Comments by "Kora Na" (@korana6308) on "Sandboxx"
channel.
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@kinggooseman5373 I don't understand what's going on, but everyone seems to be severely misunderstanding my point. It does matter whether it's armed or not. The fighter jet plane has a purpose - it's purpose is destroying it's targets. Without having it's weapons loaded, it has no purpose. So trying to make an argument that it's stealthier when it has no weapons installed is meaningless, because it won't ever be used without it's weapons, by the very definition. The only fair comparising is comparing both planes as mission ready and fully loaded. And Su 57 wins in that, hands down. Now I would even argue that the F18 has it's wing mountings attached which makes it's wings not smooth, and therefore severely detectable. But again this is all just speculation. My whole point only is that people are trying to downgrade it for the sole purpose because they have a certain predisposition towards that Su 57 plane. And it really saddens me. As Alex had said it himself, this whole definition thing has been bamboozled anyway. And to me there's only one clear distinction for a 5th gen. Storing your munition fully concealed inside the plane's fuselage. Therefore the Su 47, Su 57, Mig 144 / J20 (it was developed and modernized from the Russian Mig 144), F22 and F35. Are all 5th gen fighter jets. Precisely because of their internal missile storage. As it is the most reliable way of reducing your RCS. So everything else below that is 4th gen. End of story. Thanks.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@ I am talking specifically of the cases INSIDE and over an active combat zone. It has never been used. Unlike with the Su57 which flies in and out of combat on the daily basis. Also not even close to the intensity of the battlefield that we have now. On top of the levels of intelligence that it receives and it also has Patriots and S300 of different versions of the Soviet bloc countries and on top of the all of the western AA systems to begin with etc. TRY doing the same thing with any of the adversary crafts, it would be IMPOSSIBLE. In fact we already know that it's impossible because every craft that's adversing Russia atm is hiding at the back, and the reason why no modern crafts are being deployed rn(although not officially. Unofficially they are flying day in and out over the Romanian borders... fyi, as reconnaissance and guidance crafts, they just haven't launched, at least officially, any missiles yet). So the only craft that is capable of doing it IS the Su57, and it's the ONLY aircraft that hasn't been shot down yet. Every other serving craft in the Russian VVS has been shot down... and also all of the adversary crafts were also shot down and would be shot down too if they were to be deployed (including strategical ones, but it's a whole another topic... ) . They are not deployed precisely because they would be doing the exact same missions, and would be shot down anyway eventually (whilst being at the back and not flying close to the combat zone anyway)... The only plane that can't be, and hasn't been shot down yet is the Su57 which proves that it is the best fighter in the world.
As per the number of crafts produced (again not relevant to it's effectiveness which is the whole point I was making to begin with), it's not really a secret, so I don't know why you make such a big deal about it. It produces around 150 crafts per year. ~ 120 of which are of the A version. ~ 20 of B version and ~ 10 of C version. Give or take a few crafts here and there. As it varies year by year... but it's in those sorts of ranges. And it's not a secret, as I got those numbers directly from the documentary itself from one of it's developers. The Su 57 numbers is also not really a secret. Around 24 crafts per year. Which makes it yes, around the VTOL numbers levels of production, give or take... The exact number slightly higher or slightly lower, doesn't really matter. But again, it doesn't change the fact that it's a better craft to begin with. It's worse in terms of units produced, I give you that. But better in everything else (including it's unit cost, cost of maintenance, cost of the flight per hour etc. are several times cheaper, on top of it being a better craft to begin with.)
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@MiG-31893 if Su57 is 4.5 gen then the F22 and F35 is 4th gen. Because it surpasses everything of it except it has slightly less stealth, but everything else is leagues ahead.
Also don't wanna burst that bubble... But those RCS values are made up. Did you know that the RCS is different for different weather conditions, angles of attack, types of radars, angle of the radar to the craft and etc. And each country calculates them differently. And especially those RCS numbers for the F22 and F35 were proven to be false... Though I'm not denying that it's better. That's a fact that stealth is slightly better on the F22 and F35 but Su57 is also stealthy and was developed with an "efficient stealth" in mind i. e. don't spend too much on it, just make it "good enough". And it is "good enough" for it's tasks, as it hasn't been shot down once, whilst flying over the combat zone daily.
NATO countries can't chose Russian crafts because they are bound by their contracts, and also eco. warfare. For example, did you know that Russia would absolutely wipe the floor with commercial space flights if it were allowed into the "free market" (which is not that free), as with the current level it costs Russia around $1k per kg, and will in a few years in the 2030s be $100 per kg or less to LEO. But precisely because the w. is not interested in Russia dominating the market, it just restricts the whole world working with Roscomos. Because they can't win them competitively... That's the same thing with everything else, I could give many examples. And it's the same thing with military tech. If they could they would in a heartbeat. (There are also some complications as establishing a certain countrys mil. partnership takes commitments, takes time and bureaucracy etc, and that's why most of the countries just stick to their previous partners etc)
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2