Su-57

oh boy another thread with the same picture. over and over again

FLANKER IN A BODYKIT

>>35073108
some of us aren't neckbeards who spend 23 hrs a day on /k/ like you, I guess.

>>35073072
no

>>35073207
If you spend more than 3 days on /k/ in the last year, you would actually know that.

>>35073072
Would get smoked by a J-20 with BVRs not to mention an F22 or 35

File: 1500765067147.png (168KB, 312x300px) Image search: [Google]

168KB, 312x300px

LEL how they gonna innastealth with those fucking engines?

The Russians built aircraft to take on F-16 and F-15 yet none have managed to do so after numerous a few encounters (we are looking at you MiG 29).

5th Gen is all about avionics and sensors anyways. While the Su-57 is out patrolling all NATO aircraft are data-linking each other playing rock/paper/scissors over who gets to slam it with an AIM-120.

Go home Ivan, you don't have the economy to produce and maintain a 5th Gen fighter and the poo's don't want your shit anymore.

>>35073207
But the filename suggests that you saved it from a k thread

>>35073072
>Even close to the same league as the F-22/35?

No.

>>35073072
FLAT
L
A
T

>>35073072
>Even close to the same league as the F-22/35
LOL, no

File: laughing anime girls.gif (2MB, 1920x1070px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1920x1070px

>that IRST pimple
>that two piece canopy
>thrust nozzles aren't sawtoothed
>straight panel lines EVERYWHERE
>NO S-DUCTS

>>35073072
>Thoughts? Even close to the same league as the F-22/35?

Doctrine is too sophisticated. A lot of gears must work in unison in order for it to work properly, in theory how it should work in the bigger scale of things is impressive but in reality Russia is fucking corrupt for it to work as they have imagined. In essence, the Su-57 is just a small gear that's made to deal with a lot of small holes in their doctrine. It's just in the limelight because muh marketing.

At most, it's a Multi Role Fighter that prefers to release Air to Ground/Anti-Ship Munitions from Stand off distance and would only patrol under SAM umbrellas. It has dedicated AtA internal pylons to defend itself as it runs in supersonic speed towards a ground target and runs back into SAM umbrella range.

Against air, it should work as support AEW for A-50's and front line defense against SEAD. High Priority were given to the development of its stand off anti radiation missiles.

Against sea, it can carry internal Kh-35 for littoral missions and external Kaliber as support/escort for Tu-22Ms.

>Same League as the F-22/35?
Different doctrines for different purposes. F-22 is air superiority, you don't send F-22's if you haven't cleared large IADS. F-35 is front line SEAD, The Russian equivalent is Iskander.

>>35073207
and what's wrong with that?

File: 1502944659001.jpg (69KB, 699x485px) Image search: [Google]

69KB, 699x485px

>>35074746
F-35's strength lies in its networking capabilities. Suppose you sell them to a country that does employ a whole fleet of AWACS, satellites and drones. What then? You'll have an overprices F-16 with shitty maneuverability which is pretty slow at best. Also SU-57 has a built in infrared and L-band radars which make stealth questionable.

S-DUCTS
|
D
U
C
T
S

>>35076089
>F-35's strength lies in its networking capabilities
Burgers just need to by a Cisco routers instead

>>35076089
>F-35's strength lies in its networking capabilities

This is the one thing the F35 does CORRECTLY that I am really surprised more people don't talk about.

The F35, as an aircraft, was shit from the start. They just tried to make it flyable and stealthy to sell the shit sandwich. The REAL power of the F35 has nothing to do with that. You have to think of it as a flying super computer / hotspot. The US has known for a long time that there will be no 6th generation manned fighter. That's why you're seeing so much time, effort and $ go into drones. A lesson we learned a few years ago is that other countries are learning how to take control of them. So we need a better system to relay the information in real time. We also need that information transportation platform to be mobile. In comes the F35. Now prior to it, there was never any " multi national " effort in the US for a fighter. But now with all of these other countries signing on as wanting them.. It will give the US a bigger platform to relay info much quicker than they were ever able to before. Satellites are great. But if you want a picture of something.. You have to wait to re-position it... If there are clouds? Forget it.

tl;dr The F35 is just a flying supercomputer and a relay point for the future drones that are going to kill us all.

Maneuverability
Relative stealth
Long range missiles
Platform for AI
It worked

File: 1389448555345.gif (508KB, 219x219px) Image search: [Google]

508KB, 219x219px

>>35073072
>RCS 0.1-1 sq.m.
>*breathes in*
>HAHAHAHAHA
http://www.google.com/patents/WO2013100807A1?cl=ru

>>35076381
>If there are clouds?
Guess you do not know about radar satellites, right?

>>35076437
>RCS 0.1-1 sq.m.
You seriously think about any military give up correct RCS numbers?

File: 14245245928080.png (408KB, 620x703px) Image search: [Google]

408KB, 620x703px

>>35076444
>from the same link
>SU-27
>RCS 10-15 sq.m.
Seems legit.

>>35076458
About the same as the F-15.
Your problem is?

File: 12379823452.jpg (231KB, 1449x1078px) Image search: [Google]

231KB, 1449x1078px

>>35076587
Another thing. Russians unironically believe that F-22 has RCS of 0.1 m2, (F-117- 0.2 m2, B-2 - 0.3 m2). So it goes well with their believes to set up 0.1m2 RCS requirement of their PAK-FA. "Make it "like" F-22", SU-27 requirements were similarly established, "make it like F-15".

>Russian """""stealth""""
>*breathes in*

>>35076641
>Russians unironically believe
And what your basis on their believing is wrong?

>>35076692
So now you agree that SU-57 has RCS 0.1-1 sq.m.
>*breathes in*

>>35073072
Why is that one plane so fricking huge? Amazing, how does it even land?

>>35076641
Is there several ways to interpret RCS or where the russians just wildly off when they calculated the RCS of the US stealth planes?

File: 1504123954381.jpg (169KB, 1712x881px) Image search: [Google]

169KB, 1712x881px

>>35076845
>Is there several ways to interpret RCS
Well in the same book they have F-16 RCS of 2.5 m2, F-14 - 10 m2 and B-52 - 65 m2.

>russian """"stealth""""

>>35076641
>>35076641
Russia uses average RCS while America uses frontal RCS. The .1 average RCS for F-22 isn't that far out of an educated guess.

>>35076935
B-1B = 6m2

That's pretty good for a "non-stealth" bomber the size of a football field.