For some strange question the 2 air frames resemble each other alot IMo. Maybe its the odd tails?

maybe its the wide body. it Just feels like the russian aircraft is More  YF-23 than F-22 from the frontal aspect.

It also makes me wonder why the russians didnt take a clue from the Yf-23 and cover or hide the engine exhuasts better.

Very different aircrafts.

For exemple Russian wing is different , it is a cranked arrow wing like F16XL prototype and have interior mobile apex for controlling flow at high incidence.

It has rear elevators, and angled vertical surface are fully mobile.

Quite a complex, sophisticated, costly and unique system.

Possibly the most sophisticated aerodynamic formula ever seen.

Front is quite similar to F35.

 

It is like comparing a Concorde and a TU144 supersonic transport planes;

Or a Mirage III and a F106.

They seems similar for amateurs  but completly different.

Engineers have a number of possible choice but not in infinite number.

It is plane tailored for supersonic speed but having devices for high manoeuvrability.

 

 

 

For exemple Russian wing is different , it is a cranked arrow wing like F16XL prototype 

It's not as can be seen on images from above. This is a plain straight delta similar to that of the F-22, but with a higher sweep angle. There are similarities between the YF-23 and T-50, but the aircraft features Su-27 like engine nacelles, widely spaced engines, long tail sting and F-22 like wing/horizontal plane arrangements.

 

That the Russians didn't opt for max stealth from the rear aspect is probably a compromise between performance and affordability. This might also be the reason for some other choices, such as the moveable LEX and the less favourable bottom side design of the aircraft.

 

Here a bottom view of the aircraft, certainly no cranked delta.

Aerodynamically and technically it could be considered a cranked arrow.

Forward leading edge strakes, then a double delta even the first part is very short.

 

 

 

MK is right, and you are so horribly wrong, FS.

 

Is that clear? 

 

 

Not sure they have made a "bad design" to be honest. We are looking at this plane from an European / United States viewpoint.

 

From a Russian viewpoint this plane might make a lot of sense. (good enough against China, cheap stealth for their export customers, an interim type stealth airplane to cut down on developement costs, an interim type stealth airplane for learning how to use stealth in operations and developing doctrine, etc.

 

Also maybe behind the scene the Russians in power are not consideriing a conflict with the US likely.

It's also worth noting that this is a prototype.  Production versions (assuming it goes into production) might be different.  Though I also note that the Russians are already trying to sell this as being "better than the F-22."  We should never underestimate what Russia can turn out when it comes to fighters, but I have to raise an eyebrow at that.  As good?  Possibly.  Better? Not so much.

 

 

 

 

FS, I admit that I don't see things through your Gallic prism, but while I can see and agree that the Concorde was superior to the Tu-144, they were both delta-winged supersonic transports.  The Mirage III and the F-106 were high-speed interceptors which could dogfight if necessary.  The Mirage was smaller and shorter-ranged (being developed for fighting over Europe), whereas the Six was for long-range intercepts over Canada, and the Mirage had guns (which the Six lacked until the early 1970s)...but otherwise I can't see much of a difference between the two.