You guys have to watch this, even if just for the dancing presenter and her over active arms. I'm sure if you muted her voice and overlayed music it would be akin to a music video. 

Think she loves being on camera. 

Then.... we can argue about the SU-57 as if we are experts. 

 

 

 

Edited January 7, 20215 yr by martin-w

"Combines and exceeds the capabilities of the F-22 and F-35". And when you add together 22+37 you get 57! Or the SU-57 😏This had me laughing 😄

...don't forget who is the financial source of RT

Ah, the lovely Yulia! 

11 minutes ago, Rob_Ainscough said:

dogfights are a thing of yesteryear and not relevant in today's technology. 

Unless hamstrung by bureaucratic restrictions where the pilot has to close to visual range to physically ID the enemy... Then you'll need dogfighting capability IMO.. The top brass thought dogfighting was outdated before Vietnam...

Most fighters hunt like wolves don't they? Or at least in pairs..

I'm excited to see the prospect of hypersonic weapon systems however, let alone directed energy... If the Su-57 can see targets 200 miles out and track 30 of them then Hypersonics will soon eat up that distance. Is that 200 mile radar range without the added help of an AWACS? Can it see the stealthy F35? Or the Raptor for that matter? That's the real question and the answer is probably classified..

Our Typhoons probably won't get a look in..  Our F-35s will be too busy hovering over the decks of our carriers...eventually....

Oh well, at least the Sukhoi will die looking pretty.

Then again Russia's new enemy might be their closest neighbour China, in which case my money's definitely on the Sukhois 🍻...

 

18 minutes ago, G-YMML1 said:

...don't forget who is the financial source of RT

Absolutely. Totally biased.

But that lady...  had me very amused. 

14 minutes ago, HighBypass said:

Unless hamstrung by bureaucratic restrictions where the pilot has to close to visual range to physically ID the enemy... Then you'll need dogfighting capability IMO.. The top brass thought dogfighting was outdated before Vietnam.

 

 

They did. In fact I recall the Phantom initially didn't have a gun. They had to install one when they discovered dogfighting was alive and well.

Having said that, I really do think the time has come when dogfighting encounters are few and far between. 

I recall the SU-57 is fitted with an older engine as the second gen engine isn't ready. 

And its 5th gen of course. Meanwhile... our American friends have already tested a 6th gen prototype apparently.

 

 

Edited January 7, 20215 yr by martin-w

46 minutes ago, Rob_Ainscough said:

The F-35 variants would destroy the SU-57 long before the pilot could react ... dogfights are a thing of yesteryear and not relevant in today's technology.  Russia has nothing like AESA, DAS, EOTS systems that even come close to capability.  F-35 hunt like wolves and it's the networking electronics and weapons load that makes them so incredibly dangerous to an enemy.

Great video though!  Enjoyed it.

Cheers, Rob.

Problem with all that, is notions that superior technology will defeat everything have often proven to over-optimistic when compared to the practical realities of warfare. We have seen this time and time again throughout history.

A classic one of this ilk, was the experience of the Vietnam War, when US aircraft manufacturers of the preceding late Fifties and early Sixties, were so enamoured with guided missiles, that they stopped putting internal guns on their fighters and interceptors. Then they found out the missiles were not as effective in actual combat as they had imagined. Then they had to hastily start strapping gun pods onto F-4s, which weren't as accurate as the internally mounted ones on other F-4 variants which did have an internal gun, because the mounts would flex when the gun fired. And then when they did go back to having guns on their fighters, they had to start up schemes such as 'Top Gun' to get crews back to having the dogfighting skills necessary to be able to use guns in combat again after they'd qualified a bunch of pilots who hadn't been taught air to air gunnery because they thought it was all going to be missile-armed combat.

Now in fairness, the missiles used in Vietnam were not completely ineffective, and in fact they were the only means to gain a kill for those flying types with no internal or pod-mounted gun. But I think if we take the opinion of Robin Olds - 16 confirmed victories - 12 in WW2 and 4 in Vietnam, so that'd be more gun kills than missile kills, his opinion says a lot about an ill-advised reliance on technology at the expense of good old fashioned fighting skills:

'We weren't allowed to dogfight. Very little attention was paid to strafing, dive-bombing, rocketry, stuff like that. It was thought to be unnecessary. Yet every confrontation America faced in the Cold War years was a 'bombs and bullets' situation, raging under an uneasy nuclear standoff. The Vietnam War proved the need to teach tactical warfare and have fighter pilots. It caught us unprepared because we weren't allowed to learn it or practice it in training.'

It's not like they couldn't have predicted this either. In the preceding Korean War, the fancy gunsight on the F-86 was quite often discarded by good fighter pilots, in favour of a simple bubble-gum sight combined with some decent target-lead shooting, and the auto-launching FFAR rockets on the later dog ship F-86 variants, had proven almost universally useless in actual combat.

On the ground below those jets in the skies over Vietnam which Olds was flying, the infantry were finding that their super-duper new M-16 - and other ArmaLite derivatives - was jamming in the jungle climates, whereas the cheap and cheerful AK-47 and Type 56, had considerably slacker tolerances, so were a bit less accurate but it meant they were very unlikely to jam. And since the M-16 often wasn't even capable of firing unless kept very clean, this is a bit of a moot point for accuracy comparison figures where the M-16 is concerned. As if this wasn't bad enough, the M-16 didn't even serve as a very good club if it came down to hand to hand combat, because the plastic of the stock would easily break, whereas the AK makes a pretty good blunt instrument if you need it to. Hardly surprising that lots of soldiers in that theatre who were equipped with the M-16, would pick up an AK-47 if they could find one, and use that instead.

We could name a ton more examples where an older less sophisticated - or cheaper - weapon has triumphed over a technologically superior or more expensive one, from T-34s and M4s thrashing Panthers and Tigers, and Wooden Mosquitoes strafing the V2 Ballistic missile launch sites in WW2, to the simple medieval crossbowmen taking down aristocratic knights by putting a bolt straight through the chest plate of their expensive custom-made armor which they thought rendered them invulnerable. 

A fighter which can't dogfight effectively, is not as good as one which can, it's as simple as that. It might never need to dogfight, but it's better to have the capability to do so and not need it, than to not have it and then find an enemy aeroplane up your wazoo coming into guns range, and this is especially the case with the new Sukhoi, because it has superior speed, so it can control the decision of when to engage and when not to.

Edited January 7, 20215 yr by Chock

Our Tempest will kick all the collective a$$es when it comes out! 

3 minutes ago, HighBypass said:

Our Tempest will kick all the collective a$$es when it comes out! 

 

But it won't be here for 14 years. 😆 

2035 they say.

Edited January 7, 20215 yr by martin-w

word not allowed Skynet will have become self-aware by then!

1 hour ago, Rob_Ainscough said:

how many active combat dogfights have you seen in the past 2 decades using modern aircraft? 

I'd say none, because most conflicts in the past 20 years involving a country with an effective airforce already had assured air superiority from the start with no competition from the enemy. The enemy hadn't sent up any of their own aircraft... if they had any in the first place..

My Skynet comment was a tongue in cheek reference to the amount of time it will apparently take us Brits to field a 6th gen fighter (IF our aerospace companies can stop playing subcons and actually give our air force an indigenous product), not necessarily who spends how much on their military. However, thank you for the info, Rob!  

HOWEVER, IMO that doesn't mean that there will not be any dogfights in the future should two technologically advanced nations with effective airforces be drawn into conflict against one another.

1 hour ago, Rob_Ainscough said:

 

I'll take a high tech US aircraft any day over a Russian pea shooter. 🙂  Booya!

Cheers, Rob.

 

I'll have one too please. 

Chock is correct that we shouldn't totally dismiss older technology, as it "sometimes" proves "in some respects" to be superior... but it's obviously the newest tech, technological advancements, that most of the time  provides the edge. 

Edited January 7, 20215 yr by martin-w

All this discussion reminds me of my old buddy from several of the the flightsim forums. Jesse Callahan. Anyone else remember Jesse? I loved the conversations about his time in the best fighter aircraft of the time. The bombers he escorted referred to him as Little Friend. As a WWII P-51 pilot flying escort for the 8th Air Force B-17s I wonder what he would have to say about this thread.

Orsim! I'll have 2 of whatever she's selling.
And the plane's not too shabby either.
Never mind the clever unstable flight regime manoeuvres, no airshow should be without this sound (listen at 1:45)

(88) Су-57 с новым звуком пилотаж на форуме Армия 2020 Кубинка - YouTube

 

3 hours ago, Rob_Ainscough said:

dogfights are a thing of yesteryear and not relevant in today's technology.

I think the guys at the AF Fighter Weapons School and the Navy Topgun school would disagree.