Yeah, it means that I don't see such a plane necessary at all. And if the set of requirements is flawed, the result is too, a bit like JSF
In which case you could state as such and then not continue in a discussion you clearly don't need to be a part of...
Then why did Sukhoi were so stupid to saddle the plane with such requirements?
AFAIK they didn't... the reduced speed was just a direct consequence of the new nose shape and weight changes...
What they also didn't do is demand new 25kw engines to restore the flight speed back to mach 2.3 plus...
This sounds like US excuses for the practical ban of supersonic flight of the F-35B and C
Actually it allowed the F-16 and F-18 to be made lighter and cheaper and simpler... it takes a long time and a lot of fuel to get to top speed in a fighter aircraft and most never bother because the cost in flight range and time is enormous.
For aircraft like MiG25 or MiG31 it is useful, but for most others it is not.
It is not for us to decide, VKS knows what they need and they got a supersonic tactical bomber. There are several reasons for this, you know it.
It replaced the Su-24 was the main reason so other Flanker types can concentrate on being fighters and interceptors and the Su-34 can hit ground targets.
If you take the tunnel and fill it, you grow massively the drag of the plane.
You mean like with the MiG-29 when it carries a centreline fuel tank... yeah... so what...
As I said this aircraft doesn't need a high top speed.... supersonic at low altitude would be good enough... and the extra ordinance and fuel space would be useful too.
Have you wondered why did they design the Okhotnik the size they did, and not bigger
It is a drone and making it huge adds no value at all.
As you said yourself, they will have the PAK-DA above in terms of payload. In general, the notion of using a supercruising fighter as a basis of a B-52 is quite the idea you know...
I think you have lost focus... we are talking about an Su-34 replacement based on the Su-57 design.
We aren't talking about drones.
Helicopters with 100 km range missiles and launching drones, from what we know. Manned platforms try as hard as they can to move away from the "C" in CAS, it makes a lot of sense because the worst attrition is that of your pilots. Platforms today are too complex to train competent crews in some weeks like it was done before.
Maybe new high speed helicopters will be able to operate at altitudes that allow bombing out of reach of ground based defences... imagine hovering over the target you are bombing.... a golf ball with a hankie first to see which way the wind is blowing... manouver into position and drop the bombs...
A Su-57 PCA/NGAD? Let us see what the US does, before going that way.
Screw America... who cares what they do... they could take a cure for cancer and make it into something that gives you diabetes...
The JSF concept was actually very good, the implementation of it however just shows how broken and corrupt their system has become.
Making a platform like the one you say would detract from short range combat and therefore from versatility of the plane.
By the time this aircraft is going into service all new aircraft will be bigger and heavier and the light short range manouver fighting shit will be done by small disposable drones and of course AAMs.
Maybe LMFS exaggerate a little but certainly building a plane derived by Su-57 without the advantages given by its peculiar design characteristics would amount to a self contradiction in itself.
I disagree... the Su-35 is a multirole fighter and bomber and could in theory be used as a strike platform, but they realised that two crew are better than one for strike missions so they built the Su-34 out of the Su-35.
No one complains that the Su-34 might have less manouver performance than the 35 because it is a strike aircraft... complaining that a strike model of an Su-57 might not be as fast or as manouverable as the fighter is a no brainer... the whole point is to get a semi stealthy strike aircraft to replace the Su-24 and Su-34...
Said so, I would bet on a dedicated D (or even better DR) version of PAK-DP.
The DP is going to be a high altitude very high speed interceptor... trying to make a strike aircraft to penetrate enemy air defences would be silly because such an aircraft would not be stealthy like a very low flying fast aircraft would... that is why they fly low and fast.