Comments by "Thetequilashooter1" (@Thetequilashooter1) on "" video.

@greybuckleton I actually agree with pretty much everything you just said so let’s just leave it there. I hope you have a Merry Christmas!
2
Russia’s lost many times. Some of its losses were the First World War, the first war in Chechnya, in Afghanistan, and most recently in Syria.
1
Look at all the Russian trolls crying about how their Su-57 is considered trash. If it was any good, Russia would showcase its abilities over Ukraine. Instead, Russia is afraid to use it. If Russia had a real stealth fighter, Ukraine’s SAMs and HIMARs would have been destroyed a long time ago. Instead they routinely strike Russian targets every day.
1
The Su-57 is trash. If it was any good countries would want to buy it. Nobody wants it. Russia’s longtime military partner India doesn’t even want anything to do with it.
1
Cope harder.
1
Su-57 #1 at being a huge failure!
1
No country lies more than Russia. It’s not even close. And we’ve all learned from the war in Ukraine that Russia significantly overstates the capabilities of its weapons. Some examples that Russia has bragged about as being the best are the T-14, Su-57, S-400, the Terminator, T-90, Kinzhal, Zircon, etc., and they have all failed to live up to the hype that Russia boasted about.
1
You must be a comedian. Both the F-22 and F-35 are far superior to the Su-57. The Su-57 is junk. It’s even questionable if it’s 5th generation. India, a long time military ally and partner of Russia, wants nothing to do with the Su-57.
1
Liar. The F-35's radar cross section (RCS) is comparable to a golf ball, around 0.0015 square meters. The Su-57's RCS is similar to that of a clean F/A-18 Super Hornet, but 1,000 times larger than the F-35. It’s why experts even question if the Su-57 is really a 5th generation fighter.
1
@oboguev4798 When I read a comment like yours that’s obviously made up nonsense, it makes me question why people like you are even allowed to comment. The shape of a fighter predominantly determines if it’s stealth or not. RAM has a much more minor role. You’re stating the Su-57’s has a better stealth signature than the F-35, which is complete nonsense, and not one credible expert will back your argument. In fact, one of the primary reasons why India left the partnership to develop the Su-57 was because of its lack of stealth features. “According to India’s Business Standard, the Su-57’s actual low-observable characteristics were among the biggest issues. A jet’s fan face produces a massive radar signature. Modern high-performance stealthy aircraft designs use ‘S’ shaped ducts to hide their engines from most or all line of sight aspects, with radar return scrambling baffles being built under the duct surface scrambling returns even more. Some aircraft, like the Super Hornet, use a slotted baffle that covers the fan faces of their engine, which are hidden only partially by the aircraft’s duct shape. This measure reduces the aircraft’s frontal radar signature, but it is less effective than an s shaped duct and may impact certain aspects of engine performance. Many other features on the T-50 also put a high level of low observability in doubt.”
1
@oboguev4798 I understand what it says, and it’s nonsense. What’s your source? In fact, one of the main reasons why India left partnership to develop the Su-57 was because of its poor stealth signature. According to India’s Business Standard, “the Su-57’s actual low-observable characteristics were among the biggest issues.”
1
@oboguev4798 The article goes on to state, the Su-57’s jet’s fan face produces a massive radar signature. Modern high-performance stealthy aircraft designs use ‘S’ shaped ducts to hide their engines from most or all line of sight aspects, with radar return scrambling baffles being built under the duct surface scrambling returns even more. Some aircraft, like the Super Hornet, use a slotted baffle that covers the fan faces of their engine, which are hidden only partially by the aircraft’s duct shape. This measure reduces the aircraft’s frontal radar signature, but it is less effective than an s shaped duct and may impact certain aspects of engine performance. Many other features on the T-50 also put a high level of low observability in doubt.”
1
@oboguev4798 Continued from above: The Su-57’s fan face produces a massive radar signature. Modern high-performance stealthy aircraft designs use ‘S’ shaped ducts to hide their engines from most or all line of sight aspects, with radar return scrambling baffles being built under the duct surface scrambling returns even more. Some aircraft, like the Super Hornet, use a slotted baffle that covers the fan faces of their engine, which are hidden only partially by the aircraft’s duct shape. This measure reduces the aircraft’s frontal radar signature, but it is less effective than an s shaped duct and may impact certain aspects of engine performance. Many other features on the T-50 also put a high level of low observability in doubt.”
1
@oboguev4798 I have searched, otherwise I wouldn’t have called you out for being dishonest.
1
@sergeyoboguev1835 I searched before I put my first comment. I wouldn’t have called you out for being dishonest if I had found something.
1
@oboguev4798 Yeah, I get tired of YouTube deleting my comments too.
1
@ I did your recommended search, and the first search result was under AI Overview where the following was stated: “The Radar Cross Section (RCS) of an F-35 is generally considered to be around 0.005 square meters (or .005 m²) which is significantly lower than most conventional fighter aircraft, making it very difficult to detect on radar due to its stealth design; "0.7 m²" is not a typical value associated with the F-35's RCS.” The very next find under that search was done by Quora, which states: “The radar cross-section (RCS) of the F-35 and the Su-57 varies based on configuration and specific variants, but generally, the F-35 is designed to have a lower RCS, making it less detectable by radar. F-35: The RCS of the F-35 is estimated to be around 0.005 to 0.1 square meters, depending on its configuration (stealth mode vs. non-stealth mode) and payload. Su-57: The RCS of the Su-57 is believed to be in the range of 0.5 to 1 square meter, which is larger than that of the F-35. The Su-57 incorporates stealth features, but it is not as optimized for low observability as the F-35. In summary, the F-35 has a significantly smaller RCS compared to the Su-57, contributing to its stealth capabilities and making it harder to detect by enemy radar systems.” The next result was from Defense Hub, which states, “The 5G F-35 has an RCS of 0.005m2, about the size of a golf ball.”
1
@ What is the source that you’re quoting, who is the author of the publication, and what was its release date? What you’re quoting didn’t come up when I searched with the parameters that you suggested. And why aren’t you taking RAM into consideration? The F-35 isn’t going to fly without it?
1
@ No worries. Take care.
1
@ Please use English. I currently don’t have access to a translation function.
1
@ Thanks for replying. I understand. I am currently traveling. I’ll try to remember to translate your earlier comment when I get home.
1
@ The F-22's exact RCS is classified, however in 2009 Lockheed Martin released information indicating that from certain angles the airplane has an RCS of 0.0001 m2 or −40 dBsm – equivalent to the radar reflection of a "steel marble". Russia is decades behind in stealth technology. One of the main reasons why India left the partnership to develop the Su-57 is because of its lack of stealth features. Russia claims a lot of things that aren’t accurate. Russia’s S-70 is a good example. According to recent reports, Russia's "stealth" drone, the S-70 Okhotnik, did not actually have a significant amount of Radar Absorbent Material (RAM) coating, meaning it likely did not possess the stealth capabilities Russia claimed, effectively rendering its "stealth" features largely non-existent; this information has raised questions about the true level of Russian stealth technology.
1
How old is the article? What’s its release date and title of the article? Everything I have read states that the Su-57’s RCS is somewhere between 0.1 and 0.5 to 1 square meters, while the F-35’s is significantly less at around 0.0015 square meters. Early on in its development developers of the Su-57 even admitted that stealth wasn’t their biggest concern as they didn’t want to change the structure too much where it would impair its performance.
1
@ It’s not a lie, you’re just making up crap. You won’t find one credible expert who agrees with you. The Rand report you’re referring to was probably the one released before the F-35 was even undergoing testing in the very early stages of its development when they knew little about it. It was when the Aussies wanted the F-22, not the F-35. The report is widely mocked for its inaccuracies. Provide in quotes from any expert who agrees with your analysis of the F-35’s shape. You won’t find any. The Su-57’s is significantly worse, and you’ll find many experts who say so. Even Russian officials admitted early on during the PAK-FA’s (T-50/Su-57) early development that stealth wasn’t their primary concern. They preferred functionality over stealth. “According to available information, the Su-57's all-aspect radar cross-section (RCS) is estimated to be between 0.1 and 1 square meter; meaning its radar signature is designed to be relatively small when viewed from any angle…” “The F-35's all-aspect Radar Cross Section (RCS) is generally reported to be around 0.0015 square meters (or equivalent to a very small radar signature), making it highly stealthy from most angles.” These are the all aspect stealth figures. That’s comparing apples to apples, not apples to oranges like you’re claiming. Russia also doesn’t have the RCS of the F-22 or F-35. When the aircraft were fighting alongside the Russians to fight against ISIS, the aircraft carried the Luneburg Lens, which is a radar reflector that intentionally increases the plane’s RCS so that the opposing side won’t know its real value.
1
@ My numbers that I cited are not a lie. You won’t find one credible source that backs your opinion. You won’t find any credible sources that supports your opinion about the shape of the F-35 either. And no, you can’t determine the RCS of the F-22 or F-35 with the Luneburg Lens attached. That’s its entire purpose. Here’s what we know for certain. Unlike the Su-57, both the F-22 and F-35 have flown over hostile territory where Russian S-300s and S-400s are stationed. Both aircraft have performed numerous sorties deep inside enemy territory and have returned unscathed. The Su-57 on the other hand goes nowhere near Ukrainian held territory. If Russia had a true 5th gen fighter, Russia could have ended the war a long time ago. Ukraine’s aircraft wouldn’t be able to so freely fly; their SAMs would be suppressed; their HIMARS and artillery would be vulnerable to attack; and Russia would be able to severely restrict Ukraine’s logistical capabilities. There’s a reason why so many countries are lining up to buy the F-35 and not the Su-57. The F-35 works, and the Su-57 doesn’t. And FYI, all aspect stealth looks at all the angles of the fighter, which is unlike frontal stealth which is just the head on stealth signature with the lowest RCS. It’s a measure that can be used to assess what aircraft are VLO vs LO. The Su-57 is LO, while the F-22 and F-35 are both VLO.
1
@greybuckleton Hahaha, please tell me you’re kidding. You do realize that Dr Carlo Kopp is ridiculed for his report in Aussie Air Power? That report was released before the F-35 even began testing. It was at a time when Australia wanted the F-22, not the F-35. If there was any truth to the report you wouldn’t find so many countries lining up to buy the F-35. Some countries like Israel and Japan are so impressed with the F-35 that they’ve increased their purchase orders for more of them. Of course an aircraft’s radar return is different based on the radio frequency, but they’re still able to make RCS calculations. Furthermore, being difficult to detect isn’t the only reason why stealth fighters are hard to counter. Their small RCS also makes it very difficult for a missile seeker head to get a lock onto the fighter. Imagine that if it’s difficult for a large and powerful radar site to even detect a stealth fighter, imagine the difficulty for a small and much less powerful seeker head.
1
@ No, his position was clearly biased. His report was released in the very early stages of the F-35’s development. It wasn’t even in service and wasn’t cleared for full operational use. At that time Australia wanted the F-22, and they lobbied the U.S. Congress to change the laws so that the F-22 can be exported. The simple fact that you have to go back so far to find a report shows by itself shows that you’re intentionally seeking any negative information about the F-35 that you can find.
1
@ The F-35 wasn’t cleared for operational use at the time the report was released. Pilots weren’t even permitted to test the F-35 to its full capabilities. If what you are saying is true, you’d be able to find a more recent report, but instead you stick with old biased information because you have nothing else.
1
@greybuckleton “The F-35 is built using a process called "concurrency," where parts of the aircraft are produced and delivered to customers even while the full development process is still ongoing, allowing for early testing and deployment while simultaneously refining design aspects as new technologies and software updates become available; essentially, building the plane while still developing it.”
1
@greybuckleton Stealth is what opens the doors for legacy aircraft. At the early onset of any conflict where an adversary has modern air defenses, stealth fighters are needed. After air supremacy is achieved, then legacy aircraft can perform their roles. Without stealth fighters they’re easy targets. Countries around the world wouldn’t be spending many billions in their own stealth aircraft if they weren’t needed.
1
Cope harder, Ivan. We’ve seen Russia’s military in Ukraine, and to say that we’ve all overestimated its abilities would be a huge understatement.
1
Why is that? The Su-57 is still trash just like when the video was first made.
1
Even Russia’s longtime military partner India thinks that it is a poor design. They left the partnership to develop it after citing numerous problems, including its poor engines, and lack of stealth features. They essentially said that Russia should start all over. If it’s as good as you claim Russia would be using it over Ukraine establishing air superiority, and there would be a long list of countries wanting to buy it, but it’s the exact opposite.
1
😂 Russia’s Su-57 doesn’t go anywhere near Ukrainian held territory. Russia’s afraid to use it because it knows it will get shot down. Both the F-22 and F-35 have flown and attacked positions in Syria, which is where Russia has S-400s stationed. The Su-57’s radar cross section is even larger than the F-117, a fighter that flew over 40 years ago.
1
@Semendrija123 What a load of 💩. You won’t find one credible expert who believes that the Su-57’s RCS is anywhere close to the F-22 or F-35. When the calculations are made they look at frontal as well as all aspect stealth. It’s not comparing apples to oranges like you’re describing. The F-35's radar cross section (RCS) is comparable to a golf ball, around 0.0015 square meters, and is lower than the F-117. From the front, the F-35's signature is similar to a golf ball's size at -30 dBm2, while the F/A-22's is the size of a marble at -40 dBm2. The Sukhoi Su-57 Felon's radar cross section (RCS) is estimated to be between 0.5 and 1 square meter. This is around a thousand times greater than the F-35’s. One of the biggest reasons why India left the partnership to develop the Su-57 was because of its poor design, especially pertaining to lack of stealth features. They pretty much said Russia would need to start all over. There’s a reason why Russia doesn’t fly it over Ukrainian held territory, and there’s also a reason why Russia has struggled to sell it to anyone. It’s more Russian hype.
1
Keep lying to yourself if it makes you feel better. The Su-57 is huge on radar in comparison to the F-22 and F-35. It’s why Russia won’t fly it over Ukrainian held territory. It knows it will get shot down, and it will be another embarrassment for Russia.
1
Not from what I’ve seen. Russia’s getting decimated on the battlefield, even with old and outdated western equipment. It’s pretty pathetic when Russia’s troops are having to ride motorcycles, golf carts, scooters and even bicycles on the front lines.
1
If the Su-57 was any good Russia would be owning the skies with it over Ukraine. Instead it’s far back behind the front lines afraid to get shot down.
1
Cope harder, Ivan.
1
@andreyg.2388 Iraq was an enemy of the USA, and now it’s an ally. The U.S. now has numerous bases in Iraq, and it even allowed Israel to fly its jets over Iraq to strike Iran. That’s what the west won. On the other hand, Russia just lost in Syria, and it’s suffering huge losses in Ukraine. Russia only invaded Ukraine because it thought it was going to be an easy win. Instead its three day war is now almost three years old. And much of what Iraq used in the war is the same equipment that Russia uses today. In fact, in some cases Russia is using even older equipment.
1
It’s Russia that likes to brag about nonexistent capabilities. And it’s Russia that has the very long history of copying from the west.
1