or perhaps you would like your 90million plane to be able to be killed by a simple button ?
oh hey look, let me take down all europe air force, click the kill switch
boom, no more 5th gen for these european.
Unlike the su57
2 Likes
god forbid someone sees something incredibly low effort on internet in the ginormous 26, the age of AI slop, and think it’s AI slop therefore trying to see if it is or not
1 Like
just saying I wouldn’t trust the AI checkers, it could still be ))))
they are using it more n more in the su35 and wreckage pics were found inside ukraine. i dont think its still a hypothetical K-77M that is no where close to being operational.
At lest it can fly longer than 10 minutes, lol
Reminder that no one is to talk about on going conflicts and politics anymore post regarding this will be removed and timeout given
3 Likes
This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.
Thing are only entered service when russians officially claim them. You can see R-27Es on photos of Barents Scalpel, carried by that Su-27P, although it’s still haven’t entering service. The ‘russian’ entering service means most flaws and installation problems are solved.
forcing Su-57 to fly with R-77 & R-74 externally (as they won’t fit inside).
o7
surely they would use a missile thats not in serivce n send it to ukraine (use it in combat).
this is why i find these discussions useless, Ram is perhaps the most classified part of a stealth aircraft:
the su57 ram is unconventional itself, how can we make statements about the stealth of any aircraft when we have no idea how the ram actually performs?
3 Likes
until the russians say theyre in service i would say its at best in low rate production with combat tests, there is virtually no reason why russians wouldnt make it very public that they have a new shiny next gen missile ready for scale production
1 Like
Wdym unconventional ram?
I suppose you’d have to go off from the statements on geometry being the bigger contributor of stealth as true, then assume some better known RAM and test from there, although even purely geometrical simulations are questionable: I have never seen a simulation on the f22 (nor any general f33 3d model for that matter) that correctly models the inner parts of the splitter plates.
See all those shapes? They surely must interact with EM waves, right? But on 3d models the inner parts are modelled as this:
Simple slopes with no details at all.
3 Likes
I mean, we could do this with all 5th Gen no?
You mean simplifying shapes? I wouldn’t oppose it if we could get some guarantee that all 5th gens would have the same level of ‘inaccuracy’ on their RCS models, but with real RCS numbers being so complicated and shrouded in mystery, can we really say one simplification won’t bias the result towards one or another aircraft? What if the F22 splitter plate simplification is actually hurting it more than doing it in the SU57?
That’s something I wouldn’t like to see. I understand it’s hard to get images on all these little details, but it’s something I think we should strive for.
Overall, I advocate using simulations to implement RCS values in WT, but that’s IF the models are kept to a given standard.
2 Likes
I mean pointing out inaccuracies in models used for RCS simulation
1 Like
Oh, sure, tbh I think we should. The closer we get to the actual shapes and a standard quality between models, the better. By quality I mean not only shapes, but also 3d model relevant stuff such as polygon/tri count and topology distribution (maybe those count on simulation, dunno really).
I’m under no illusion we’d derive real values from commercial software (possibly not validated through real data), but at least we’d keep it consistent between aircraft. I’d be fine with that until real data comes in.
1 Like