Both are correct, cause I understand the English language.
1 Like
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?
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
Wet thrust does the same exact thing.
while significantly increasing the IR signature and strain on the engine.
Did you mean to reply to me?
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.
8 Likes
So… We are comparing a 1997 aircraft to a 2010 one…?
Wouldn’t it be more just to compare it to the F-35, my friend? The F-22 is no longer in production after all. In fact, it’s production was ceased before the Su-57 even entered service, nor “mass-production!” (if we can even call it that…) Seems a bit odd to compare an aircraft that entered service almost 20 years ago to one introduced 5 years ago…
Your image literally says in service
An F-22 shot down a chinese balloon a few years ago. How is that retired?
1 Like
It’s no longer manufactured. My point still stands. Why compare a 1997 aircraft to one from 2010? It’s clear that the F-22 is no longer the priority of the USAF, considering production was stopped, in favor of producing the F-35.
I mean the only truthful thing to say is that Su-57 is unproven and an unknown factor. At least to my knowledge
1 Like
its getting some attention now, some stopgap upgrades before later block F-35 and NGAD become operational.
but mostly dropped for cost. F-22 is not a cheap jet to buy or fly
Manufactured =/= retired though. Last T-80s were probably made from the late 1980s before the soviet union collapsed, yet it is still being upgraded right now
Same goes to the F-22, recent plans for upgrades includes iirc HMD and Link 16 transceivers. Probably even better radar and EOTS
1 Like
Su-57 is not stealth, but it is an aircraft of substantial size, lighter than an F-22, larger than an Su-27, with the RCS most similar to Rafale.
It’s an impressive jet for not being stealth.
It gets a lot of hate cause my American media claimed it to be stealth when it wasn’t.
Also @Busheedoh , F-35 is a single-engine stealth aircraft, and the future is single-engine stealth aircraft, for which there’s more progress to make.
Korea will likely make the next jump, but the jet to bring forth far more stealth than them will be one that uses a singular moderate engine, such as a Saturn type, Pratt & Whit 220 type, or General Electric 129 OR 414 type.
And yeah. F-22’s radar is a first generation AESA.
Either way, all countries are behind on stealth fighters even my own America. Likely due to the navy requirements more than anything else.
what are you talking about?
1 Like
I don’r think it’s fair to call it not stealth when no one really knows actual RCS figures (because you know, it’s classified).
It’s probably not as stealthy as American stealth, but it’s still a stealth jet
1 Like
Not stealth according to what? Stealthflanker’s simulations? YT comments?
The reasons given for the “not stealth” have all been debunked. Russia has done flat nozzles, faceted IRSTs, full S-ducts, radar blockers, RAM, RAS…Soviets were studying stealth as far back as 1983 with the S-22. Those arguments for “muh F18 RCS” couldn’t be buried any deeper.
I guess LM doesn’t know about stealth designs either. Imagine mentioning 0.1-1m^2 for the KF21 
Also, KF21 RCS simulation by StealthFlanker/Aircraft101 for the frontal arc:
About 0.7m^2 frontal. So, again, all that help from LM, on a plane that looks a lot like a F22/35 blend. Is it LM that doesn’t know stealth, or is it that internet data is unreliable?
6 Likes
How much help do you think LM had in that aircraft?
I have no idea, I’d guess probably a lot since South Korea hasn’t been dealing with stealth technology since the 1980s like the USSR/RU is, but that’s irrelevant, I don’t believe in those simulations for starters, my point is, see how easy it is to throw some make-believe numbers from the internet, treat them like the Tablet of Stones and just deny any incoming arguments?
1 Like
Hope one day both SU-57 and F-22 fight each other to prove who’s the best whoever win is better yeah seem it the only way to prove it