Su-57 thread. Last one reached its limit

Attached: Su-57 armament.jpg (1920x1080, 584K)

>EOTS is ground only, unable to do IRST
>EOTS cannot look forward....at all.
>MAW is equivalent to DAS
^
This is what some retard in that thread believes.

No it doesn't, the radars are passive.
Are you the retard from the other thread or a new one?

no satellites can track aerial targets but that can change in the future.

Director of the RTI them. A. L. Mints, Alexander Osipov. - The institute has the necessary scientific, technical, software-algorithmic and technological for
affairs for the creation on a single structure of the latest BRKK for spacecraft. In the model of the BRLC, which was created at the institute, important are technologies for raising informativity: the use of innovative probing signal designs, the method of expanding the shooting range, innovative methods for detecting moving objects, superresolution algorithms, methods for processing and integrating radar data. - The basic principles of radar are well known to scientists around the world. It is very difficult to come up with qualitatively new solutions in this area, but we succeeded. With the help of a supercomputer, we have developed deep mathematical analysis algorithms that allow us to detect moving targets. This is a very difficult task that no one has yet solved for us, says Anatoly Leukhin. - The fact is that when we look at the Earth with a locator, we see not only rivers, oceans and cities, but also a huge amount of interference. Because of them, it is sometimes very difficult to see even moving objects. The ability to track moving objects is an essential step in the development of radar. This technology can be widely used for both military and civilian purposes. For example, to create systems
aircraft from space

>eots elevating by 7 degrees makes f35 able to engage pakfa with 101ks declinating by 15 degrees and having a height advantage of five klicks

Attached: D_GyWcRXsAAu_1i.jpg (805x735, 65K)

>EOTS cannot look forward...at all
>>BUT MY HEIGHT ADVANTAGE

Say it with me, EOTS can look forward.

>MAW is equivalent to DAS
>Pak-FA has integrated ground targeting suite
>Pak-Fa's DIRCM is actually a laser beam
I can go on.

>dabs on vatniks

Attached: 1563557498595.jpg (1024x791, 144K)

>No it doesn't, the radars are passive.
Oooof. So EMCON just completely kills it.

>dabs on every outdated or monkey model aircraft.

>muh monkey models
>muh excuses
Your responses are baked into the image, yet you fuckers cant help yourselves.

>Your responses are baked into the image, yet you fuckers cant help yourselves.

truth is that hard to cope with?

Attached: 1546208155148.png (336x494, 17K)

The only one copeing is you, to the point of where your lame and canned replies are baked into the image.

>expecting vatniks to read

Attached: F35.jpg (1920x1080, 220K)

No one ever said that lol, EOTS can look forward, but its never proven how much. The closest we came is some guy with a protractor showing 7 degree elevation of normal, the PAKFA managed twice that in declination.

>Pak-Fa's DIRCM is actually a laser beam
deagel.com/Protection-Systems/101KS-O_a002987001.aspx
Of course its a laser, what did you think it was?

Not really.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passive_radar
But what do you plan to do with your carrier fleet if its not talking to each other or sensing the world around it?

ironically every Jow Forumstard always bring up this one and only battle and no other flight battles in history where even Israelis admitted they were against rookie pilots straight out of flight school XD.

Attached: kek.jpg (800x450, 40K)

>The Soviet Union deployed another regiment of MiG-21s and a squadron of Su-15 all-weather interceptors were sent to Egypt to bolster defences.[35] The Egyptians themselves reacted with ill-concealed delight at the outcome of the engagement. They had previously suffered intense criticism of their own performance and boasts of superior Soviet skills, when in fact the Soviets had fallen for tactics the Egyptians were already familiar with.

Attached: A-29.jpg (1200x783, 197K)

>loses all airplanes and tanks in war
>america airlifts in 50,000 tons of tanks and airplanes to you for Free™
>pretend you won the war
Have Jews done anything successfully on their own? Honestly they're Arab tier, which explains the inbreeding and low IQ generally found in Jewish communities.

Huh, sending pilots fresh out of flight school to an active warzone sounds pretty retarded, thanks for informing me the Soviet upper command was as incompetent as their pilots

>No one ever said that lol
HERE WE GO.

>. The EOTS has 0 degrees elevation. In fact I don't think it approaches a flat plane even, because of the mount getting in the way.

>Because it's under the nose and points downward.

>F-35 one doesn't have elevation at all, it's on the fucking bottom.

>while EOTS is pointed downward.

>en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passive_radar
Except its not a passive radar, its a receiver for US emissions. it does not use other radars and non cooperative sources.

EMCON is practiced regularly, and communications is tightbeam.

What the sats were picking up is the fuckhuge emissions of the SPY-1.

>>The Soviet Union deployed another regiment of MiG-21s and a squadron of Su-15 all-weather interceptors were sent to Egypt to bolster defences.[35] The Egyptians themselves reacted with ill-concealed delight at the outcome of the engagement. They had previously suffered intense criticism of their own performance and boasts of superior Soviet skills, when in fact the Soviets had fallen for tactics the Egyptians were already familiar with.
>Huh, sending pilots fresh out of flight school to an active warzone sounds pretty retarded, thanks for informing me the Soviet upper command was as incompetent as their pilots

"By this time I'd realized the Russian pilot was inexperienced; he didn't know how to handle his aircraft in a combat situation. At 15,000 ft he proved this fact by trying to escape in a steep dive to 700 ft. All we had to do was follow him and lock our radar onto him – and fire a missile. There was a tremendous explosion – but the MiG came out of the cloud of smoke apparently unharmed. That made me mad and I fired a second missile – which turned out to be unnecessary. The Russian aircraft had, in fact, been severely damaged by the first missile; suddenly, it burst into flames and fell apart. By the time the second missile reached it, it wasn't there any more. "

The first Su-57 was intended to be delivered this year but it's currently considered very unlikely to happen. The new engines for serial production remain unavailable.

Only your first and third quote even mention elevation, and they're both being rightly dubious since it's never been shown in the thread by that time. The second and last quote have to do with the EOTS pointing downwards, which it fucking does. It points almost directly down, and that "almost" is all you're hanging on to call it a fighter system.

So yes if the enemy is nice enough to stay at a range of 40km or more it might be able to see it, but it still can't shoot it down. If the F-35 and Pakfa are turning or engaging in any kind of combat, only one of them can maintain a sight picture, in fact PAKFA has an IRST system which looks 90 degrees up specifically for that reason.

Attached: PAK-FA+092013+Maxim+Stankevich+Ruplanes-net+A.jpg (500x362, 86K)

First few operational batches will be without it iirc

>he didn't know how to handle his aircraft in a combat situation
Amazing

Attached: F-15 Strike Eagle_Ultra HD.jpg (3840x2160, 1.11M)

>Except its not a passive radar
Source?

>carrier fleet can operate normally without releasing any emissions
Then why even have a state of operations called "emcon" why not just do it as regular practice?

>What the sats were picking up is the fuckhuge emissions of the SPY-1.
Source?

Sorry kiddo, the EOTS points wherever the mirror is orientated.

>rightly dubious
he outright stated it DOESN'T HAVE ELEVATION AT ALL.

Sorry fag, they were 100% wrong.

> If the F-35 and Pakfa are turning or engaging in any kind of combat, only one of them can maintain a sight picture,
DAS maintains IRST function. The Pakfa could be 180 in a turn directly perpendicular from the F-35, and the F-35 can launch an aim-9x launch, as well as over the shoulder.

>Then why even have a state of operations called "emcon" why not just do it as regular practice?
Because both states have their uses.

>Source?
Conjecture based upon the fact that it is the single biggest source of emissions.

popularmechanics.com/military/aviation/a28568277/russia-su-57-production/

The prototypes even took 10 sorties in Syria.

First 12 won't, it's going to use the same engine as the prototype.

Saying the EOTS points downwards is just as wrong as saying the Russian IRST points upwards.

They both point wherever they are looking. Both can point forwards, just different hemispheres.

Any other answer than this is wrong, and anyone arguing this point is also wrong.

Yes but its mounting is on the bottom of the aircraft and its field of view is centered on the ground.

>DAS maintains IRST function.
Uh... no it doesn't.

this image needs to add that Pakistani F16 that shot down that mig

Attached: AlabamaF16.jpg (1200x800, 175K)

>the F-35 can launch an aim-9x launch, as well as over the shoulder
You realize the AIM-9X has less fuel than AIM-9. Firing it backward is going to cut range down to a few kilometers....

>Firing it backward is going to cut range down to a few kilometers
brainlet here, doesn't the missile turn around before it launches?

>Yes but its mounting is on the bottom of the aircraft and its field of view is centered on the ground.

Its FOV is wherever the mirror is pointed, retard.

>Uh... no it doesn't.
northropgrumman.com/Capabilities/ANAAQ37F35/Pages/default.aspx
The DAS provides:
Missile detection and tracking
Launch point detection
Situational awareness IRST & cueing
Weapons support
Day/night navigation

So, how long will you argue this FACT?

There were some victories on egypts side.

December 9, 1969: Egyptian aircraft, with the assistance of newly delivered P-15 radars, defeats the Israelis in an aerial engagement, shooting down two Israeli Mirages. Later in the evening, an Egyptian fighter flown by Lt. Ahmed Atef shot down an Israeli F-4 Phantom II, making him the first Egyptian pilot to shoot down an F-4 in combat.[48] The same day, the Rogers Plan is publicized. It calls for Egyptian "commitment to peace" in exchange for the Israeli withdrawal from Sinai. Both parties strongly reject the plan. Nasser forestalled any movement toward direct negotiations with Israel. In dozens of speeches and statements, Nasser posited the equation that any direct peace talks with Israel were tantamount to surrender.[49] President Nasser instead opts to plead for more sophisticated weaponry from the Soviet Union to withstand the Israeli bombings. The Soviets initially refuse to deliver the requested weapons.[50]

Sorry but whatever conflict involving the downing of soviet jets is never their best domestic versions. its like comparing klub to kalibr missiles.

Russian IRST points forward and upward, if you split its field of view down the middle that's where the average is. EOTS points forward and downward by the same token.

The exact angles have already been posted and aren't refutable.

>The Pakfa could be 180 in a turn directly perpendicular from the F-35, and the F-35 can launch an aim-9x launch, as well as over the shoulder.
Only someone who doesn't understand fighter combat thinks this is a good thing.

PROTIP: Missiles have only a few seconds of fuel use, after that they're like cannon shells. Their range mostly comes from gliding not from powered flight.

This is why a fighter which goes faster has a longer range with the same missile.

This is why a fighter which flies higher has a longer range with the same missile.

And why AIM-9X is such a fucking failure which can barely reach 9km behind it while the airplane on your tail has a 30-40km range with the same sized missile.

Attached: Moooommm.png (720x544, 953K)

And yet, it has proven to do this in live fire testing.

Nope.

No it launches in powered mode and turns around in air through active thrusters on the side of the missile. But obviously its fighting to brake its own speed and the speed of the launch platform so it can hit something behind it.

I'm not saying it can't do it, I'm saying its dumb to do so.

So its dumb to utilize a capability if the scenario presents itself?

Ok kid.

>a 30-40km range with the same sized missile.
But the aim 9x has 30-40km range.

I fail to see your point.

I have a 30 km range weapon. I'm behind and above you at a range of 30km.

You have a bastardized version of this weapon which can fire backward to a range of 8km.

In what scenario do I choose to approach you to 8km before firing my 30km range missile?

>I'm saying its dumb to do so.
so your uniformed opinion is more valid than years of testing?

>why is this capability dumb if the opportunity presents itself?

>>YEAH WELL WHAT IF I TELEPORT BEHIND YOU NOTHING PERSONAELL KIDDO

Clearly in your engagement, the opportunity has not presented itself. You didn't even answer my question, dumbass.

AIM-9X has a range of 16km, AIM-9P has 35km range.

Where did you hear it had a range of 30-40km? That's almost medium missile range...

I'm asking you what situation the opportunity would present itself? When will an enemy be forced to close to 8km behind you for the AIM-9X maneuver capability to be useful????

>Where did you hear it had a range of 30-40km?
Where did you hear 16km?

>I'm asking you what situation the opportunity would present itself?

Turn fighting at the merge yet still outside of guns range.

If you think BFM is dead, then why have a SRAM in the first place? Just load out with BVR's and be done with it.

If you also think BFM is dead, every major nation disagrees.

ecosia.org/search?q="AIM-9X" "10 miles"

Wait.... your answer is that you somehow have to survive the other guys entire MRAAM and SRAAM inventory until he's forced to fight you with guns?

>Wait.... your answer is that you somehow have to survive the other guys entire MRAAM and SRAAM inventory until he's forced to fight you with guns?

The other guy has to survive yours too, also you assume war is just two fighters going head to head over and over again.

Again, you seem to be of the opinion that BFM is dead. Is that true?

That is search engine results, not a source...

And the first few dont say 16km...

Yeah but then your airplane has to carry the same MRAAM and SRAAM as the other guy, plus in addition it has to carry these french missiles which fire in reverse.

Oh for gods sake get over yourself, 10 miles is 16km.
af.mil/News/Art/igphoto/2000791300/
Show me where you heard it's 40km that's ridiculous.

It's the same sized missile, they cut down the original fuel storage to put in side-facing rockets that turn it in midair, it cant physically fly farther because it doesn't have more fuel.

......the aim 9x is an SRAAM...

>being beaten by literal kikes

Attached: 15619008747650.jpg (1280x720, 166K)

In performance it's a SRLAAM like the Aphid except it weighs more and is less efficient.

Short range lightweight air to air missiles have ranges under 10km and are mostly used by helicopters. AIM-9X might actually be useful there, and the range certainly matches.

Aim-9m also says 10 miles.
af.mil/News/Art/igphoto/2000427151/

Your source says more than 10 miles. As for range we got....

deagel.com/Defensive-Weapons/AIM-9X-Sidewinder_a001166003.aspx
14 nautical miles aka 25 km.

designation-systems.net/dusrm/m-9.html
Listed at 40+km

Wikipedia lists 35km

defense-update.com/20130722_aim-9x-block-iii-to-become-a-bvr-missile.html
This claims the next upgrade to it will push it to BVR territory.

>In performance it's a SRLAAM like the Aphid except it weighs more and is less efficient.
Wut.

Not only does it have a longer range than 10km, every source beyond an airforce art site says longer ranges.

How the fuck does a passive radar work?

>NAVAIR says the current Block II AIM-9X already overlaps some of the range capability of the more powerful Raytheon AIM-120D AMRAAM,

The navy disagrees lol.

>veterans > vs flight school candidates.

Geez I wonder who is more favorable to win. Ironically Jow Forums cant think of any aerial battle where same year model aircrafts fight each other than this one for some reason.

Dude are Russians really this incompetent?

Why you expects noobs coming out of school to beat veterans? You probably think some army conscript can take on a green beret.

i dont. I dont at all.

why did russian command think they would?

Some user on Jow Forums
>the Aim-9x is a lightweight air to air missile like the aphid!

The USN
>NAVAIR says the current Block II AIM-9X already overlaps some of the range capability of the more powerful Raytheon AIM-120D AMRAAM,

Hmmmmmm. Really gets the brain goin....

Underestimating enemies?

So what you just did was berate me for thinking "noobs can defeat veterans".....yet find it logical that RUSSIAN HIGH COMMAND, THE MEN WHOS ENTIRE JOB IT IS TO KNOW THIS SHIT...did the same thing?

>So what you just did was berate me for thinking "noobs can defeat veterans".....yet find it logical that RUSSIAN HIGH COMMAND, THE MEN WHOS ENTIRE JOB IT IS TO KNOW THIS SHIT...did the same thing

expect everyone to know everything. just like you expect an f-117 fighter to not use same routes of flights until getting shotdown by 1960s broken railes air defenses in Serbia.

That would be comparable, if we lost 5 F-117's.

There is also a large difference between a tactical mistake leading to one loss, and a strategic mistake leading to 5 losses.

>deagel.com/Defensive-Weapons/AIM-9X-Sidewinder_a001166003.aspx
>designation-systems.net/dusrm/m-9.html
>Wikipedia lists 35km
All those are generally about AIM-9, read the articles instead of just copypasting the links directly from google. The range claim is for the longest ranged variant which is P, used by the air force.

The only link thats halfway interesting is the defense update one:
>To achieve the extended range the new AIM-9X Block III will be equipped with a new rocket motor providing increased rocket motor performance and improved missile power management. NAVAIR says.
This is a new development, if they add a larger motor it will of course mean that the missile will be larger and heavier. It's not going to be a SRAAM sidewinder anymore.... I don't know why they don't just get off the pot and take a shit on the AIM-120 AMRAAM, cut out parts of the fuel, and direct the thrust sideways to get the same effect as AIM-9X.
It makes more sense to downgrade the AMRAAM than to radically upgrade the AIM-9X, it's far less effort and expense.

Dude just because it overlaps the dead zone of the AIM-120 doesn't mean it has the same range...

I'll try to make a picture.

>Dude just because it overlaps the dead zone of the AIM-120
Thats not what it states at all. It states capability overlap, not deadzone overlap (and the deadzone of the 120 is tiny due to bulldog)

>All those are generally about AIM-9
Uhh no. Des systems was specifically the 9x, deagle was specifically the 9x.

The missiles range is not 16km user. Get a grip.

Attached: Pak-kino.jpg (797x1213, 499K)

>There is also a large difference between a tactical mistake leading to one loss, and a strategic mistake leading to 5 losses.

refuting a strawman argument with the same strawman argument used. F-117s no longer use same estimated flight routes as they will never underestimate jews in combat.

If the same flight of next 5 noobs and same flight paths of another f-117 was used than shame on that command.

>tactical errors are the same as strategic errors
laughable.

>cant figure out that an F-117 was not a strategical error

this

Individual flight paths are tactical user.

but based on strategic commands like a high military officer making this choice.

>but based on strategic commands like a high military officer making this choice.
No.

>doesn't think the F-117 was a commander who was under orders from a command

Yikes.

OK this is sort of how it works. But it can work with any radiating energy, including in some cases the radiation released by power systems, and even the microwave background radiation of the universe (altough bit different because its omnipresent). It's a little crazy how it works, but it does work.

But that's not true, do I need to screencap where it clearly says AIM-9 without the X?

And I'm sure the range is different, its classified. The point is that it MUST be lower than other AIM-9 versions, because it's the same missile body, but some of the fuel is diverted in a perpendicular direction. It can't fly the same distance without making the missile body bigger, it's physically impossible.

Attached: 4df96f273af9cf19f8bf4d6d4e058024--mouths-munition.jpg (650x441, 44K)

>he thinks individual flight plans are strategic decisions.

Yikes.

>rookie pilots straight out of flight school XD.
every thread a different exuse XD
that is actually the reason why it is brought up so often, everyone wants to hear your next cope

>But that's not true, do I need to screencap where it clearly says AIM-9 without the X?
On the two sources i named in my previous post? Sure. Deagle and designation systems. Go for it.

> The point is that it MUST be lower than other AIM-9 versions
Yet, the SINGLE source you are basing your claims off of has it THE SAME as the other Aim-9 versions. You do see the problem with this?

>. It can't fly the same distance without making the missile body bigger, it's physically impossible.
Unless it does not use those thrusters in the flight, or it has better fuel for better economy.

vkDELID.com/milinfolive?w=wall-123538639_1194715

Attached: DvflvG1WkAACZAT.png (830x802, 623K)