always get a kick out of how russian designs are so similar to US designs.

The proposed russian design for the space shuttle was ridiculously similar to our space shuttle.

who needs a fighter with a dude in it?
just a g-force limitation
and a recruitment/PR tool

Yes, but input latency is too big for real-time remote control.

No doubt built with stolen US technology, or worse, illegally sold by US contractors who should be executed for treason.

It's an SU-27 with a Stealthier body-kit, nothing new here.

This is actually a viral video for the next Transformers movie.

Well, building an fighter that appears to be aesthetically and functionally similar to your potential enemy is a good strategy. I don't think the Russian designers were informed by potential public opinion on the part of Americans. At least the T-50 doesn't gas the pilot.

Yeah, but the Russian designs cost 10% of the American counterpart, and in the case of the F22, they actually work well enough to use on a battlefield (Air Force refused to use F22s in Iraq and Afghanistan because they were deemed unsafe for combat conditions).

If I were an American I certainly would not brag about the state of the US fighter jet program.

Can't be, the Russian model actually flies.

New? YouTube video date says otherwise.

Good to see it's not just the US squandering their resources on this crap. the Russians have finally closed the dumb-shit gap.

Are they giving rides? I don't have $25 million for the ISS.

it's funny how we accuse them of stealing as if russians are incapable of engineering. in the same sense that this plane looks a little like our f22, our planes look a little like old german planes (they have wings to keep them in the air, jet engines, etc). did we steal our rockets from the germans? or does the concept of a rocket just inspire a specific structure regardless of who builds it?

Russia and China got huge boosts to their stealth programs when Lt. Col. Dale Zelko's f117 was shot down over Yugoslavia. Even thought the tech at that time was 25 years old. It was still way ahead of anything they had even come close to producing. It's also rather funny especially since the idea of the design was based off a paper written by Pyotr Ufimtsev, a Soviet mathematician in 1964.

I do find it strange this design looks far more like the Northrop YF-23 then it does the F22. Makes you wonder if someone at Northrop got pissed the f22 was picked over theirs and this was their revenge.

Not that the aircraft body and platform aren't important (stealth)---but another quite valid way to think about modern weapon platforms is: it's about the arrow, not the archer---what weapons will the plane yield?
And another useful construct is: what are the not-so-glamorous, non-airshowy capabilities of the aircraft (signal processing, computers, linkage to a comprehensive air defense or air superiority complex)---
Still, neat video

Yes, since they are all trying to minimise radar signature with similar techniques it greatly restricts their design envelope and they all end up looking pretty similar.

The mission generally dictates the engineering and design of a mechanical system. The Buran and the Shuttle are prime examples. The new X-37 resembles both in general shape because a reusable "space plane" needs certain specific physical characteristics.

The Mig-25 looks like the F-15 because both were originally designed as high altitude, high mach interceptors. The demand placed on the system by the overly large engines dictates the shape.

The basic principles of radar "stealth" dictate certain shapes to be effective. The Have-Blue shape was effective against high frequency radar through deflection. As materials technology advanced, e.g. radio absorbing materials, more aerodynamic shapes could be implemented and still retain "stealthy" characteristics, if not improve upon them.

All the F-22 vs Pak50, M1a1 Abrams vs T80 videos are funny. The 1 versus 1 advantages are fun to debate, but its the entire system that wins or loses the fight. In the same vein, its common knowledge that German armor in WW2 was vastly superior to American armor in every technical way. Similarly, German fighter aircraft were more maneuverable than the P-47s and P-51s that they fought. Unfortunately for the Luftwaffe, this superiority was not enough to defeat the allied system as it rolled east across Europe.

The term 5th generation does not define the aircraft themselves, but the system they belong to. If you read wikipedia, this does not mesh, but the wiki values maneuverability (which is inherently limited by the pilot), stealth features (limited by current materials and design), advanced avionics (what does this mean?) and multi-role capabilities (we have had this since the 1980's). The key to 5th generation fighters and its defining characteristic is the ability to integrate the new fighters with every other piece of war equipment in the theatre, not just in tactical use, but the total meshing of sensors and 2-way data links. Its the difference between a war of attrition and a war of "look first, shoot first".

The Russians appear to be building an excellent stealth fighter that looks sexy as hell. The Chinese are doing the same. What they both lack at the current time is the "backend" systems to make these new 5th generation-esque vehicles fully capable. The Pak50 and the J20 won't be sharing targeting data with their Navy or other ground forces anytime soon.

General opinion around the internet seems to be that the F-22 is superior in a lot of those ways, but not by enough to make it the air dominance fighter that it is now. And then there's that the T-50's main American-made 5th-gen opponent would be the F-35, since that's one we sell to other people and the one we're actually building more of.