Holy hell, I didn’t ask for all that. I asked for specific details and information, not a spiel.
these guys be saying anything!!! it is hilarious
2 Likes
Kings of Flagging messages, ego through the roof as well
1 Like
I only abide by the information available ¯_(ツ)_/¯
If there’s any other or further information, I am completely open to learning about it; but I find odd to try to disprove the only available information without any counter-arguments or counter-sources.
So… if an actually reliable source pops up stating that it should actually have a 0,000000000000001m2 RCS, then alright, so be it. Until then, I will abide by the only values and estimates we have, those being 0.1-1 and more specifically around 0.5.
why would they list sources when they can just say its misinformation (ignore the fact we have given the numbers provided by the literal manufacturer lmao)
me when i lie…
A well spread misunderstanding regarding the “patent”
The “patent” was years before a serial su57 even existed, let alone a RAM prototype
The conditions only considered RAM over the IRST and the IGV. Heck it didn’t even consider radar blockers.
Not to mention this was a ESR not RCS, which is just a very rough value of what the RCS could be. Achieving 0 to -10dbsm without much RAM usage is quite a task infact.
Even if it was let’s say 1 to 0.1m2 RCS, how is it even bad? We don’t know RCS values of any 5th or 4.5gens.
RCS higly depends one :-
-
angle
-
frequency
It depends on them so much that it’s plot looks like a jumbled mess
For eg. A RCS plot of F-22 simulation
If a person is saying “RCS of xxx jet is 0.xxx m2” he has NO idea what he is talking about, since RCS just can’t be described by giving couple of numbers
And before anyone says it. NO F-22 average RCS is not 0.0001m2 or whatever random ass number.
Average RCS in X band would be much higher than that. The values taken are likely from a very specific angle and frequency which pretty much wouldn’t matter in combat. Infact even highly stealthy models fail to reach such low numbers.
4.5 gens are in the same boat, except they have external weapons to bloat their RCS even more.
6 Likes
…and Gaijin modelled 2020s Leopard 2A7V’s armor after a pre-Leopard 2A5 Prototype package from the 1990s.
And they haven’t modelled a single armor improvement on the Abrams tanks since the 1991 variant because they don’t have “enough specific official information about it”, so they prefer to leave even the 2010s variants with outdated values from the early 90s just to avoid guesstimations.
That’s how Gaijin works; they prefer to use solid but outdated information rather than educated guesstimations.
So: unless they plan to use double-standards, they should be using this suppossedly outdated information regarding SU-57’s RCS rather than any well-educated yet unofficial information.
Otherwise, they better start improving Leopard 2A7s’, SEP and SEPv2’s armor and many other Western/NATO/Ally tanks which they currently refuse to improve because “not enough official info”.
6 Likes
LOL, if you think felon will come w such an rcs you are mistaken
Like gaijin totally used outdated info for gripen’s flight model? Bro knows nothing relative to how gaijin works
Me when half the flight models…… half the armor penetration values of most apfsds rounds…. You got any official numbers?
Go ahead and provide them…
Way to miss the point.
1 Like
prove me wrong then lol
which is fair but at this moment in time its the literal only official number we have, which for the use in warthunder is what they would take over a guess
which I understand most RCS numbers given usually are from a frontal aspect so you can assume that is what they mean when they said they are aiming for 0.1 to 1.0, at the end of the day its the only number we have for the Su57
1 Like
You made no point. You thought gaijin works with outdated info, there many such cases of jets to tanks getting special treatment when even their prototype level disagreed with their performance in game.
I am not sure what game youre playing, but there is reasonable guesstimate to everything.
The information isn’t of Su-57 at all, it’s if T-50 protos, not to mention it’s a “guess”
And there is actually much better and reliable values out there, by using RCS sims which gaijin can do themselves.
3 Likes
We don’t know, none of that is specified
It’s like saying 3bm60 can pen leo 2a8, gl finding “where”.
yeah shame gaijin most of the times would use the outdated information from earlier prototypes then use that lol
Then why did Gaijin give the 2020s Leopard 2A7V the values (and barely) from a pre-2A5 prototype from the Swedish trials from the 1990s? Because they don’t want to make a guesstimation patring from the premise that, maybe, just maybe, the 2020s tank could be using improved technology compared to some early 1990s one.
Why does the 2008 M1A2 SEPv2 have the exact same armor as the 1990 M1A1HC even though it’s confirmed that, at the very least, the whole turret uses a brand new generation armor package? Because they don’t have any specific numbers and they would rather keep it outdated than guesstimated.
Etc, etc, etc, etc, etc.
1 Like
who knows at this point lol, at this point doesnt matter much anyway when gaijin is either A not modelling stealth or B making stealth just a set value lol
1 Like
Its 3 set values actually, front side and rear aspect