I hope they aren't using the wrong tool set to open up the panels. That'll definitely hinder the RCS. This is probably a trial plane. Lack of Quality Assurance is usually seen in Russian and Chinese weapon systems. The US manufacturers wouldn't have brought the plane in this shape for flight tests. They would do further work to avoid any risk during flight. I can see some aluminum and silicon conductor and composite panels that aren't done correctly or can produce drag, etc during flight. I am sure that will change when they finalize the jet but it'll be considered a flight risk had this been in the US.
Plus, this is a modified-angular version of the Flanker family airframe. This will produce a low RCS jet not a 'new' 'all aspect' wholly entirely 'stealthy' plane like the F-22. It's visible from the design, geometry and a million pictures and drawings that I've seen and reviewed on different places. Not trying to discredit this, it will be leaps ahead of the current jets due to the RCS control and advanced EM and Super Cruise, etc. But, this isn't a direct competition to the F-22 or the F-35. I will credit this airframe for extreme speed, agility and maneuvers.
I think I will go as far as to say that the Chinese J-20 and J-31 may be a closer competitor to the Raptor and the F-35 compared to the TU models. The Chinese have stolen some US technology and they've known to work on advanced surfaces, stealth designs and miniaturized supercomputers for jets and high profile EM-Avionics suite.
You are talking rubbish. Just take a look at some US prototypes on there first flight. Not painted and rivets also everywhere. It was not until the 3rd Prototype they actually put the composite nose cone on the Pak Fa to test the new Radar from memory.
Also in one of your other posts you claim the US has led since WW2. On fighters - they did not lead during WW2. Britain and Germany led. Britain had the Spitfire in production in 1936. The first world class US fighter was the P51 in terms of airframe in 1941. No good with its US engine. Finally in 1943 re-engined with a British Merlin it became effective in 1943. By then of course Britain had the Mosquito. Probably a more effective fighter and light bomber than the P51. German reports say pilots were more afraid of the Mosquito than the P51. [Yes the P51 was good but not until 1943.] The USSR Yaks were good also by then. The P51 was pitiful to start with and the British only used it for recon etc until then.
Mig15 V F86 - Korea. Very hard to tell how they went against the 36 Russian Migs there. US figures have been proved to be about 5 times too high since all Russian Squadron records were released. Example: The US Ace? who claimed 4 Russian Migs on days when no Russian Migs were in the air.
Overall balanced people accept the Mig15 was superior in terms of airframe. More agile - better ceiling - better climb rate - better cannon etc. Maybe not as comfortable but living I imagine comes before comfort.
What did balance up the contest was the superior Gun sight on the F86. Overall if there were equal numbers of Mig15's and F86's and they were all flown by experienced WW2 Pilots like most US F86's the Mig15 would probably have won the Air War.
Next - The Mig17 in production in 1953 - basically an improved Mig15 - all the bugs fixed etc. The US F100 put in production in 1954 with reservations on the part of the USAF. It had problems that were never really fully overcome. It had a terrible attrition rate. They had to do something with the Mig17 coming off the production line. The F86 would have had no chance against the Mig17. The F100 tried to incorporate all the good airframe features of the Mig15 - the swept wing etc.
Vietnam- the USAF admits they lost the initial part of the air war there 9-1. They went home and created better tactics and in effect came back with an Aircraft that skipped a few other models. The Phantom. Against a new Air-force that only started with about 75 aircraft - the mainstay was 36 Mig17's the USSR gave N-Vietnam. The USSR had the Mig21 [In production 1959-1985] which Vietnam only saw a few of towards the end. USAF pilots who flew a captured one for 100 sorties considered it equal to the Phantom in the Air to Air role. The Mig23 was the Russian counter to the Phantom [about 1973]. If the F100 was so good why didn't the USAF send then up against the Mig17's in Vietnam - the US equivalent aircraft. There can only be one reason - guess! The US had thousands of them and 100's in Vietnam but all they did was ground support. By 1972 Russia had the Mig25. Sure only an 800 hour engine life but you can fly lots of combat missions in 400 hours. Change the engine in about 1.5 hours if necessary - designed to be done in the field. As was proven in Israel when the Russians flew Recon missions over Israel nothing Israel had could touch them. Some "US types" claim a Phantom got close to it once. In a book I read about the conflict a Jewish South African pilot flying a Mirage for the IAF says it was the Mirages only that had a chance of l
getting close enough to launch a Missile? It does not matter - they could not shoot one down anyway. Sure one Russian crew cooked there motors escaping a missile but I imagine there orders were to take no chances. Better a few cooked motors than a lost aircraft over Israeli territory. Especially if it came down in one piece.
Just where are all these superior US Aircraft since WW2. I have not even gone into European Aircraft of the time.
It simply did not happen until the F15 went into production about 1976.
All of its kills also have tended to be against downgraded 3rd Gen or very early downgraded Mig29's of lesser Airforces etc. Just how it would have gone against USSR or Russian T-10's with a good experienced pilot on equal terms is still unknown.
Throw in some Mig25's and Mig31's and it would be interesting.
Hollywood does not always tell the truth.
