hmm perhaps a bit, yes yes yes I do
"In your face" malevolence, I like it
Now half seriously, even when this can sound all too evident: if you put that crap inside a plane it will NEVER be competitive against NORMAL planes, because weight and space are simply too scarce and critical in a combat aircraft. Beyond that, you will burden also the CTOL version. Reason is you need the engine in a much more central position than you would do in a normal design (see your own picture below). If the plane does not have internal bays this is bad but if you need them you wont have other option than placing them around the engine as in F-35 and X-32. Result is a plane with too big frontal area that consequently will greatly suffer in terms of acceleration, speed and range and specially in supersonic flight, so forget supercruise also, which is needed not only for air superiority but also for attack roles.
I am having strange problems with my forum interface and cannot post pictures now but consider the following frontal areas (from paralay):
F-22: 9,25 m²
Su-57: 9,47 m²
F-35A: 8,12 m²
F-16 < 5 m² IIRC
Besides, since the F-35 was originated as a "light" fighter they made it quite short (ca. 15,5 m). The finesse is a key factor of wave drag and this plane suffers at the same time from big frontal area and reduced length. Not a good combination for a supersonic jet.
So IMHO better to decouple the plane from take-off or landing requirements that are not feasible with its inherent capacities as CTOL fighter, by means of catapults or whatever
Operate from damaged runways or roads? Yes, use a robust undercarriage as all Russian fighters.
"Short" take off? Yes, by means of high T/W ratio, low wing loading, TVC, canards...
STOVL? Nooooooo! ...would rather agree to launch them with a booster from a UKSK than that
Ad 1+2 ) My bad I was not clear enough. Integrated sensors , avionics are must regardless of size. Light - means cheap. Cheap means not build from scratch . In Russian case radars, engines, sensors or weapons are already "off shelf" developed for PAK-FA.
Obviously not "off the shelf" in all cases you mention but much closer than before the PAK-FA project yes...
Bomb bay . OF course "stealthiness " helps . It is not that you cannot be seen but you surely are being seen less. Similar to military uniform
I think LO widens the tactical opportunities and neglects some weak spot to your enemy so it makes sense within reason. Reducing "S" is an obvious way to reduce SNR in the adversary's radar but increasing "R" also works...
Also apparent visual size is an issue, see the last camouflage paint in the T-50; here the LMFS would have an obvious advantage.
Internal bomb bay for defense fighter? Hmm size and payload is not real fetish to me. What was usage of F-18 or Su-34 payload capabilities in Syria? 1 bomb 1500kg? It is like buying the truck if all you really need to carry is 6 pack of beer.
Well not only defense fighter IMHO, export buyers do not necessarily have heavy fighters.
Actually the internal bomb bay capacities of existing 5th gen fighter are rather exiguous. Two 2,000 pounds bombs in the F-35 already forced to degrade its lower fuselage LO shaping. I would say 2 x 500 kg bombs / Kh-35 / Kh-58/... I agree that in most cases the use is not going to demand 8 tons ordnance but a minimal internal capability is needed beyond RCS issues due to drag reduction / range issues.
Perhaps standardized bombay makes sense though. But would make concessions to speed and maneuverability otherwise we got second F-35.
Yes, agree. Very important to develop weapons optimized for the internal carriage, no sense in carrying "empty space" inside a bomb bay!
What besides is important size (for fleet) look at size comparison KFX-201/F-35vs PAK-FA and VSTOL (Fleet
Yeah, LMFS with well devised folding wings would help to get more on board a smaller carrier. I wonder nevertheless if handling of planes in the hangars and decks may be optimized, seems very chaotic / complicated from what I have seen.
Ad 3) I said around 2 M. Can be less like Yak-141
:D:D There is no need to have something flying mostly theoretically high speed is most of time you fly around 1Ma anyway.
AFAIK Su-57, F-15 or F22 - all are 2500km/h + class
You like your Mach Number - km/h confusions as well I see.
Both F-22 and PAK-FA are officially 2 M planes. F-15 IIRC is 2,5 M. Due to the intakes in the PAK-FA I think it should be capable of more than that, the F-22 does not have adjustable ramps.
Ad 4) radius - it should be less 1000 say half Su-30 = 500-600km. St Petersburg - Helsinki (390 km) ... St Petersburg Tallinn 370 km , Moscow-Riga - 840km, Kaliningrad - Warsaw - 380
Bombing in Europe is so convenient isn't it?
Lo-Hi-Lo with ordnance on internal fuel does not look so fantastic in most planes except Sukhois and maybe F-35. 2500 km clean on internal fuel would be a very good number. Russians would no complaint due to ridiculous range compared to Flanker versions and export customers could have an opportunity defending heavy fighters and F-35s.
BTW short note about MiG LFI concept. Not sure reliability of sources though. Interestingly thsi is not very far form Butowski (Air & Cosmos) drawing...
Is all fan art or personal interpretations as far as I know. Obviously for a MiG it would make sense to use the MFI aerodynamic configuration (based or at least veery similar to the HIMAT) but logically updated to LO shaping, most interpretations of LMFS skip this part since they are old.
However I'd rather see this in modern edition like KFX 201
Looks Russian enough with those canards!
Single engine and ventral intake and you are almost there!
Mmmmm, ok then maybe I should shut up
No seriously, I am surrounded by IT / AI nerds. And the things which are already possible are beyond what most people suspect, wouldn't you agree? I would say almost all basic individual capacities are there but the integration, training and above all, testing of such non-deterministic systems is quite an issue of course... it will go step by step and that may delay the results but if it was a matter of wining a war you would have them tomorrow in the skies I think.