Just by eyeball I'd wager the F-35A's internal volume is significantly greater. For me that says two things; the PAK-FA should run rings around the F-35A in terms of kinematics but in terms of range, persistence and internal payload the F-35A should be significantly superior. Again that’s only by eyeball.
Indeed, it seems massive power output was driven by necessity rather the superiority of that design paradigm.If the FCR is a much smaller array than the current series, than this might indeed, indicate that the Russians are getting their act together in relation to fighter based radar systems.
It also poses significant question marks in relation to their current systems, despite the championing for them in some areas, IMHO...
Indeed, it's rather prominent isn't it... is this the sort of thing that is likely to be changed in future iterations of the design or is it an inherent feature of the airframe? I have no idea about such things so I'd be interested to hear from someone with more knowledge.
Again coming back to the apparent small internal volume I’m not sure there is room to install proper S shaped intakes. They are an integral part of US 5th gen designs. Still I have no idea what sort of actual effect that would have on frontal RCS.
fftopic note how funny is this video.
You beat me to it.
Think what he means is the shape compromise the airframe. Since stealth is shape and materials, having potruding shapes on underbelly compromises the signature. You can easly see that normal civilian transports aren't stealthy by shape, does that mean we need to technically analyze if its stealthy or not the transporter. The underbelly AT THE MOMENT isn't stealthy the overall airframe is more or less a RCS reduce 4th generation airframe. Own opinionUnderside is still being worked on, namely the weapons bay. Either way I have doubts about how you go about determining whether an aircraft looks less stealthy..