Re: Russian fifth generation fighter
I do not think F-22 or T-50 (you're right it's probably going to be an odd number like Su-41 or Su-51) are more maneuverable or agile than J-10, much less in a different league. So I stand by my claim in this area T-50 should be comparable to J-10, Eurofighter and F-22.
Sure it has widely spaced engine, and innovative control surfaces. It will probably get 3D TVC at some point. But at the end of the day this fighter is extremely heavy -- heavier than any other fighter out there. In WVR, a Eurofighter (or a J-10) will not be outclassed.
In terms of avionics, I am unconvinced by Russian claims. Is T-50 really supposed to have radars in its wings? And the beaver tail? Where is the cooling system going to go? What is going to supply all that power? How heavy is this going to make the aircraft? How would this additional weight affect flight performance? Does the additional bulk affect space for fuel?
China has more advanced avionics than Russia. AESA fighter radars are ready to go next year on J-10B. J-10B has AESA, satcom, IRST and MAWS. Russia has had endless problems actually implementing all of those things. So I stand by my claim that J-10B will have comparable avionics to T-50 (at least in the short term).
In terms of the role, my impression is that defensive fighters are usually single-engined, shorter ranged and light. F-16A and J-10 are good examples. Heavy, long-ranged platforms are usually offensive.
But then again, you might be right: When you're talking about a country as big as Russia, maybe you do need extremely long range just to do defense. In addition, the emphasis on frontal RCS reduction (pacman style) is consistent with defense, not airspace penetration.
Looking at the underside and the rear of the T-50. I would not mistake it for a stealth fighter if I wasn't told so!
Thanks for the clarification, I can see that your reasoning is well thought through. I still disagree on a lot and don't want to get into an endless circular debate, so I'll just pick on two points and elaborate on my alternative perspective.
Agility - F-22, T-50 vs J-10B & Eurofighter.
The T-50 is fundamentally designed around 3D TVC, that's been reported consistently and the widely spaced engines with round nozzles attest to that. F-22 and T-50 both use TVC for incredible agility, whereas the Eurofighter and J-10B currently do not feature TVC (that may change).
T-50's TVC, from an agility perspective, it better positioned and 3D vs 2D so better than F-22's. No real surprise. I'm thinking back to all those flight displays I've watched at air shows (despite my name I'm not big on air shows). Virtually all modern western and Russian combat aircraft, including Eurofighter, Rafale, Gripen, F-16, F-15, and of course MiG-29, Su-27/30. I've never seen J-10A/B but they are surely in line with those western types I listed, such as Gripen. Agility for all is amazing, but by far the most impressive, and I mean by far, was the Su-27 demonstrator with TVC, "711" as it was called back then. I hadn't been briefed on what to expect, so as it entered post-stall I thought I was about to witness a crash. Amazing, way above Euro-canards. The videos of F-22 look impressive too, and logically even 2D TVC is a huge advantage.
F-22's current weakness in WVR is the lack (operationally) of HMS and older generation Sidewinders (not X model) - USA will probably change that as soon as it looks like a real shooting war. But at the moment F-22 is seen as a strictly BVR fighter and its potential for WVR is compromised by budgeting on the extras like HMS and AIM-9X.
Role
You are describing single engine "point fighters" like J-7 series. In Russia the Su-27 and MiG-31 are designed as long ranged defencive fighters. In particular MiG-31 covers the vast artic north. Long ranged can mean long CAPs, reduced air-air refuelling burden etc. These fighters are then equipped with ultra-long ranged AAMs and massive radars to mitigate the fact that they are covering such a huge area that they cannot react as quickly as point-defence fighters. In later Soviet/Russian doctrine the SAM systems (S-300) do the role of point-defence fighters like J-7, and they only cover strategic locations. China is following this approach also.
The Western equivalents are Tornado ADV, F-14 etc that replaced single/double engine 'point fighters' (not specifically but generally F-104, Delta Dagger, Lightning) and introduced the concept of 'Interceptors' as opposed to 'fighters'. Look at how the F-22s are used in Alaska, that's very much the mold for T-50 IMO.
So T-50 is similar to MiG-31 and Su-30 in role, with strike as secondary (although all the advertising will obviously say multi-role etc). Like Su-30, compared to MiG-31 it will additionally have the WVR trump.
