the things the supporters of PAKFA or FGFA should explain is,
1. Why are so many radar reflecting planes on the fuselage underside?
2. What is the guarantee the new item 30 engine will meet the IAf requirement other than a few interviews from saturn chief?
3. Was PAKFA a new stealth design or just the stealth complaint refined version of Su-30/
4. What was the ASR IAf gave in the start? Has it been compiled with by now? obviously not,
5.How can you design plane less stealth than F-22 , that too decades after F-22 entered into service and call it a newer gen stealth plane? The F-35 analogy won't do, because it was a compromise design to reduce cost by employing economy of scale across three versions which forced a suboptimal airforce version.But PAKFA was supposed to be clean sheet dedicated fighter with no short take off requirement.
The fit and finish has miles to go before it even reaches the level of any modern 4.5th gen fighter. With so much strengthening strips jutting out in all directions it is hardly stealth friendly in its fuselage underside. Even tejas LSP-7,8 has a way better finish than this.
Whatever be the political motivation behind IAF accusations, this kind of finish looks like an world war-II era tech.
Why are russians doing it like this? All metal, no composite gaping spaces rough edges,
Against ever increasing sensitivity of ASEA radars of the future how can it's hold it's stealth tag?
the main reason for all this is trying to improve the already existing SU-30 MK platform into stealth version, instead of going for a stealth compliant all new fifth gen designs. if this was done earlier most of the clumsy edges won't be there.
And also they could have added better stealth compliant S shaped intake .This I posted months ago. And now everything is coming out in the open.
No use endlessly berating Ajaishukla for his views on f-35.
the naval version of f-35 with so many new tech is quoted to cost around 150 million dollars,
Then how can RAFALE justify the 120 million dollar price tag with no internal weapon carriage and stealth/
Then how can PAKFA which is just an evolutionary development version of Su-30(not a revolutionary development like F-35 which needs heavy funding and many new cutting edge tech and design concepts for the naval version)
can ask for the same 150 million dollar per piece price tag,
if kinematic argument favors the PAKFA, then sensor suite and take off and land anywhere capability of F-35 along with better stealth shaping makes up for that.
So it is a complex argument , not as simple as it appears to the eye.