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


AndrewS

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The latest sidewinder is outdated because it doesn't have a thermal imager to discriminate against targets.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

while Sep 4, 2017


instead your "effectiveness" fairy tale you might want to listen to
since 05:10
 

TerraN_EmpirE

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The latest sidewinder is outdated because it doesn't have a thermal imager to discriminate against targets.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

Air Force Brat

Brigadier
Super Moderator
Oh those eyeball RCSmeters.

Light bomber fan squad keeps its level.

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...
 

Anlsvrthng

Senior Member
Registered Member
Your arguments are typically full of logical fallacies and why we don't take your comments seriously. I am saying it so that you know.
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. : )
 
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
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
while Sep 4, 2017


instead your "effectiveness" fairy tale you might want to listen to
since 05:10
after Andy had spewed nonsense Yesterday at 2:48 PM
Yes, but that looks more and more like a huge mistake, given how the effectiveness of short-range air-to-air missiles able to fire in any direction.
 

Tirdent

Junior Member
Registered Member
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...
 
Last edited:

Brumby

Major
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. : )
Since you insist.

The F-35 has a very small nose, means the its radar is inferior compared to the f-22 or any advanced Su 25 derivative.
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.

All of this "stealthy MADL link " (TM of Raytheon) is nothing else just the same beam forming that the 3G/4G/5G antenna towers doing.
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.

Oh, and the 5G handsets needs to use beam forming on the millimetre wavelength as well, in more advanced way than the F-35.
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.

And if we want to see even older stealthy, jam resistant communication system then you can consider this :

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?

Just to clarify: the overly mystified f35 stealthy communication link is nothing else just the good old 100 years old directional antenna, in phased array design, like the first German radar in the 2nd WW.
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

Brigadier
Super Moderator
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...
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"?
 

Gloire_bb

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

Top