Jump to content

Sign in to follow this  
martin-w

Amusing!

Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)

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 by martin-w
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

"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 😄

  • Like 3

Jesse Casserly 👌🏼

Add me as a friend to go fly on MSFS: JesseC757

https://www.youtube.com/user/JesseCasserly757

💻 i7-10750H 2.6 GHz / 5.0 GHz, 16GB DDR4, 512GB SSD, 1TB HDD, RTX 2080 Super

Saitek X-56 HOTAS

Share this post


Link to post

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.

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post

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

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

Ah, the lovely Yulia! :cool:

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 The top brass thought dogfighting was outdated before Vietnam...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.. :unsure: 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 🍻...

 


Mark Robinson

Part-time Ferroequinologist

Author of FLIGHT: A near-future short story (ebook available on amazon)

I made the baby cry - A2A Simulations L-049 Constellation

Sky Simulations MD-11 V2.2 Pilot. The best "lite" MD-11 money can buy (well, it's not freeware!)

Share this post


Link to post
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. 

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
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 by martin-w
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
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 by Chock

Alan Bradbury

Check out my youtube flight sim videos: Here

Share this post


Link to post

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

  • Upvote 1

Mark Robinson

Part-time Ferroequinologist

Author of FLIGHT: A near-future short story (ebook available on amazon)

I made the baby cry - A2A Simulations L-049 Constellation

Sky Simulations MD-11 V2.2 Pilot. The best "lite" MD-11 money can buy (well, it's not freeware!)

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
3 minutes ago, HighBypass said:

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

 

But it won't be here for 14 years. 😆 

2035 they say.

Edited by martin-w

Share this post


Link to post

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

  • Like 1

Mark Robinson

Part-time Ferroequinologist

Author of FLIGHT: A near-future short story (ebook available on amazon)

I made the baby cry - A2A Simulations L-049 Constellation

Sky Simulations MD-11 V2.2 Pilot. The best "lite" MD-11 money can buy (well, it's not freeware!)

Share this post


Link to post
36 minutes ago, HighBypass said:

Most fighters hunt like wolves don't they?

They do, but their weapons systems don't.  F-35 variants (they do have non-hover variants) can network automatically with not only other F-35s but with other command aircraft, ships, ground ops, and even military satellites ... all that data is evaluated real-time and provided to the pilot in real-time.

20 minutes ago, Chock said:

but it's better to have the capability to do so

I'll disagree, that dogfight capability gives up operational effectiveness ... how many active combat dogfights have you seen in the past 2 decades using modern aircraft? 

Cheers, Rob.

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
26 minutes ago, HighBypass said:

Skynet

The equivalent has been around for some time, ever since 911 ... when the US government spends $600-$700 Billion per year on military while the next closest competitor government (China) only spends $261 Billion followed by India at $71 Billion and then Russia at $65 Billion ... that money feeds a lot of new technology.

Of course this tends to make the paranoid even more paranoid which is something we definitely don't need as it's already come to a boil in domestic terrorism.

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

Cheers, Rob.

Edited by Rob_Ainscough

Share this post


Link to post
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! :cool: 

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.


Mark Robinson

Part-time Ferroequinologist

Author of FLIGHT: A near-future short story (ebook available on amazon)

I made the baby cry - A2A Simulations L-049 Constellation

Sky Simulations MD-11 V2.2 Pilot. The best "lite" MD-11 money can buy (well, it's not freeware!)

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
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 by martin-w

Share this post


Link to post

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
  • Tom Allensworth,
    Founder of AVSIM Online


  • Flight Simulation's Premier Resource!

    AVSIM is a free service to the flight simulation community. AVSIM is staffed completely by volunteers and all funds donated to AVSIM go directly back to supporting the community. Your donation here helps to pay our bandwidth costs, emergency funding, and other general costs that crop up from time to time. Thank you for your support!

    Click here for more information and to see all donations year to date.
  • Donation Goals

    AVSIM's 2020 Fundraising Goal

    Donate to our annual general fundraising goal. This donation keeps our doors open and providing you service 24 x 7 x 365. Your donation here helps to pay our bandwidth costs, emergency funding, and other general costs that crop up from time to time. We reset this goal every new year for the following year's goal.


    48%
    $12,190.00 of $25,000.00 Donate Now
×
×
  • Create New...