How can I prove that something does not exist?
3 Likes
my dad that works at NATO said so
1 Like
Exactly it never existed as far as NATO is concerned because it’s so damn stealthy.
They’re more than okay. Our engineers simply took a more rational path for performance characteristics. Instead of making an S-shaped air intake duct, which increases the size and weight of the aircraft, they simply curved it slightly and installed radar blockers. Such a system works no worse for stealth than the solutions on the F-22\35.
And I just don’t understand what’s wrong with the cockpit canopy.
I can’t upload a video here, but there have already been several cases of the Su-57 being used.
The recent cruise missile strike and the famous downing of the S-70. Both times, a group of Su-57s flew into enemy territory and absolutely no one touched them, and maybe even didn’t know about them.
2 Likes
where is the RAM coating?
Um, everywhere?
The coating production plant was completed in June 2022. The fact that it does not “rot” like on the F-22 does not mean that it does not exist.
2 Likes
both china and USA RAM coating look very similar, but somehow MIGHTY ROSHIYA managed to make RAM coating that looks just like paint, amazing! ROYSHIA is so powerful!
1 Like
Well, that`s true, they have the same coating)
In general, let’s discuss normally, and not praise the “inimitable stealth genius of the USA or the Chinese.”
Each of these aircraft has its own problems.
2 Likes
It will surely be a shock for your engineers that radar blockers are used together with S-ducts. Because these are not interchangeable things.
The canopy frame affects the RCS of a stealth aircraft, which is why the canopies of 5th-gen fighters are made without frames. It’s funny that the creators of the Su-57 talk about the coating of the canopy, yet we see a frame with a gap, as if it were the doors of a Lada.
Yes, it launched missiles from its airspace as if it were a B-52, lol. The only time it entered enemy airspace was during the S-70 incident, but what made you think there was air defense there, which Ukraine is catastrophically lacking?
1 Like
They’re interchangeable, at least read the basics.
Indeed, in a completely straight channel, radar blockers will not help, but in the Su-57 it is quite distorted.
Huh?
He has been working on the front line for at least a year. The X-69 launches took place back in 2023.
But believe what you want, I will believe the facts.
1 Like
I read about radar blockers that are used in the F-22 and F/A-18 Super Hornet, along with S-ducts. What do you recommend as a basiсs?
You just provided a photo where a large part of the radar blocker is literally visible through the air intake.
This is not the canopy frame of the F-35 and J-20; it’s something like a safety arc. It is located behind the glass of the frameless canopy, and therefore it does not contribute to increasing the RCS. “At least read the basics.”
It launched these missiles from its airspace, which is what I was talking about. And it did so while accompanied by 4th-generation fighters, lol.
2 Likes
Holy cope. Same country that had patriots near the frontline? Why did the paper tiger non stealth (F-18 RCS) Su-57 as well as the drone with the “exposed exhaust nozzle” fly at medium to high altitude while having visible contrails on top and not get shot down?
Let’s start with the fact that the F-22 does not have radar blockers, and we’ll end there. All stealth is tied to the S-shaped air intake. I don’t know what you read there, but don’t read it anymore.
Um, yeah? Why shouldn’t they? They should, as it were, directly “receive” the radio signal.
So wait, do you even know what radar blockers are?
“That`s different” Ok, i got it.
Spoiler
Cope
Do you think they weren’t seen either? On the Su-35, of course, radio visibility was reduced, but I don’t think that much.
1 Like
Because Ukraine does not have a continuous air defense zone over the front line, and the few air defense systems are scattered near strategic objects, I suppose. On the other hand, what prevents the use of the Su-57 like the F-117 in its time? It would be cheaper than launching cruise missiles from the rear.
3 Likes
Su-57 has been used since day 1
Probably that they have like a total of 20
1 Like
In fact, it’s there on the side of the nozzle, I clarified. There’s also the Super Hornet, where the S-duct is used together with a radar blocker.
Because you just said that ‘in a completely straight channel, radar blockers will not help.’ The intake of the Su-57 is straight enough.
Of course. The frameless canopy with metallic coating prevents wave reflections from the cockpit of the aircraft. And this thing is located behind the glass.
Judging by the losses, they were clearly visible.
2 Likes
Then why did they send 4th-generation aircraft with unguided bombs at the very beginning, which incurred losses from MANPADS, while having an undetectable stealth aircraft? I don’t see the logic in that.
And how many do you need, 100? As far as I remember, several dozen F-117s were reported to be used in Desert Storm.
2 Likes
You are devoid of basic logic it seems. You even contradict your self in single post
I heard something about Hornet, but I won’t say anything, I don’t remember it that way, I’ll have to look it up.
They are warped enough for the radar blocker to work. Don’t think that you are smarter than engineers.
I’ll just remind you that it was made by the same people who made the most advanced airframe for an aircraft, the Su-27.
Don’t forget that the essence of “Stealth” is not only in absorbing radiation, but also in deflecting it in the other direction from the receiving antenna.
The F-35 cockpit is visible to radar in the same way as the Su-57 cockpit.
Plus, no one can deny that this space can be covered with RAM.
There are no losses among the Su-57. During the entire war, we lost ~20-40 aircraft, which is less than the United States lost in Iraq.
Where exactly?