Russian Su-57 Aircraft Thread (PAK-FA and IAF FGFA)

Discussion in 'World Armed Forces' started by A Bar Brother, Dec 23, 2014.

  1. AndrewS
    Offline

    AndrewS Senior Member
    Registered Member

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2015
    Messages:
    1,925
    Likes Received:
    2,820
    Nope

    You're the one who is wrong.

    The latest sidewinder is outdated because it doesn't have a thermal imager to discriminate against targets.

    The ASRAAM and Python have thermal imagers and a lot more maneuverability than any aircraft

     
  2. TerraN_EmpirE
    Offline

    TerraN_EmpirE Tyrant King

    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2005
    Messages:
    12,394
    Likes Received:
    10,727
    Actually it does have such a system.
    It’s had a system to tell it to avoid flares since the Aim9L. The problem isn’t the missile. We know that the missile can kill a target it’s forerunner the L model got first blood against SU22s. The problem isn’t the seeker hardware. The problem was the program used wasn’t designed against the Newer built Russian countermeasures.
    This problem I think would have happened whether It be Asraam or Python. heck Aim 9X early block had the same seeker design as the Asraam of the same time period.

    At the heart of how this is supposed to work are assumptions about the countermeasures in question. How they burn, there temperature. Do they spew off lots of embers or are they very clean. in the Russian case they are very dirty.
    Makers have a bad habit of using there own flares as baseline. So they designed the permitters based on American or European countermeasures not Russian or even Iranian ones.
     
    Brumby, Tirdent and Air Force Brat like this.
  3. Air Force Brat
    Offline

    Air Force Brat Brigadier

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2011
    Messages:
    8,831
    Likes Received:
    10,313

    So you're suggesting that shaping to reduce RCS is something that you yourself are unable to discern???

    A detailed inspection of the Su-57 finds it sadly lacking the shaping that so distinctly defines the SR-71, FC-31, F-117, B-2, B=21, Dark Sword, Tempest, F-35, and the J-20 to name a few. The Russian's own Hunter is very clearly intended to be an L/O aircraft, but the Su-57 violates many of the RCS reduction principles that are so clearly obvious on the above named aircraft.

    All flying, canted, smaller vertical stabilizers, and an attempt to hide the fan blades are present, but really serve only to accentuate the fact that the Su-57's overall shaping does not present as an L/O aircraft...
     
    Brumby likes this.
  4. Anlsvrthng
    Offline

    Anlsvrthng Senior Member
    Registered Member

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2017
    Messages:
    1,248
    Likes Received:
    288
    Could you be so kind to point onto my logical fallacies ?

    Like, antenna design, radar range calculation and so on?

    I prefer equations and mathematical logic. : )
     
  5. Jura
    Offline

    Jura General

    Joined:
    Jun 23, 2013
    Messages:
    23,567
    Likes Received:
    27,624
    LOL you didn't go beyond kindergarten Pew! Pew! Pew!

    so to finish here:

    I showed the latest air-to-air event Yesterday at 7:02 PM
    after Andy had spewed nonsense Yesterday at 2:48 PM
     
    Brumby and Tirdent like this.
  6. Tirdent
    Offline

    Tirdent Junior Member
    Registered Member

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2017
    Messages:
    436
    Likes Received:
    630
    And to make matters worse, the Su-57 has the 101KS-O laser DIRCM as an integral part of its defensive aids suite to better deal with IIR missiles, unlike any competitor. ThNDR for the F-35 is an upgrade floated by Northrop in 2013 as a private venture that I don't think has even become part of the official road map to date. By then a working 101KS-O had already been gathering flight hours on T-50 #052 for two years...
     
    #2976 Tirdent, Oct 1, 2019
    Last edited: Oct 1, 2019
    Air Force Brat likes this.
  7. Brumby
    Offline

    Brumby Major

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    3,622
    Likes Received:
    3,751
    Since you insist.

    This is a post hoc fallacy. Whether the F-35 is inferior or not to the F-22 is irrelevant to its detection capability against the SU-57. There is no causal relationship in your reasoning.

    This is non sequitur. How is the stealthy capabilities of the MADL related to the 3G/4G/5G and more importantly - so what? It is a fallacy of logic.

    This is simply straw man and frankly irrelevant. How does a com link on a plane ended up with a phone? There is a simple reason why principle of logic matters is to prevent silly reasoning.

    This take the prize. How on earth does a conversation on jamming cf communication ends up with this picture as a rebuttal? What the heck is this and how is it even relevant?

    This is another post hoc fallacy where you are just making things up. It is why we don't take your comments seriously and why we don't waste time responding on most occasions...
     
    Air Force Brat likes this.
  8. Brumby
    Offline

    Brumby Major

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    3,622
    Likes Received:
    3,751
    Maybe the Chinese is claiming that they can fire in any direction but clearly not the US to my knowledge.

    upload_2019-10-2_11-13-21.png
     
    Air Force Brat likes this.
  9. Air Force Brat
    Offline

    Air Force Brat Brigadier

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2011
    Messages:
    8,831
    Likes Received:
    10,313
    Yet that doesn't change the fact that the Su-57 presents a sizable radar return that will present a significantly easier target to track and "lock up"?
     
    TerraN_EmpirE likes this.
  10. Gloire_bb
    Offline

    Gloire_bb Junior Member
    Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2014
    Messages:
    716
    Likes Received:
    687
    Not to give any measurement of RCS.
    In the simplest approach, because visual and radar waves don't exactly act in the same way.

    There were very good american studies in 1960s, iirc, by Douglas.
    Idea was exactly to make a "stealthy looking" plane, as it was perceived.(basically ancestor of a forum stealth design, by people with much, much deeper understanding of both physics and engineering, though)
    The moodel was looking stealthy, and had all necessary measures. Furthermore, it looked cool and skifi-ysh, like a plane from 1990s.
    It was just as visible for radar, though, and was an aerodynamic disaster.
    Afterwards, all serious designs aren't eyeball RCS-designed.
    Especially since people involved in design process are far, far, far ahead in relevant subjects than internet experts.

    You can guess relative attention for planes of the same generation.
    You can say what some elements are going to be relatively more visible, and thus roughly estimate where spikes and lows will be.
    Anything more serious ia beyond realm of eyeballung, and requires at least a computer model. Which will be an extremely rough estimation, but already an estimation.
     
Loading...

Share This Page