Comments by "Thetequilashooter1" (@Thetequilashooter1) on "Max Afterburner"
channel.
-
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