Generation is an arbitrary term used to loosely define a set of technologies and capabilities an aircraft has and or is capable of, it’s not really a good ruleset to follow on which plane is better at any given thing.
Unless concrete metrics are used to assess the aircraft stated, such as flight performance, payload, ordinance, avionics, etc., this won’t go anywhere.
They are all vague requirements for what makes up a generation, you dont need to fulfill all of them, but generally speaking a aircraft that only checks some of the “boxes” tend to be labeled 4.5 gen. For which SU-57 would probably be among the better designs if one places it in that category.
Now if we are to go by just whatever news media labels an aircraft i guess you can put whatever you want on to that list. That is an entirely fair way to make a list of 5th gen aircraft
I mean they have clarified, if labeled by news media as 5th gen its 5th gen for the purposes of that list
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1000936115000199
RCS an aircraft similar to a hornet is more than 1m2
0.01-0.1м2
metallic surface
0.01 m² from directly head on and RAM not taken into account
0.1m² on su 57 same direction.
Even without ram, su 57’s detection range is 77% more to that of the f35, -according to that chinese document and the sukhoi patent
sukhoi’s patent is not a document reliably indicating RCS Su-57.RАМ the coating does not give a 10-fold reduction
Yes it does, a simple google search will prove otherwise
As for su 57s RCS, there been several views which give close vaalues to those of sukhoi which is reliable.
A sime google search can show you many things…
I have seen these tests, their objectivity is very low since he used a faceted body, not a solid one
there is no access to the first link and to the 2nd
medium RCS F-35 -11dBm2, Su-57 -10.5dBm2,F-22 -12.16
Without RAM.
All surfaces are faceted to some extent. More surfaces will bring you closer to the real value. And there’s a point where adding surfaces will not change the result significantly. And he passed that point
Well I can’t find it. Document about F5 mesh model where the number of plates wasn’t big and result was quite close to the F5 tested in Sao jose dos campos RCS range.
all the studies I’ve found have all used either full-scale models or solids in virtual calculations.Facets and even with such curved angles were not used
Another disadvantage of this study is that it has air intakes for the Su-57 model, but not for the rest.Radar blocker modeled incorrectly
well it can be easily brought to F-35 or better stealth standards if and only if russia had the KOLD HARD KASH lol
now when the Su-57 gets the RAM coatings into mass production, these USA fighters will have a run for their money lol
you honestly think they’d do that in a nation where their whole business is dependent on and f they did that they knew they would get a treatment like a certain Yevgeny Prigozhin?
bruh like if your gonna be biased at least be consistent.
Russia would have to actually make SU-57s for that to be true.
“Mass Production”
Has maybe 20 working Su-57s. MAYBE. Lol.
i said when bro. like my comment didnt need a reply lol. did i say something wrong?
Rafale levels of RCS isn’t amazing.
It’s not a stealth fighter like F-22, F-35, or J-20.
Su-57 is a reduced visibility fighter, and the only people that have called it stealth are media outlets.
