None of them is a real combat one unless you count shooting down a balloon and dropping bombs on some middle Eastern country real combat
2 Likes
so much yapping for a single picture…
the radar is angled, tho the bulkhead behind it isn’t, however, due to the size of the radar and how little of the bulkhead is visible around it from the front aspect, it has little impact…
also, attacking on the surface finish like that is incredibly disingenuous
1 Like
unless you count shooting down a balloon and dropping bombs
Very smart of you. I would recall Felon’s kills and deaths, but we should keep the topic civil and talk real facts, this is an official discussion forum, not a fan discord server.
The pic
“When the IRST is stowed”. You confirmed my take.
there are no deaths it has while in combat
all its deaths were when stuck on the ground which is a fail in air defece and airfield security and not one of the aircraft
which will be the case in BVR combat at ranges in excess of 100km because the IRST wont get a proper track at that distance anyways
the IRST is used as a system for closer ranges (within 30km) to assist in WVR combat becasue you wont be able to achive a weapons grade lock with it at further distances anyways
2 Likes
Considering that the two of you arguing use the same pfp is really confusing.
Anyhow, this is a prime example why I lost interest in 5th gen discussion.
Oh, I remember, we analyzed the data from that simulation. If you draw joints across the whole model in the form of corner reflectors, the RCS of the model won’t change, lol.
Someone should tell the engineers at LM and Chengdu about this, seems like they don’t know.
it’s all about how much of the bulkhead is exposed from front aspect… it’s a minor source of return compared to the entire radar array.
If it wasn’t done it’s because there was no need to do so to meet the program’s requirements.
In other words, the Su-57 was never intended as a 5gen aircraft, not even at the level of the program’s requirements.
are you being intentionally dense or something? just because different technical choices were made doesn’t mean it’s not a “5th gen” (imagine talking about aircraft generations nowadays anyway), because in that case does that mean the J-20 being a canard aircraft mean i’s a 4.5 or whatever it is nowadays?
That’s literally what it means. On fifth-generation aircraft, every joint is literally designed without right angles — and even that’s not enough, because they also get coated with RAM. Because stealth is a key requirement for a fifth-generation aircraft. And then along someone comes and claims that it has little impact. Why is that? Who the hell knows.
This (and the whole concept of “generations”) is heavily country dependant and depends on the program requirements, not every country is going to have the same view, for example, to the chinese, the F22 is a “4th gen”.
just look at the surface from a front view, you can see that the bulkhead has very little surface exposed from the frontal aspect, i’m not denying angling it would improve the RCS, i’m saying that they did not find it necessary to meet the requirements of what they considered “5th gen”
to drive the point further, the russians consider that the Su-47’s program was a 5th gen program and that does not have an anled radome and still has plenty of curves in the design.
What difference does it make if it means the same thing?
They can consider whatever they want, but it’s obvious that the Su-57 doesn’t meet the 5gen requirements. Nor the Chinese 4gen ones.
there are three now lol, all same pfp
This really is getting out of hand
I just told you these are program and country specific…
it’s not hard to understand that different countries and design bureaus have different views on this, is it?
How about 4?
4 Likes
What happens during order 66 in this scenario?
