Because… And hear me out here…
This
Is incapable of incorporating S-ducts…
While this
Is.
Do you really need this spelt out to you this bluntly? I never took you for a person of this caliber, but I’m starting to rethink it.
What?
Is.
that is an S duct but not a great one
“not a great one” is the air intake of the Su-57. And this is quite an S-duct. Which is impossible, according to the air intake expert earlier in the thread.
1 Like
A lot of US aircraft were designed to beat Soviet aircraft since we thought at the time they were far ahead of us.
Case examples: MIG-25. When we captured it thanks to Viktor Belenko. We found out this aircraft we thought was still superior to what we were developing and had was a piece of junk.
Nowadays we build our aircraft to surpass our aircraft. Hence next aircraft is to surpass the F-22 and F-35s eventually.
When it comes to the Su-57, there is a lot of footage of them up close and we know it has screws. So in terms of Stealth those screws would make it more stealthy than an F-86 but nowhere near an F-111, F-117, B-2 nor the B-21.
the f-22 has screws too. they are just a bit harder to see.
This thread is really pointless. Bunch of people either fanboys of f-22 or su-57 theorizing how one would win the other. Pointless. Just wait for these aircraft to come in war thunder and fight it out then.
If everything goes well in the world, there won’t be any f-22 engaging su-57 during their operational lifetimes.
7 Likes
Oh boy, look! Not an S-duct!
Shocking truth! But what is this, Mr. Expert?
What?
This, mr. Expert.
This is a prototype
1.42 never appeared in metal.
Well maybe because Stormshadow/SCALP have a massive range
Launched from stand off ranges. 500km Ukraine have lost most of their Su-24 from aviation/SAMs and ground based strikes.
You should read the UK intelligence report on the efficacy of R-37M and how it has been a massive threat.
As for all of Russias aircraft would be destroyed on the ground. Thats a sweeping statement.
theres actually quite a bit of research into this showing that no, they dont make stealth worse as long as you treat them the same as the other wing and control surfaces
theyre actually better than a lot of other designs
3 Likes
In practice, this means that over three years of conflict, they have failed to completely eliminate two dozen outdated bombers. Under controlled conditions, with complete air superiority and no capable enemy fighters. Can you imagine the military leadership of any other country achieving such “success” and still retaining their positions?
This was stated by a very authoritative Z-expert, a former Su-34 navigator who fought in Syria. He noted that the only reason aviation doesn’t suffer losses at its home airfields is that they are attacked by slow and cheap drones, allowing the aircraft to scramble and relocate. In the event of an attack with modern cruise missiles, they wouldn’t have time to react. Moreover, the airfields within the range of the Storm Shadow missiles are no longer used by aviation.
Looks like a T-50, the sharp edges make it obvious, and its common for 5th generation jets to have exposed screws.
The Russian war doctrine focuses on anti air, they don’t often require much air superiority aircrafts because of their anti air systems like S400’s and the prototype S500’s.
They are also trying to operate in the most densely defended airspace in the world.
No other air force has come close to operating in an airspace as hostile. Russia have destroyed 100s of SAMs, Radars and what happens the US/ NATO give Ukraine more. Ukraine are guided by the best military intelligence network they have access to the full NATO satellites.
Your flippant remark they are antiquated bombers. Yes they are but they are also positioned right next to the Polish border and screened by SAMs. The risk of an escalation with Poland is not worth the risk of operating near the border. Su-24 are also routinely moved to make tracking the bombers and aircraft harder. Russia now use drones and Iskander missiles if they see a concentration of UA airframes.
You move your aircraft out of harms way, fuel is cheaper than air defence missiles and risk of losing an airframe. I don’t doubt Russia would lose some aircraft on the ground. As would NATO partners the Oreshnik is designed for that purpose a none nuclear first strike decapitation attack that has a low interception probability.
Russia will have knowledge of a US/NATO strike they have satellites and share with China. Sneak attacks on the scale of crippling an entire nation are not possible. F-35s have to take off, surface ships have to move into range, bombers B-2/B-21s have to take off, masses of tankers and support aircraft EAWACS. Cutting all diplomatic ties all of these are warnings. The same with Russia if they planned to deploy Orezhnik at NATO.
Final point if Russia was an easy mark, why haven’t NATO just gone and done it?
1 Like
My God, what nonsense. Deliveries of air defense systems began six months after the conflict started, and those were just a handful of systems. Six months! The US flattened Iraq in a month in '91. And in all that time, they couldn’t do anything about a miserable handful of 40-year-old Ukrainian planes.
Oh boy! That’s just an ordinary IRBM. Stop watching RT.
1 Like