Su-57's radar suite is actually better, F-22 is ageing badly. [Not Ragebait]

Machinery of War Discussion Aircraft
189

There’s still a lot of classified information about the f-22 but the block 30/35 supposedly added side looking Aesa radars as well, plus block 5 onward use an improved AN/APG-77(V)1, so it doesn’t lose that badly in situational awareness, and the rest like EW will always be classified and won’t be fully modeled in WT anyway.

The Su-57 will for sure be more maneuverable but should still lose in kinematics and Supercruise.
I can’t wait until j-20 comes and probably blow both the f22 and su57 out of the water with the ws-15 engines, 360 tons of thrust and 2-3 tons lighter than f22 and su57.

1 Like
192

f35 eodas has IIR
eurofighter pirate IRST uses IIR and can track 500 targets at once
su35 non IIR irst can only track 4 targets at once
you get the point dont you

193

I get you hate tanks, but you shouldn’t lie about them.
RedEffect is pro-facts, which lines up with being pro-NATO more than anything.
So your post here is accusing NATO of being Russia…

Your posts here are derailing and provoking [hopefully unintentionally].

1 Like
194

I already showed proof of red effect being unreliable. it is not a primary source and never will be, additionally redeffects opinion collides with what the organizers said. Redeffect is no god nor did he have any new sources for his opinion.

195

Like i said, this and the fact that redeffect contradicts with what the organizers were saying in the first place. Hope he becomes more pro facts in future.

196

So your post is claiming video evidence is all fake, ever made… interesting.
The T-14’s engine never stopped, and drove off under its own power. Video > anti-tank propaganda.

Also the fact YOUR POSTS claim that the driver is mentally disabled is pathetic. You try doing a parade in a brand new tank without making a single mistake, I guarantee your nerves will be on edge.

Either way, F-22 is dated; which is one of the many reasons F-35 is the superior jet, and soon enough F-35 will be surpassed by other competitors, likely Korea so far.

1 Like
197

“video evidence” if you watch the parade fully with audio you can hear the organizers actually giving a reason while redeffect is talking about something completely different
This proves a lie.

strawman argument; i never claimed that the driver is mentally disabled or has panic disorder, however the other person claiming that the driver couldn’t find the “parking brake” that he put on because he panicked refers to exactly that

unfortunately for you this contradicts the annoucement made during the parade where they very much mention that it was no accident.

198

Yeah and that will always be the case in real life but in WT the F-22 will dunk on the F-35, as will the SU-57.
But the F-22 will still have the unique advantage of supercruise at high mach speed (>1.5), an advantage that only the J-20 with the WS-15 engines could match.

199

too early to say anything. no idea how they will model the eodas and the capability to fire missiles behind you

200

“I didn’t say he’s mentally disabled, I said that panicking makes you mentally disabled, thus claiming he’s mentally disabled.” - Hypothetical quote.
Dude, you need to read your own statements, and make sure they’re what you want to say.
Making a claim that a behavior is something is claiming that person is that something.

Me saying “Believing in radiation makes you mentally unwell.” is both gaslighting and accusatory of the people. Not an actual belief I have BTW, radiation is real and almost all beliefs are formed in the sane mind.

So exactly what RedEffect said, no mechanical malfunctions, AKA no accident.

@WereCat888
Supercruise is primarily a fuel efficiency measure, not a feature for combat itself.
Super Etendard supercruises at mach 1.28 at 10.3.

1 Like
201

the amount of panic required for you to somehow put on a handbrake and fully being unable and impaired from turning it off while it also being invisible (driver on video was very calm and collected) clearly shows how this is non sense. it would be severe impaired if it actually occured and it would be very visible.

redeffect said that the driver accidentally put on the handbrake. the show organizers said something very different, that it was not an accident of the driver, it was clear that the driver did not put on the handbrake accidentally which is what redeffect claims.
so pick your story, either you believe redeffect but it totally goes against what the show organizers are saying, or believe show organizers but it fully goes against what redeffect is saying despite you saying that redeffect is “pro facts”

202

English is a contextual language.
The driver accidentally doing something is NOT the same context as the organizer’s statements.
I’d help you further with understanding English, but the naval star requires my attention.

1 Like
203

understand this: when i say “it wasn’t an accident”, the show organizer meant that what happened was intended, pre planned and completely different to what redeffect claimed
so, make your pick. redeffect or show organizer, or do you now believe neither and refuse to pick?

  • red effect
  • show organizer
0 voters

pick who you think is correct.
oh, and you said the engine was still running. it didn’t stall despite the “handbrake” being forced on?

204

Both are correct, cause I understand the English language.

1 Like
205

like i said, what the show organizer says contradicts what red effect says
show organizer made it clear that this situation was preplanned, expected and that it was not a “handbrake” situation but something else while redeffect claims that it was handbrake, unintentional, accidental
so, are you refusing to pick? expected.
“i support 2 completely different views on this situation despite them contradicting with each other”
feel free to answer the poll when you have finally made your mind as to which situation in your mind explains the situation. was it a handbrake or was it not a handbrake?

206

Watched a video of an old F-22 test pilot, and during one part he was talking about how supercruise was helpful as it allowed them to impart more energy on their missiles when they launched. So not really true for F-22

207

Wet thrust does the same exact thing.

208

while significantly increasing the IR signature and strain on the engine.

209

Did you mean to reply to me?

210

Yeah, besides, most SU57 contrarians will bring the same debunked stuff over and over. For instance, the – IMO not suspicious at all – T50 public patent that explicitly says 0.1-1.0m^2 as a goal for the average RCS, yet people act like it’s frontal, written in stone, and also as if the T50 was the same as a production SU57. For the sake of it, I just opened the translated patent, it reads:

“The technical result, to which the invention is directed, is in reducing the value of the radar visibility of the aircraft to an average value of the order of 0.1-1 m2.”

People, differences between production and prototype isn’t something unique to the SU57, the YF22 and F22 are also quite different aircraft.

We’re on a thread on radars, and the feeling I get is that some people here are trying to implicitly argue that the radars on the SU57 must be bad simply by extension of already debunked stuff, such as exposed screws on a very early prototype (RAMless), the IRST ball (as if they didn’t have faceted IRST designs, and as if RAM, RAS and RTM didn’t exist), exposed engines (while both Sukhoi and MiG studied S-ducts, YF23, radar blockers), round exhausts (flat nozzles were also studied by them, Sukhoi S-22, Su-27 T10U-5), canopy bow (YF23), all-metal skin/canopy simulations (5th gens have composite skins) and the list goes on.

Finally, many of the more general YF23 drawings are unclassified, have been for some years now, anyone can grab a copy of Paul Metz’s book on the YF23 and see for themselves. If the Russians didn’t think their shapes were decent for their RCS goals, they very well could use the YF23/F23 drawings as a base, tweak it via anechoic chamber studies and EM-analysis software, and call it a day, but reality is different: they don’t need to copy it, many principles of RCS reduction are now available even for the general public. We know about continuous curvature, faceting, parallel edging, serrated edges, edge treatment, creeping waves, edge diffraction, corner diffraction, tip diffraction, keller cone’s, tin oxide canopies and what not. To think engineers – especially Russians, who have studied stealth for decades – in other countries don’t know about that is just foolish.

10 Likes