I mean, they work. They're just not the engines the -57 was supposed to have. I think they're Su-27 engines with a fancy paint job and some electronics duct taped to them.
They fricking wish they could send one out. I can only imagine the anal devastation if one gets domed by Ukrainian AD or more hilarious if their own AD swacks it out the sky.
>Even better if it crashes with no outside influence because the pilot had no flight hours like that SU-25.
Probably one of the only cases where having like 5 working models all used for parades is to their advantage, even vatnigs can muster pilots who can put in hours on that few in safe areas.
But yeah none of that prepares it for combat. It's a hanger/parade queen.
Is there a practical difference
Eventually you're so far down the shame tree that even a massive difference is immaterial and Russia is long beyond that point.
does russia have the capability to make these function correctly in their role as SEADers? Do they have the advanced network infrastructure to justify using stealth aircraft?
Since the Russians are putting literal museum pieces into service, I doubt the Su-57 is even fit for combat
At least if the US broke out AAA from the 50's it would come with actual fire control directors.
F-18s are such buttholes in DCS. Fricking AOA...
Now imagine fighting a Hornet you can't lock up that's firing AIM-9Xs backwards at you over the shoulder.
Welcome to the F-35.
Meh, still not on the same level as an F-22 is, as far as I'm aware they're intended to basically drop in and destroy far away targets like SAM sites, that and/or provide close air support if necessary. Either way it's purpose is completely different than of a fricking 22 or some weird Russian offbrand version of it.
>Still not on the same level as an F-22
The F-22 is a dedicated single-purpose air dominance fighter like the F-15C. The F-15C being optimized for A2A does not somehow make the F-16 not a fighter. Same shit. >Either way it's purpose is completely different than of a fricking 22
Yeah because it's actually supposed to do more than one fricking job. And even then the F-35 has 20 years on the F-22 as far as avionics goes. The APG-81 is a superior radar and the F-22 doesn't even have optical detection at all, while EO-DAS is basically cheating. All in a package that out-turns a Hornet and out accelerates a Viper.
Who cares if the #1 fighter edges out the F-35? It's still #2 by a wide fricking margin.
It doesn't exist, except for prototypes that aren't operational, four than can't be flown b/c flaws in manufacturing and 1 that is saved for photo ops.
It is science fiction.
Why sending future weapons when old S-300 can shoot down f22 from 300 km? HATO send real competitor or frick off, don't waste my time to amateur league.
>Why sending future weapons when old S-300 can shoot down f22 from 300 km?
What did he mean by this? Where are these numbers even coming from? How does he even know the capabilities of an F-22 when the pilots aren't even allowed to use their full capability unless their dog fighting real threats. This guy must be a top tier top gun pilot, the best the United States has to offer.
>Where are these numbers even coming from?
says so right in the fricking name can you even read mutt moron? or brain rotted like senile joe biden? "S-300": the "s" stands for "shoot down" and the "300" is for "300km". it is literally for shooting down f-22s or f-35s or any other hato jet from 300km away. suck it.
Detection depends on the target type and the radars used and the position of said radars respective to the target.
Since F-22 is a stealth aircraft the detection range will likely be much lower so to the effective range will be lower too.
The question is simply if the F-22 can dectect and fire missiles to the s300/400/500 before the it can see it or engage it.
Considering that the Israeli managed to defeat some S400 using modernized F16s the answer is likely that the F-22 can hit the S400 before it can detect the plane.
The S-400 has a detection ran of 13mi - 21mi for the F-22 and F-35. They would get hit with an SBDII or AARGM-ER long before it knew they were out there. The F-35 can also jam with its radar even while using the other half of the AESA to scan, track, and target threats. Or, it can inject malware into the networked radar systems and take control of it with Suter. Suter now upgraded to Suter 3, a Cyber Warfare tech able to be used by air assets like the Rivet Joint, all US fighters, UAVs, and even ground units. It was run by the US Air Force BIG SAFARI unit starting in the early 1990s, under the Senior Suter program, and used in Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, and more. It allows a pilot to locate, target, and inject malware into enemy air defense systems without their knowing. You can then control the radar, turning it away from your position to insure you or your attack isn't seen by them. They're not able to do anything about it. Now with the F-35 350th spectrum warfare wing this should be even easier, as they also have this Cyber Warfare attack.
I'd hope it makes the F-35 look bad. The F-35 isn't even necessarily a "jet fighter", the fact you even put them in the same boat tells us how big of a piece of shit it is.
Meh, still not on the same level as an F-22 is, as far as I'm aware they're intended to basically drop in and destroy far away targets like SAM sites, that and/or provide close air support if necessary. Either way it's purpose is completely different than of a fricking 22 or some weird Russian offbrand version of it.
Norwegian pilots say an F-35A with a 500lb bomb internally carried can out-gun a completely clean F-16. Clean, meaning no missiles and minimal drag. Allowing the F-16 to perform at optimal conditions in the dogfight - which in a combat scenario it wouldn't have, as it would have missiles and/or bombs strapped to the wings. The F-35 was designed to have the high alpha characteristics of the F-18 Hornet, with the power and energy recovery of the F-16. It's the best of each plane with stealth, low drag internal carry weapons, unmatched avionics, and situational awareness.
The fricking Gripen E has both better OTH range and in-range agililty, and all the same countermeasures the Fat Amy does.
This plane will never see a dogfight, not one, but if it did, any modern fighter and most of the next gen will take it out like the trash. Even money on a F-15, for that matter
>This plane will never see a dogfight, not one, but if it did, any modern fighter and most of the next gen will take it out like the trash. Even money on a F-15, for that matter
The F-15 got eaten alive in red flag by F-35s.
>The aircraft achieved a kill to loss ratio > 20:1 with 145 kills to 7 losses against agressor F-15C's, F-16C's and T-38's, all 7 losses occured in a WVR environment in which “They werent seen on the radar, they just were seen passing by” — Lt General (S) Harris, Deputy Chief of Staff for Strategic Plans and Requirements speaking at the House Armed Services comittee hearing on the 16th of Febuary 2017 regarding Red Flag 17-1.
2 years ago
Anonymous
>The F-15 got eaten alive in red flag by F-35s.
oh gee, in a showboat to see if the new b***h is better than the old b***h they made the old b***h lose what a sur-prise Andy
>The fricking Gripen E has both better OTH range and in-range agililty,
In what fricking universe? Viper can't turn with it, Hornet can't turn with it, I don't know why or who keeps telling people the F-35 isn't agile but it's fricking ridiculous.
And the Gripen is literally worthless.
argue with reality, not me
Gripen >Maximum instantaneous turn rate: 30 degrees/second >Maximum sustained turn rate: 20 degrees/second >Roll rate: > 250 deg/sec
F 35 >fat piggy pig pig
2 years ago
Anonymous
2 years ago
Anonymous
instantaneous turn rate: 30 degrees/second
sustained turn rate: 20 degrees/second >>Roll rate: > 250 deg/sec
Thanks for confirming how moronic you are. F-35A has a max of 42 and a sustained of (at least) 28. And lets not forget it out accelerates a clean F-16C with 50% fuel while carrying a full combat load of gas and bombs.
Actual reality:
Gripen has:
No arms
No legs
Not LO in any way, shape or form
Barely supersonic
Anemic radar, reliant on missile load to define offensive effectiveness
It's a fricking EuroTejas. Pull your head out of your ass. Do you expect me to be shocked that a Cessna 172 can turn real good? And it's not even more agile than the F-35A in the first place.
2 years ago
Anonymous
b***h homie an A-10 can out turn a F-35
2 years ago
Anonymous
Too bad an A-10 can't see an F-35 even if that were true.
>The fricking Gripen E has both better OTH range and in-range agililty,
In what fricking universe? Viper can't turn with it, Hornet can't turn with it, I don't know why or who keeps telling people the F-35 isn't agile but it's fricking ridiculous.
And the Gripen is literally worthless.
obviously it's dogshit compared to f35 and f22 combat-wise but physicially i'd agree it makes f35 look bad for sure (admittedly i don't like how it looks tha much in the first place).
so aethetically-wise, su57 or f22 /k/? i'm gonna have to go with the su tbh
It's a meme prototype that would get romper stomped by an F-22. You seem to be the only moron in the world who didn't get the memo. It wouldn't even last in the sky long enough to know that an F-35 was in the sky with it while it was vanishing in a plasma cloud.
One of these really needs to fall into western hands before Russia goes completely breasts up. She needs to be saved from rabid scrapper hordes and put in a museum (or actually made to function!). Otherwise were gonna end up in another poor Su-47 situation.
>She needs to be saved from rabid scrapper hordes and put in a museum (or actually made to function!
I sure hope my local avaition museum has enough funds to go on a shopping spree in russia once this clow show invasion is over and the fire sale starts, i cannot stand those one-off aircraft rusting to shit in bumfrick nowhere
Also take buran (or whats left of it) for good measure
What's cool about the enemy F-14 in TG:M is that it looks like it's literally the Iranian version. >F-14A >no chin pod IRST or camera >no drop tanks (Grumman wasn't done with them before the revolution happened)
There seems to be a shitton of detail put into accurately portraying the F-14, seems someone on the production team was really fricking autistic. Maybe it was Cruise himself, being fed up over nerd telling him for over thirty years how and why the systems in Top Gun were mostly fantasy.
not enough made
It would make the Su-57 look bad.
>iToddler
Engines don't work.
I mean, they work. They're just not the engines the -57 was supposed to have. I think they're Su-27 engines with a fancy paint job and some electronics duct taped to them.
The paint makes them somehow even smokier than factory fresh.
>Extra electronics nothing but an Airplane 2:The Sequel reference.
"Canadian" hands typed this post.
It'd just crash.
This again? It's a paper plane with less than ten working machines
Because they only made 12, 2 of which are scrap, and half the remaining don't work. We're not sure about the other half.
They fricking wish they could send one out. I can only imagine the anal devastation if one gets domed by Ukrainian AD or more hilarious if their own AD swacks it out the sky.
Even better if it crashes with no outside influence because the pilot had no flight hours like that SU-25.
>Even better if it crashes with no outside influence because the pilot had no flight hours like that SU-25.
Probably one of the only cases where having like 5 working models all used for parades is to their advantage, even vatnigs can muster pilots who can put in hours on that few in safe areas.
But yeah none of that prepares it for combat. It's a hanger/parade queen.
Imagine if it gets shot down by a MiG-29 with an AMRAAM nigrigged onto it
Is that better or worse than being shot down by some partisan with a Stinger?
Is there a practical difference
Eventually you're so far down the shame tree that even a massive difference is immaterial and Russia is long beyond that point.
>>top gun irl
American pilots would die of jealousy
One crashed, they need remaining three for military parades, and one for spare parts.
Because Tom Cruise shot 3 down in a 40 year old plane with a malfunctioning radar.
I like to make it my headcanon that the Su-57 in TG:M sucked because they were actually monkey models that Russia sold to (scammed) Iran.
Inbred pilots too.
only because he was able to surprise attack them at close range because they thought he was one of theirs
does russia have the capability to make these function correctly in their role as SEADers? Do they have the advanced network infrastructure to justify using stealth aircraft?
No and no.
At least if the US broke out AAA from the 50's it would come with actual fire control directors.
Now imagine fighting a Hornet you can't lock up that's firing AIM-9Xs backwards at you over the shoulder.
Welcome to the F-35.
>Still not on the same level as an F-22
The F-22 is a dedicated single-purpose air dominance fighter like the F-15C. The F-15C being optimized for A2A does not somehow make the F-16 not a fighter. Same shit.
>Either way it's purpose is completely different than of a fricking 22
Yeah because it's actually supposed to do more than one fricking job. And even then the F-35 has 20 years on the F-22 as far as avionics goes. The APG-81 is a superior radar and the F-22 doesn't even have optical detection at all, while EO-DAS is basically cheating. All in a package that out-turns a Hornet and out accelerates a Viper.
Who cares if the #1 fighter edges out the F-35? It's still #2 by a wide fricking margin.
Since the Russians are putting literal museum pieces into service, I doubt the Su-57 is even fit for combat
>VodkaBlack person vaporware
It doesn't exist, except for prototypes that aren't operational, four than can't be flown b/c flaws in manufacturing and 1 that is saved for photo ops.
It is science fiction.
>it makes the F-22 and F-35 looks bad
it looks bad when an olympic wrestler breaks the spine of a malnourished peasant (the Su-57)
Really homie?
Only from a distance anon, up close you can see the screws and the bad joints.
also, looks do not equate to performance.
Yeah, bad-ly over-the-top
Why sending future weapons when old S-300 can shoot down f22 from 300 km? HATO send real competitor or frick off, don't waste my time to amateur league.
>S-300 can shoot down f22 from 300 km
>Why sending future weapons when old S-300 can shoot down f22 from 300 km?
What did he mean by this? Where are these numbers even coming from? How does he even know the capabilities of an F-22 when the pilots aren't even allowed to use their full capability unless their dog fighting real threats. This guy must be a top tier top gun pilot, the best the United States has to offer.
>Where are these numbers even coming from?
says so right in the fricking name can you even read mutt moron? or brain rotted like senile joe biden? "S-300": the "s" stands for "shoot down" and the "300" is for "300km". it is literally for shooting down f-22s or f-35s or any other hato jet from 300km away. suck it.
300Km is the maximum theoretical range.
Live the newer versions like S400 (S500?)
Should have 400km and 500km range.
That's the missile range.
Detection depends on the target type and the radars used and the position of said radars respective to the target.
Since F-22 is a stealth aircraft the detection range will likely be much lower so to the effective range will be lower too.
The question is simply if the F-22 can dectect and fire missiles to the s300/400/500 before the it can see it or engage it.
Considering that the Israeli managed to defeat some S400 using modernized F16s the answer is likely that the F-22 can hit the S400 before it can detect the plane.
The S-400 has a detection ran of 13mi - 21mi for the F-22 and F-35. They would get hit with an SBDII or AARGM-ER long before it knew they were out there. The F-35 can also jam with its radar even while using the other half of the AESA to scan, track, and target threats. Or, it can inject malware into the networked radar systems and take control of it with Suter. Suter now upgraded to Suter 3, a Cyber Warfare tech able to be used by air assets like the Rivet Joint, all US fighters, UAVs, and even ground units. It was run by the US Air Force BIG SAFARI unit starting in the early 1990s, under the Senior Suter program, and used in Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, and more. It allows a pilot to locate, target, and inject malware into enemy air defense systems without their knowing. You can then control the radar, turning it away from your position to insure you or your attack isn't seen by them. They're not able to do anything about it. Now with the F-35 350th spectrum warfare wing this should be even easier, as they also have this Cyber Warfare attack.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suter_(computer_program)
Israel used it - with the help of the US - in Syria. Part II is more relevant, though I figured I'd post the full article.
PART II
More on Suter.
I'd hope it makes the F-35 look bad. The F-35 isn't even necessarily a "jet fighter", the fact you even put them in the same boat tells us how big of a piece of shit it is.
the f-35 is in fact necessarily a jet fighter
Meh, still not on the same level as an F-22 is, as far as I'm aware they're intended to basically drop in and destroy far away targets like SAM sites, that and/or provide close air support if necessary. Either way it's purpose is completely different than of a fricking 22 or some weird Russian offbrand version of it.
F-35 in a dogfight would easily shit on anything 4th gen just because it can always fire missiles.
Norwegian pilots say an F-35A with a 500lb bomb internally carried can out-gun a completely clean F-16. Clean, meaning no missiles and minimal drag. Allowing the F-16 to perform at optimal conditions in the dogfight - which in a combat scenario it wouldn't have, as it would have missiles and/or bombs strapped to the wings. The F-35 was designed to have the high alpha characteristics of the F-18 Hornet, with the power and energy recovery of the F-16. It's the best of each plane with stealth, low drag internal carry weapons, unmatched avionics, and situational awareness.
F-18s are such buttholes in DCS. Fricking AOA...
>Fricking AOA...
>The Ghost of Feednseed strikes again!
The US knew, you don't name your aircraft after the villain of the insect world without knowing.
The fricking Gripen E has both better OTH range and in-range agililty, and all the same countermeasures the Fat Amy does.
This plane will never see a dogfight, not one, but if it did, any modern fighter and most of the next gen will take it out like the trash. Even money on a F-15, for that matter
>This plane will never see a dogfight, not one, but if it did, any modern fighter and most of the next gen will take it out like the trash. Even money on a F-15, for that matter
The F-15 got eaten alive in red flag by F-35s.
>The aircraft achieved a kill to loss ratio > 20:1 with 145 kills to 7 losses against agressor F-15C's, F-16C's and T-38's, all 7 losses occured in a WVR environment in which “They werent seen on the radar, they just were seen passing by” — Lt General (S) Harris, Deputy Chief of Staff for Strategic Plans and Requirements speaking at the House Armed Services comittee hearing on the 16th of Febuary 2017 regarding Red Flag 17-1.
>The F-15 got eaten alive in red flag by F-35s.
oh gee, in a showboat to see if the new b***h is better than the old b***h they made the old b***h lose what a sur-prise Andy
argue with reality, not me
Gripen
>Maximum instantaneous turn rate: 30 degrees/second
>Maximum sustained turn rate: 20 degrees/second
>Roll rate: > 250 deg/sec
F 35
>fat piggy pig pig
instantaneous turn rate: 30 degrees/second
sustained turn rate: 20 degrees/second
>>Roll rate: > 250 deg/sec
Thanks for confirming how moronic you are. F-35A has a max of 42 and a sustained of (at least) 28. And lets not forget it out accelerates a clean F-16C with 50% fuel while carrying a full combat load of gas and bombs.
Actual reality:
Gripen has:
No arms
No legs
Not LO in any way, shape or form
Barely supersonic
Anemic radar, reliant on missile load to define offensive effectiveness
It's a fricking EuroTejas. Pull your head out of your ass. Do you expect me to be shocked that a Cessna 172 can turn real good? And it's not even more agile than the F-35A in the first place.
b***h homie an A-10 can out turn a F-35
Too bad an A-10 can't see an F-35 even if that were true.
How many of those kills were friendly?
All of them
>The fricking Gripen E has both better OTH range and in-range agililty,
In what fricking universe? Viper can't turn with it, Hornet can't turn with it, I don't know why or who keeps telling people the F-35 isn't agile but it's fricking ridiculous.
And the Gripen is literally worthless.
>still not on the same level as an F-22 is
Nothing is on the same level as the F-22, though. The F-35 mauls clean F-16s in dogfights.
F-22 doesn't even allow integrated helmet displays lmao. You gotta literally turn the aircraft to see the target to aim.
Watch yo tone
High vis Tomcat paintjobs are so fricking sexy i dont know how they got away with it for so long.
Stealth wasn't the de facto so planes could have cool livery
Why is the back of the plane shaped like flexing arched back muscles?
Visible exertion from the weight of Russia's expectations.
The entire US military would be unable to shoot down a single squadron of Su-57s
because there aren't enough of them for a single squadron
obviously it's dogshit compared to f35 and f22 combat-wise but physicially i'd agree it makes f35 look bad for sure (admittedly i don't like how it looks tha much in the first place).
so aethetically-wise, su57 or f22 /k/? i'm gonna have to go with the su tbh
Su from a distance maybe, up close you can see it's stretch marks and c-section scars
It's a meme prototype that would get romper stomped by an F-22. You seem to be the only moron in the world who didn't get the memo. It wouldn't even last in the sky long enough to know that an F-35 was in the sky with it while it was vanishing in a plasma cloud.
One of these really needs to fall into western hands before Russia goes completely breasts up. She needs to be saved from rabid scrapper hordes and put in a museum (or actually made to function!). Otherwise were gonna end up in another poor Su-47 situation.
>She needs to be saved from rabid scrapper hordes and put in a museum (or actually made to function!
I sure hope my local avaition museum has enough funds to go on a shopping spree in russia once this clow show invasion is over and the fire sale starts, i cannot stand those one-off aircraft rusting to shit in bumfrick nowhere
Also take buran (or whats left of it) for good measure
>poor Su-47 situation.
I- I can save her
>two of the surviving soviet shuttles are in kazakh hands as the relations between the two nations can't get any worse (without outright invasion)
Here's to russia defaulting on some payments and Kazakhstan selling them
What's cool about the enemy F-14 in TG:M is that it looks like it's literally the Iranian version.
>F-14A
>no chin pod IRST or camera
>no drop tanks (Grumman wasn't done with them before the revolution happened)
There seems to be a shitton of detail put into accurately portraying the F-14, seems someone on the production team was really fricking autistic. Maybe it was Cruise himself, being fed up over nerd telling him for over thirty years how and why the systems in Top Gun were mostly fantasy.
100% some autist for the F-14 jumped to join the production team the moment the movie plans were made public.
Tom Cruise?
They have https://www.aviacionline.com/2022/06/the-sukhoi-su-57-in-combat-operations-over-ukraine/