I avoid estimates by guys who can precisely judge rcs with their eyes.
We can just agree to disagree here, because i will believe in m 2+ fighter with any form of fixed inlets only after seeing actual comfirmation...
you missunderstand. I have never told it's a disadvantage. I told what this ability is limited by internal fuel of the f-22, because due to combination of (1)significant fuel consuption even w/o reheat, (2)low fuel fraction, (3)thermal loads - raptor supercruises about as far as leading 4th generation fighters dash on their internal fuel. It is worthwhile to notice, though, what it happens only due to su-27 family being such a huge fuel cows: others don't come close. W/o flankers the f-22 could have a distinctive lead... But it just had to happen, what su-3x is the most frequent 4th gen opfor out there.
Low IR signature, as well as this very ability to sacrifice fuel fraction w/o dropping supersonic performance are obvious advantages of f-22, no disagreement here....
1, 2000kg=20%. Not enough of a difference? In aircraft flight profile, there is a fixed part(take off, climb, combat, landing), and much lesser "range" fraction. These 2000 kgs go tere.
2, raptor isn't exactly an effective fuel-to-range converter: above mentioned approach "engine solves all" has its downsides. Uncompromised stealth, speed, maneuverability and internal carriage always "appear" somewhere else.
3, hardly a stable argument, but su-57 layout strongly reminds ATF "supercruisers" - i don't mean widow, rather other discarded proposals, which invested heavier into effective supercruise and lost. Integral layout, increased attention to supersonic drag - all play a hand.
Fuel tanks: everyone have them. But for typical 4th gen they mean just drag and maneuvering penalties. For 5th gen, we additionally sacrifice supercruise and stealth.
Second part later this evening.
