Comments by "Thetequilashooter1" (@Thetequilashooter1) on "Max Afterburner"
channel.
-
15
-
9
-
7
-
You won’t find one credible expert who agrees with you. In fact, India left the partnership to develop the Su-57 with Russia because they thought its lack of stealth features was so bad that Russia would need to start all over. The F-22 is far better than the Su-57 in every way imaginable. Stealth, power, radars, sensors, situational awareness, are all in the F-22’s favor.
The US has been using AESA radar for over twenty years and it’s in of aircraft. There’s no way that Russia passed the US, especially since it’s well known that Russia is not a technological leader. The Su-57 also is huge on radar in comparison to the F-22. And when it comes to sensor fusion, situational awareness, stealth, AI, Russia is nowhere near as close technologically as the United States. In fact, what the Ukrainians have found when examining captured Russian weapons is that they are all loaded with US made microchips.
7
-
6
-
4
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@ First off, it’s not called paint. It’s radar absorbent material, RAM. The US has been building stealth fighters for over 40 years, has produced many varieties, and it has a significant lead in the field. Russia is not known for making high tech equipment, even for domestic goods. It’s well known that Russia is not in the business of making high tech products on mass scale efficiently. It’s why Russia buys US made microchips on the black market. The downed S-70 itself had over 30 western made microchips in it.
Weapons are being produced to be able to fit inside the F-35. India rejected the Su-57 because they weren’t impressed at all with it, and yet Russia to this day is still trying to convince them to buy it making the deal sweeter each time.
The most stealthy Russian aircraft is the S-70 Okhotnik. What’s comical is what was found at its wreckage. See below.
Initial assessments of the wreckage cast doubt on Russian claims about the drone’s advanced capabilities. Contrary to Russian propaganda, the S-70 does not appear to feature the stealth polymers or advanced artificial intelligence systems that were advertised. “This is no advanced combat drone,” a Ukrainian defense expert said. “It’s more like a glider equipped with basic flight capabilities and radio controls.”
Additionally, the use of the Su-57 manned fighter as a command relay for the drone was seen as inefficient and highlighted the limitations of Russian networking capabilities. The S-70 lacks the robust stealth technologies that Russia has claimed to possess, and it does not feature the kind of network-centric systems comparable to NATO’s Link-16. Instead, the drone relies on a basic radio link for guidance, limiting its operational flexibility..
The Russian Ministry of Defense has long promoted the S-70 as a “loyal wingman” to the Su-57, capable of engaging in coordinated missions and using a wide range of airborne weaponry. However, the incident casts doubt on the drone’s ability to execute sophisticated combat maneuvers, including the use of air-to-air missiles or precision-guided weaponry.
I’m just as confused about the F-47 having canards, too. They’re well known to increase an aircraft’s RCS. Maybe the plan isn’t to use them except when dogfighting. I don’t know.
3
-
3
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
So tell me, why is it that both Algeria and Egypt canceled their remaining orders of the Su-35? I will be glad to tell you. They’re susceptible to being jammed. It happened in exercises in both China and Egypt. In fact, the world is seeing the real Russian military in Ukraine, a complete flop. If Russia’s Air Force is so superior, it would be able to obtain air superiority over a country with a very small and outdated air force, but that’s not the case.
The F-35’s AESA radar far surpassed anything in the Russian military. Hell, Russia hasn’t even put AESA into service, something that the USA did over twenty years ago. The F-35’s situational awareness, sensor fusion, avionics are considered top notch, unlike the shit flown in Russia’s fighters. Even the Su-34, which is one of Russia’s newer aircraft, that was shot down has taped on it a GPS location device. Even during the MMRCA tender, Russia’s ally said that the USA had the best radars, systems, and weapons, and the USA wasn’t even offering its best.
The F-35 also isn’t limited by drag weight. While the Su is bogged down with ordnance, which reduces speed, agility, and its ability to recover from high g turns, the F-35 doesn’t have this problem since its weapons are stored internally and near the center of the fuselage. If you really are objective, you’d watch air demos and watch for maneuvers that you see in real combat, like instant and sustained high g turn rates. Russian fighters go low and slow performing low g maneuvers. The F-35’s turn rates are far more impressive. And we’re not even talking about the F-22, which is far more maneuverable than anything from Russia. Russia’s aircraft look good at airshows, but that’s about it.
It really doesn’t matter anyway. Russia’s ability to build high tech equipment will be severely limited. It needs western parts, and the sanctions have already taken a toll on Russia’s ability to make tanks, SAMs, and to launch satellites. There are even reports that Russia’s soldiers are stealing microchips from washing machines in Ukraine. 😂
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@ By the time Russia has sufficient number of Su-57s in service, the US will be most likely be producing a 6th generation fighter. Put it this way, to date you still haven’t seen the Su-57 shoot its missiles from internal bays or even shoot its guns in flight. There’s one video from a while ago that shows the Su-57 launching a missile, but it was later determined to be fake. The F-22 is far superior in every way imaginable. Its stealth, power, situational awareness, sensor fusion, radar, are all better than anything Russia has today or will have for decades to come. Take AESA radar as an example. It’s an essential component to be considered 5th generation fighter. The US has had AESA in service for over three decades, and it’s in thousands of aircraft. Russia on the other hand has just started fielding it. Furthermore, Russia has said for over a decade that it will have new engines for the Su-57. It’s the same promise that Russia made to India back in 2017, and it still hasn’t been made. India left the partnership because it literally felt that Russia needed to start all over. That’s something considering India is a long time ally of Russia’s. Russia still to this day hasn’t exported the Su-57 to any country. It’s for a good reason. Nobody wants it. Many question if it’s really a 5th gen fighter. Furthermore, the Russians heavily depend on western parts and equipment for their most advanced weapons. As long as Russia is being sanctioned, it’s going nowhere. And keep in mind that the F-22 has had upgrades over the years. One thing that the Su-57 will never be is having a lower radar cross section than the F-22, which means it’s easier to detect, track and shoot down. It’s why Russia is afraid to use the Su-57 over Ukrainian held territory, unlike the F-22 which has done deep strike missions over enemy territory numerous times. Remember also it’s Russia that has the long history of copying from the west, and not the other way around. Russia is not a technological leader, and it’s well known that its weakness is building high tech equipment on mass scale efficiently.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@bessarion1771 Even the Russians were critical of the J-20’s design. You can see in the video that it’s not very maneuverable, it doesn’t have guns for dogfighting, and it’s more of a missile truck than an air superiority fighter.
The Indians had many issues with the Su-57, especially concerning its lack of stealth features, engine problems, and had doubts about its avionics. Russia to date hasn’t put into service any jet fighter with AESA radar, which is essential for a 5th gen aircraft, something that the US accomplished over 20 years ago in the F-15C. Plus, only two production versions have built, the first of which crashed, it’s got no export orders, it hasn’t shown the ability to shoot its guns or air to air missiles from internal bays in flight, and there’s much doubt if it has any future. And after noticing how Russia is having difficulty in Ukraine against an Air Force that is outdated and outnumbered, I don’t have much concern about Russia provided any challenges to NATO, let alone the USA.
Those are just my thoughts. You can think what you want, but whatever either of us thinks really doesn’t matter.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@bariole Trying this again because my previous comment wouldn’t post. Where did you get your info because it sounds like BS?
The F-35 can dogfight. Just Google Pilots say F-35 superior within visual range, dogfight criticisms laid to rest.
The F-35 has the advantage of storing its weapons internally and near the center of the fuselage. 4th gen fighters weapons creates both wing and drag weight,, which reduces their speed, turning ability, and their ability to recover from high-g turns. It’s why fighters drop their fuel tanks when entering into an engagement.
I’ve seen the F-35 performing some very impressive high-g turns, as well as the Falling Leaf, which I haven’t seen any other fighters do without thrust vectoring. And it’s the F-35A, without STOVL. Plus, the F-35’s one engine has more thrust than most other fighters with two engines. It has 40,000 lbs of thrust with AB, which is the single most powerful jet fighter engine in the world.
1
-
@bariole In addition to the above comment, very few aircraft can supercruise, especially in a combat loadout. The F-35 is very near reaching it. According to pilots who have flown it, only for a short instance do they need to go to afterburner before they can supercruise. Plus, the fact that its weapons are stored internally gives it a huge advantage by reducing drag weight, and it also lowers its radar cross signature.
The Su-57 is trash in comparison. For Russia’s ally, India, to openly express their displeasure about it speaks volumes. Plus to date, only two production models have been built, with the first one crashing. It hasn’t shown any ability to shoot its guns or air to air missiles from internal bays in flight, and it has no export orders. It’s future is highly in doubt, especially with the sanctions in place that Russia needs to production high-tech equipment.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@vladlu6362 The Cobra is low g, and you don’t see it used in combat. Maybe the initial move is higher g, but the end result it’s dead in the air. The aircraft is going a low speeds when using it, and if you knew anything about dogfighting it’s the last thing a pilot will do because it bleeds too much energy making it a sitting duck.
Seriously, give me the title of any Su-35 and Su-57 video showing the aircraft performing high g instant turns. All you see are them doing are flying low and slow, performing low g turns.
Keep in mind that the Su-30s used at Red Flag Nellis had thrust vectoring, and they lost to F-15s every time in one versus one exercises, and the F-18 pilot in The Ready Room also went up against Malaysian Su-30s with TV, and he won every time.
Who says an armed F-16 can outmaneuver the F-35? And who says Russia is good at jamming, when it’s been shown that’s not the case in exercises? We have all seen in Ukraine that Russia’s weapons are overhyped, if anything. Before the war, Russian trolls boasted about how much better their EW systems were than everyone else’s. What we have found in Azerbaijan and Ukraine that they’ve been easily defeated, unable to even jam drones flying in the area.
You’re referring to DIRCM for IR missile defense. Russia “claims” to have it, but it claims many things, often untrue. Just like how Russia has bragged about having incredible tank defense systems, and yet they’re getting annihilated in Ukraine. BTW, later block F-35s are supposed to have it too.
And finally, how do you think Russia is going to build these high tech aircraft? Russia needs western parts. As the sanctions have already demonstrated, Russia’s ability to build high tech equipment has been severely limited. From building tanks, to SAMs, and to some extent even satellites, Russia is struggling. Even before the sanctions, the Su-57 was struggling to survive, and now with the sanctions it will be nearly impossible to make it a viable weapons program.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@bariole The F-18's ability to point its nose is better than just decent, it's outstanding. I've talked with several retired F-18 pilots, and they've all said that's the F-18's key advantage, especially in low-speed dogfights. It's why F-18 pilots try to get their foe to burn energy and to make it more than a one-turn fight. . I am going to quote the Norwegian pilot who flew thousands of hours in the Viper, and has some experience in the F-35, and as you know the Viper is an outstanding dogfighter. See below.
So how does the F-35 behave in a dogfight? The offensive role feels somewhat different from what I am used to with the F-16. In the F-16, I had to be more patient than in the F-35, before pointing my nose at my opponent to employ weapons; pointing my nose and employing, before being safely established in the control position, would often lead to a role reversal, where the offensive became the defensive part. The F-35 provides me as a pilot greater authority to point the nose of the airplane where I desire. (The F-35 is capable of significantly higher Angle of Attack (AOA) than the F-16. Angle of Attack describes the angle between the longitudinal axis of the plane – where nose is pointing – and where the aircraft is actually heading – the vector). This improved ability to point at my opponent enables me to deliver weapons earlier than I am used to with the F-16, it forces my opponent to react even more defensively, and it gives me the ability to reduce the airspeed quicker than in the F-16.
Update: Since I first wrote this post, I have flown additional sorties where I tried an even more aggressive approach to the control position – more aggressive than I thought possible. It worked just fine. The F-35 sticks on like glue, and it is very difficult for the defender to escape.
It may be difficult to understand why a fighter should be able to «brake» quickly. In the offensive role, this becomes important whenever I point my nose at an opponent who turns towards me. This results in a rapidly decreasing distance between our two airplanes. Being able to slow down quicker provides me the opportunity to maintain my nose pointed towards my opponent longer, thus allowing more opportunities to employ weapons, before the distance decreases so much that a role reversal takes place. To sum it up, my experience so far is that the F-35 makes it easier for me to maintain the offensive role, and it provides me more opportunities to effectively employ weapons at my opponent.
In the defensive role the same characteristics are valuable.* I can «whip» the airplane around in a reactive maneuver while slowing down.* The F-35 can actually slow down quicker than you´d be able to emergency brake your car. This is important because my opponent has to react to me «stopping, or risk ending up in a role-reversal where he flies past me.
Defensive situations often result in high AOA and low airspeeds. At high AOA the F-16 reacts slowly when I move the stick sideways to roll the airplane. The best comparison I can think of is being at the helm of ship (without me really knowing what I am talking about – I’m not a sailor). Yet another quality of the F-35 becomes evident in this flight regime; using the rudder pedals I can command the nose of the airplane from side to side. The F-35 reacts quicker to my pedal inputs than the F-16 would at its maximum AOA (the F-16 would actually be out of control at this AOA). This gives me an alternate way of pointing the airplane where I need it to, in order to threaten an opponent. This «pedal turn» yields an impressive turn rate, even at low airspeeds. In a defensive situation, the «pedal turn» provides me the ability to rapidly neutralize a situation, or perhaps even reverse the roles entirely.
Sorry, but I am going to trust the words of a true professional in the field over yours.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Why don’t you take your own advice and actually compare the YF-22 to the T-50? You won’t find protruding rivets or large gaps in the seams or poor welds on the F-22. These are all features that the Chinese actually made fun of.
To this very day you still haven’t seen the Su-57 shoot an air to air missile from an internal bay, or even shoot its guns in flight. There is a fake release of an air to air missile shot, but other than it nothing from an internal bay has been shown (at least to my knowledge, and I monitor several defense forum sites)I’d like to see the Su-57 shooting a missile from an internal bay flying inverted like the F-22 has shown. These are essential needs for dogfighting.
Plus, the F-22 first flew in 1997, and in 2005 it was fully operational. The PAK-FA (T-50/Su-57) first flew in 2010 January, and it wasn’t fully operational until 2020 December. Even though the F-22 has been in service for 15 years longer, Russia to date still has not made an aircraft that matches the F-22’s power, stealth, radars, situational awareness, sensor fusion or stealth.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@marcusaureliusss Haha Russia is decades behind the US. Just look at stealth as an example. The F-117 flew around 40 years ago and it still has a smaller RCS than the Su-57. The F-22 first flew in 1997, and Russia to date still hasn’t built a fighter that can match its stealth, power, AESA radar, situational awareness, sensor fusion, etc. Russia still has not put a stealth bomber into service, while the B-2 has been flying since 1989. Russia’s so called superior SAMs have been decimated in Ukraine, and have failed repeatedly to protect strategic targets. Russia’s T-14 is a no show. Russia’s tanks and armored vehicles are getting outclassed by old Bradley models. Russia’s navy has gone into hiding in the Black Sea against a country without a navy. Russia’s Air Force has been incapable of achieving air superiority over Ukraine’s old and significantly outnumbered fleet of aircraft. Russia’s army is literally using donkeys, bicycles, scooters, etc. on the front. Russia’s so called hypersonic missiles that according to Putin were unstoppable, have been stopped numerous times by Patriots. Russia’s sales of military equipment have drastically gone down for two reasons: 1. Russia needs them for the war. 2. Countries aren’t impressed with Russia’s equipment as shown in the war.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@vladislavovi44 😂 You’re joking right? You didn’t even know what RAM was. My comments are entirely accurate. In fact, you won’t find one credible source that agrees with you. Russia is decades behind the US. The Su-57 is a perfect example. It’s less powerful, its radar signature is much larger, its radar pales in comparison, and its situational awareness and sensor fusion come nowhere near the F-22. Another example is the Russian Su-34. Downed Su-34s have shown to carry taped-on GPS devices that I can buy from Walmart. It shows two things. That Russian navigation systems stink, and that they can’t rely on Russia’s Glonass.
Just a few samples of what the F-35 can do. It pretty much does the flying so that the pilot can strategize. The F-35 automatically detects targets, determines a probability of kill for each one, shares this information with other assets in the field, and determines the best firing solution to defeat the foe.
The F-35 has in tests linked with a HIMARS and destroyed a naval target with a GLMRS rocket, and it’s also linked with a SAM to intercept a cruise missile.
Russia is not a technological leader, and it’s shown it in the war in Ukraine.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@ Just the fact that this war has gone on for over three years and Russia isn’t able to take control of the skies against a very small air force and outdated aircraft is telling by itself. In fact, the number of increased airstrikes by Ukraine is steadily going up. I’ve seen more bombs dropped from Ukrainian fighters this last week than ever before.
Russia claims a lot of things that aren’t true. I’m still seeing HIMARS strikes routinely on Russian targets. Long range drone strikes are still very common. No joke, around a year ago I saw a Storm Shadow flying over the heads of a Russian S-400 battery as the soldiers laughed as it was heading towards a Russian airbase in Crimea. I’ve seen 30 year old ATACMS take out S-400s while the SAMs just seconds before launched missiles trying to intercept them. You name it, Russia’s SAMs have routinely failed to protect ammo dumps, airbases, training grounds, naval bases, headquarters, bridges, etc.
I’ve seen it in videos, unlike you who only spouts Russian propaganda.
1
-
@ As you know it’s a cat and mouse game when it comes to jamming. “HIMARS systems are being upgraded with anti-jamming technology to mitigate the impact of electronic warfare, particularly in response to Russian jamming tactics in Ukraine. This includes updates to the GPS system, inertial navigation, and software on both the targeting system and rockets. The U.S. military is also implementing software updates to the HIMARS targeting system and the rockets themselves to make them more resilient to jamming.” It’s why we’re still seeing HIMARS taking out Russian targets to this day. Facts are Russia’s SAMs haven’t effectively protected its strategic targets.
If Russia had a true 5th generation fighter it would rule the skies, and everything below would be subject to attack. Aircraft carry much heavier bomb loads, they can have an immediate effect in a battle, and they can effectively shut down an offensive push on the spot. If Russia had control, it would also be more effective in getting troops behind enemy lines, it would be able to thwart Ukraine’s air force, it would silence air defenses, and it would have a severe impact on Ukraine’s command and control systems, including its communications. Instead Russia is losing more men in just one week than what the US lost in twenty years in Iraq and Afghanistan.
I see the video results. They’re showing S-400s getting destroyed. They’re showing Storm Shadows hitting Russian airbases and command centers. They’ve shown ATACMs striking numerous Russian targets. How do you think that Russia has lost so many commanding officers?
Russia is only taking ground because Ukraine isn’t being properly supplied, and because Putin doesn’t care about how many Russian troops lives are lost. The US has been the main supplier of weapons, and yet it’s just a small percentage of what’s in the U.S. arsenal. Furthermore, the United States has only provided less than 5% of its annual DOD budget to help Ukraine, with much of the aid from old stockpiles. With Trump in office it will only get worse for Ukraine. He’s not interested in providing billions in weapons when he believes that the European countries should be doing more.
Remember when Wagner was heading towards Moscow with just a few thousand troops and Russia couldn’t stop them? Putin had to flee in fear. Remember when Ukraine took a large chunk of Kursk? If Russia had air superiority that never would have happened. And Ukraine didn’t start receiving the more sophisticated air defense systems until way after the war started.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1