Comments by "Thetequilashooter1" (@Thetequilashooter1) on "Grid 88"
channel.
-
@AKlover You obviously don’t keep up on the news. There are quite a few articles about how successful the F-35 is at when dogfighting, and quite frankly its maneuvers at airshows are a hell of a lot more impressive than the Su-57s. The F-35 has displayed much better high-g turns and shows it’s incredible power. All the Su shows is that it can go low and slow performing low-g maneuvers. Hell, the Su hasn’t even shown the ability to shoot its guns or air to air missiles in flight from its internal bays. And yes, the F-35 does have HMS, plus its pilots have binocular vision, the ability to see clearly at night, and they can see through the aircraft, which gives them a huge advantage, plus they can que their missiles, and link to other fighter’s missiles to shoot down their adversaries. Only the F-35B doesn’t have a gun, but a gun pod can be mounted if necessary.
34
-
18
-
6
-
@kvarnerinfoTV AESA radar has many advantages over PESA, including longer range, more accurate, detection and tracking of more targets, and it can jam PESA radars. It’s why to be considered a 5th gen fighter it must have AESA, and it’s why so many nations are upgrading their fighters to have it. If you do a simple search you’ll find why Egypt just increased its order for more Rafales. They found in exercises against the Su-35 that they could jam the Su’s radars and render them blind.
The F-35’s radar is the most advanced radar in the world. While the USA has been fielding AESA for over twenty years, and now puts in service 4th gen AESA, Russia still hasn’t put it into service in any fighter. The USA has it in thousands of aircraft and has a significant lead. Just to put things into perspective, during the MMRCA tender India’s Air Chief stated that the USA had the best weapons, radars and systems, and the USA wasn’t even offering its best.
6
-
6
-
@tonynemcich1756 Turkey only bought the S-400 instead of the PAC-3 because the US wouldn’t provide technology transfer as part of the deal. Turkey tried unsuccessfully multiple times to get the USA to change its mind. Erdogan also has not gotten along well with the USA, and he wanted to show that it can do as it pleases.
You won’t find any examples of Russian SAMS ever intercepting either ballistic or cruise missiles, not even in tests. Russia has a long history of lying and making fake news, they’re the king when it comes to propaganda. On the other hand, you can find many examples of US missile intercepts. Just search here on YouTube for SM-2, SM-3, SM-6, etc., for missile intercepts, and you can see both ballistic and cruise missiles getting shot down. There’s even amateur footage from several months ago of a Patriot intercepting a missile over Saudi Arabia, and according to them they have been quite successful.
6
-
5
-
What’s your source about the AMRAAMS success rate? I smell a lie. Tell me when was the last time a Russian missile had a BVR kill? Try never. Russian trolls will boast about their fighters great maneuverability, but show me any video of a Su-57 displaying high-g turns, which are essential for combat. Sorry, but going low and slow performing low -g maneuvers won’t cut it in real combat. And sorry, but dodging a missile isn’t that easy, especially when you don’t know it’s coming. The AMRAAM only locks onto its target at the last second, called the terminal stage, so that the pilot cannot react to it.
If the Su-57 was better, Russia’s longtime ally India wouldn’t have backed out of the partnership citing numerous problems with its stealth and engines, among other things. Russia would have at least one foreign order, but it has none, and it would have built more than two production aircraft, which the first one crashed. You can’t even find the Su-57 launching its missiles from internal bays or shooting its guns in flight. Sorry to break it to you, but unless Russia finds a foreign country willing to help pay for its costs, its future is in doubt.
5
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
LOL, the Su-57 is barely even stealth. It’s RCS is similar to that of a clean F-18. The F-35 blows away the Su-57 with its radars, situational awareness, sensor fusion, stealth, etc. And so far I have not seen the Su-57 perform any essential maneuvers that are used in dogfighting, and sorry but going slow and low performing low g maneuvers won’t cut it in real combat. The F-35 has displayed far better instant high-g turns than the Su. The fact that Russia’s ally India left the partnership, and despite Russia’s attempts to bring them back have failed, shows how it’s a flop. The F-35 on the other hand keeps racking up sales, with more and more nations wanting to buy it. Countries like Japan and Israel like it so much that they’ve increased their orders for them, and an Israeli general called the F-35 a true game changer. Other than Russia, you won’t find any country talking highly about the Su-57.
4
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@anthonybroomfield5162 That’s where you’re wrong. Look at the history of SAMs . Over time the number of aircraft shot down per sortie flown has drastically gone down, and that’s because there are so many ways to defeat them. It’s not just about having stealth, but jamming, spoofing, using decoys, hacking, special ops, stand-off weapons, drones, etc., have all shown to be extremely effective. Look at the war against Serbia. Serbia had a respected integrated air-defense network. It only shot down two aircraft out of tens of thousands of missions. Even those two that were shot down were flukes because they both flew predictable flight paths. It’s not that difficult to shoot down a fighter if you know where and when it will fly over, even if it’s stealth.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
The F-22 and F-35 are far better in every way imaginable. From stealth to avionics, radars, sensor fusion, situational awareness, recovery from bleed, etc., the F-22 and F-35 are better than the Su-57. If the Su-57 was as good as you claim, it would be racking up numerous sales, but it has no export orders, and only two production models have been built, with the first one crashing.
3
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
The F-35 is far superior to the Su-35. The F-35’s AESA radar is the most advanced in the world, and it can jam the Su’s antiquated PESA radar. It’s why having AESA radar is considered an essential element for an aircraft to being a 5th gen fighter.
The F-35’s avionics, sensor fusion, AI, are all superior. Even at dogfighting the F-35 has the edge. Stealth makes it more difficult to get a lock onto an aircraft. In exercises against a F-22, an English F-15 exchange pilot was quoted as saying he couldn’t get a kick even in visual range, and found the experience very frustrating.
In addition, the fact that the Su-35 carries its weapons externally increases its radar cross section, it also decreases its speed, and overall agility due to increased wing and drag weight. It’s specifically why when fighters go into battle they drop their fuel tanks to reduce the wing load. Watch a Su-35 closely and you won’t ever find the essential maneuvers needed for combat, I.e. top-end speed, ability to recover from high-g turns, and instant and sustained turn rates. The maneuvers you find in the more recent F-35 demonstrations show it performing much more higher-g turns.
The F-35’s AI instantly detects and tracks targets, shares this information with other assets in the field like his wingmen and SAMs below, it determines the probability of kill for each target, then it determines the best firing solution to defeat the adversary. It’s sensor fusion is unprecedented.
2
-
@InetCat You honestly don't have a clue what you're talking about. The simple fact that you have to lie that the Su-35 has AESA already tells me that you know yourself that you're wrong. People don't need to lie unless they cannot accept the truth. Prove me wrong! You know you can't because it's not true. The Su-35 won't know that the F-35 is on top of it until it's too late. And if you just think for once, imagine how hard it is for a tiny missile seeker to be able to track and lock onto a F-35 is when a very large and powerful radar site is already having difficulties just detecting it. In exercises against the F-15C, which had at the time a very large and powerful PESA radar, it couldn't even get a lock onto the F-22 in plane visual site. That means those missiles the Su-35 carries are useless.. The F-35's AESA is by far the most advanced radar in the market. Russia doesn't have one fighter in service with AESA, while the F-15 had it over twenty years ago. For you to claim that Russia's is better is asinine.
You're hilarious to think that Russia's avionics come anywhere near the F-35's. You won't find one expert agreeing with you. In fact, during the MMRCA tender Russia's ally, India, stated that the USA had the best weapons, radars, and systems, and the US wasn't even offering its best.
Russian radars cannot detect stealth fighters at the ranges you cite. HAHAHAHA. That's hilarious. Russian made SAM sites haven't been able to do anything to stop Israeli F-35s from striking targets at will in Syria.
You need to get caught up on the real news, and stop reading the anti-US trash that you focus on reading. The F-35 only didn't fly in stormy weather during its early development until it had all the safety protocols established. It was only temporary.
[ From 40 to 60% of the F-35 are constantly in service and cannot be quickly combat-ready.] Why do you have to lie? It's because you're a Russian troll who only can lie because you cannot accept reality. "The Lockheed Martin-made F-35′s mission capable rate — which describes the percentage of aircraft that can meet at least one of its assigned missions — currently sits at 69 percent, falling short of the military’s longstanding 80 percent goal."
Do you have any proof that the F-35 cannot launch missiles at supersonic speeds? I doubt it, as all you've done is lie so far.
And the F-35 is doing exceptionally well, even at dogfighting, and you're a fool to think that the Su-35 isn't limited by carrying external ordnance. Engineers can only do so much. Like I said earlier, it's why pilots drop their fuel tanks before going into battle. Put it this way, the F-16 was one of the most maneuverable fighters in the MMRCA tender, but when conformal fuel tanks were added it came in dead last. Read "F-35 pilot: Here’s what people don’t understand about dogfighting, and how the F-35 excels at it"https://www.wearethemighty.com/articles/f-35-pilot-heres-what-people-dont-understand-about-dogfighting-and-how-the-f-35-excels-at-it/ or "Pilots Say F-35 Superior Within Visual Range: Dogfight Criticisms Laid To Rest" https://breakingdefense.com/2017/06/pilots-say-f-35-superior-within-visual-range-dogfight-criticisms-laid-to-rest/
You're so focused on all the negative that you're too narrow minded to see that you're wrong.
You shouldn't talk about combat readiness. Russian aircraft are known for being duds. "During August 2021 the Russian Air Force lost five aircraft due to accidents in a two-week period. Four of them were in the air and one on the ground during maintenance. The lost aircraft include two MiG-29 fighters, a Su-24 fighter-bomber, an IL-112V twin-engine turboprop transport and a Be-200 twin-jet amphibious maritime patrol and transport aircraft. The MiG-29 was undergoing maintenance when it caught fire and was destroyed. Age, poor design and insufficient maintenance make Russian air force loss rates much higher than in the West. Clusters of losses like this are unknown in the West but not in Russia, where the reporting standards for civilian and military aircraft accidents and losses are different from the rest of the world"
You're right that the Su-35 is faster, but if you put it in a full weapons loadout, it's not so much. It's radar cross section becomes significantly larger, and it becomes an easier target. The F-35 doesn't even need to engage in dogfighting. Russian radars won't detect it until its too late. Yes, the Su-35 is better armed, and that's if the F-35 flies in a stealth configuration. However, aircraft from outside the kill zone, like the F-15 EX, which can carry 20 plus missiles can launch their missiles from BVR while the F-35 can guide them to the target. And the F-35 has shown me much more impressive realistic combat maneuvers than the Su-35. Sorry to break it to you, but going low and slow performing low-g maneuvers won't cut it in real combat. What matters most are high-g turns, both instant and sustained, the ability to recover from a high-bleed turn, and top end speed. The Su-35 demonstrates none of those. All it shows are maneuvers that a stunt plane can perform at much lower speeds. In fact, if the Su-35 tried those maneuvers in real combat, he'd be a sitting duck. If you watch any pilot fighter documentary, the pilots all say the same thing, that the key to survival is maintaining your energy, and the last thing you want to do is be a sitting duck.
The US and Russia aren't at war. If we were, the Russian aircraft never would have got photos of the F-22. Both Russian and US aircraft worked in close proximity with each other to attack targets so of course they're going to get close to each other. Tell me, where were Russia's Su-35's when US aircraft bombed Russian mercenaries for over four hours in Syria while F-22s flew cover? I'll tell you, at a base nearby only minutes away doing nothing about it because they knew very well that they would get shot down.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@ignaciomunizdiaz5194 The Su-75 won’t even get off the drawing board and it won’t supercruise either. The F-35 has the single most powerful jet fighter engine in the world, and I’ve seen the F-35 perform more maneuvers that are essential for combat than the Su-57. Nowhere does the Su-57 show its instant or sustained turn rates, and going low and slow performing low g maneuvers won’t cut it in real combat. And yes, the F-35 can control a drone, and it’s very near supercruise capabilities.
When it comes to sensor fusion, situational awareness,radars, etc., the USA is decades ahead of Russia. Put it this way, during the MMRCA tender India’s Air Chief stated that the USA had the best weapons, radars and systems, and the USA wasn’t even offering its best.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
You’re way off. The Su-57 is often criticized for not having enough engine power, a flaw that India mentioned early on. The F-22’s70,000 lbs of thrust is far superior, giving it a huge edge in dogfighting.
The F-22’s AESA is a mature 4th gen radar. Russia still to date hasn’t put any fighter into service with AESA, something that the USA did over 20 years ago and has a substantial lead
The F-22’s stealth, radars, situational awareness, sensor fusion, and maneuverability are all superior.
When it comes to weapons, the F-22’s beats the Su-57’s as well. During the MMRCA tender India’s Air Chief stated that the USA had the best weapons, radars and systems, and the USA wasn’t even offering its best.
2
-
@kumarraj_2199 3-D thrust does not give a significant advantage over 2-D with significant paddle movements. In fact, 3-D has a drawback because of its significant weight. Plus, thrust vectoring is especially useful at lower speeds, and the F-22’s power advantage gives it the ability to recover from high-g turns much better than the Su. Put it this way, in exercises against Malaysian Su-30s with 3D thrust vectoring, a F-18 came out on top three out of three times. Go to YouTuber Channel “The Ready Room” to see the video. And that’s against a clean Su without any ordnance.
Yes, AESA has been around for awhile, but Russia doesn’t have it in any jet fighter in service. The US has put AESA in its fighters from over two decades ago and has a significant lead. It’s essential to have if a fighter wants to be considered 5th gen, and it’s why all nations are trying to switch to it. It’s main drawback is that it’s costly to develop. If a nation doesn’t have the manufacturing capabilities to build high tech equipment on mass scale efficiently, like Russia, it is going to struggle putting it in service on large scale. And AESA does offer significant advantages, including the ability to jam PESA radar. The MKI has Bars, which is PESA, not AESA..
The Zhuk radar was tried on the Mig-35 in the MMRCA tender , and it failed to reach the desired acquisition ranges. Since then it hasn’t been put on any fighter in service.
The R-37 is a long range missile designed for taking out slow aircraft like an AWACS, not a maneuverable jet fighter. Quite honestly, Russia’s missiles are overhyped. When was the last time a Russian missile ever got a BVR kill? Try never. Russian missiles are not more advanced. For India’s Air Chief to state that the USA has the best weapons, radars and systems, when it wasn’t even offering its best says a lot. For India to have to go to Israel for BVR missiles after India’s last little skirmish with Pakistan says a lot.
2
-
@kumarraj_2199 Continued
Disadvantages of PESA: “While the PESA radar was groundbreaking in terms of speed and area, it has significant disadvantages. What it makes up for in range, it loses in accuracy, as the beams of radio waves it puts out are broad and cannot give the most precise location information back.
The PESA radar is also limited by its range capability and the fact that it has only one beam, which means it can send out only one frequency at a time. In addition, it has only one transmitter, so there is potential for system failure due to a single failure within the transmitter.
Size can also be a disadvantage, as PESA radar sensors are typically very large and heavy. They can also be prone to cooling problems since so much information is running through a central point.”
With AESA radar technology, radio waves can be sent out at different frequencies in multiple directions at the same time without moving any antennas. While PESA radar systems may be able to scan larger sections faster, AESA scans more precisely. In addition, by scanning at different frequencies, it brings back more valuable information to its user.
The benefits of AESA radar include:
Longer range
Ability to detect smaller targets
Better resistance to jamming
Since an AESA radar utilizes a broader set of frequencies, it is also much more difficult to detect among background radio noise. This helps vehicles remain undetected while defending themselves in their environments.
Finally, AESA radars are less likely to experience system failure, since they rely on not one, but dozens of TRMs to transmit their signals. Computer failure can be recognized and remedied much faster than the maintenance needed to fix a broken transmitter in a PESA system. Additionally, the functioning antennas in an AESA system can continue to operate while the single TRM or computer is fixed.”
So yes, AESA does offer better range, and it’s more accurate and reliable.
2
-
2
-
2