People do not understand that Russia was the first country to introduce flat nozzles in the VTOL Yak-38/41 program of the 1970s, they are mentioned only for the purpose of testing the thrust vector, I quote Yakovlev: "a flat biaxial nozzle was developed in the second half of the 1970s for the vertical take-off and landing fighter Yak-41 (VTOL). An original solution was used to rotate it - the nozzle was divided into three segments, which, rotating in opposite directions relative to each other, provided a deviation of the thrust vector in the vertical plane by an angle of 95 ° (in vertical takeoff and landing mode). For short takeoffs, the nozzle was installed at an angle of 62°. This solution made it possible to use the afterburner both in horizontal flight and in vertical mode.
The stealth technology was created by Russia, not the US. It is Russian technology! The helmet was also created by the Russians, they used such a helmet on the MiG-29. The vertical takeoff and landing technology used on the F-35 was also created by the Russians, Lockheed Martin contracted the Yakovlev Design Bureau to improve the Yak-141 design.
The Yak-38/41 didn't have flat nozzles? The Yak-41 had a pivot beyond the augmentor but before the nozzle that allowed it to perform VTOL operations. The Yak-38 simply had vented outlets, not a nozzle.
@@globalpower6967stealth is not a Russian technology. A Russian mathematician came up with the mathematical equation that would estimate radar cross section. The Soviet government saw no use for this equation and allowed him to openly publish his formula. Lockheed Martin’s skunkworks read this equation and recognized its utility in simplifying its efforts in creating a stealth aircraft as before this equation they had to physically make a mock up and test it against a radar via trial and error. Radar Stealth is an American technology. Also Lockheed already had a 3 swiveling nozzle designed before the yak 38 they simply bought flight data from yak in order to cross reference their designs with real world flight data as the American equivalent was deemed to expensive and never got past the design stage
Russian military upgrades were behind because they had entire decades where there was no money investment in R&D due to the economic turmoil of the 1990s and early 2000s , they are playing catchup
Keep telling yourself that, if ww3 breaks without nukes, I would enjoy watching our front lines gets decimated over overconfidence bs, as if Germany in ww2 not only caught up in less than 5 years, but significantly had breakthroughs after breakthroughs. Half of Soviet Union used barter system after ww2, and yet we lost every step of the way in race to space until they stopped because flat out broke, we had to bring German scientists that worked with V2 to help. They were the first to make VTOL just to make their overweight mig able to take off, scrapped it when the vtol itself used too much fuel and added more weight. And they had hypersonic missiles before we do. And to make it worse, current proxy war, other than stock abrams, we have seen 59 Tomahawks rendered useless, ATACMS was granted to shoot inside Russia, ZERO made any impact, hits target but fails to destroy them, Bradleys also useless, Strykers, HIMARS, Stingers and Javelins, etc etc.. and we still have overconfident people thinking they will stay behind us after our greatest bs, F35. New Abrams came out, even more useless, more techs but the fact that rendered the stock abrams feature useless, still there and only manned by 3 crews which a buddy of mine said hell nawh, 4 crew already hard enough, 3 crew with that much delicate tech, that's just waiting for disaster. Never ever underestimate anyone, we lost 30% of our unit on DDay, let me remind you, Germany main army was gone in 1943 may after losing stalingrad, 30% casualties, highest and worst record than France had, and we didn't land alone on DDay, UK and Canada also joined.
@@phunkracy Russia has already announced a large-scale modernization of the Su-35, 30, 34 aircraft. They have started to modernize them to the 5th generation, it has been stated that all 5th generation systems from the Su-57 will be used. The engine was presented in China and this engine was not developed for the Su-57, but for the modernization of 4++ aircraft. Radars will also be replaced. Russia has announced the modernization of its 4++ generation aircraft
the guy on Millenium 7 - also pointed out that the flat nozzles aren't flat but have a slight v-shape and are hollow to allow cool air to flow through them ..... seems they had to master 3D printing of the parts to put this design into production .... not a "straight" copy of the F-22 after all .... but an evolution
@@ctmme, true, but supposedly that is part of their goal making these. They aim to make 90% of the nozzle assembly 3D -printable. That's something to aim for, I suppose, both figuratively AND literally.
@@ctmme you actually do, with all the intricate internal profile of the exhaust peatal for cool air flow it is only viable to use 3D printing for its production
The Russians do not copy anyone. They simply try to make everything better. In the annuls of history, they have been copied far often than they have copied
The Nose, Wingtips and Tail radar can all acts as a Diamond Array for Passive Radio Direction Finding. That means if the SU57 wants to penetrate an IADs system it can guide itself away from emission sources.
I get a little annoyed sometimes when people say more parts means more likely to break that only applies when the parts are designed poorly. It's a poor design problem not a more parts problem. For example, switching from single overhead cam to dual over head cam. Spread the wear out between two separate parts allowing for more long term reliability with higher performance. This mindset comes from Americans working on German things because the Germans tend to overcomplicate everything..
Nice breakdown, Mover. Nice using the historical documentary Topgun Maverick as reference. The SU57 does get a lot of hate, but I would be more than happy to try it out. Maybe in Topgun 3, Maverick steals the Felon.
@@glovemaker2 In the United States and that neoliberal monstrosity called EU maybe, but we in the rest of the world aren't rabid. And good on Mover to cite some credible, solid sources like the documentary "Top Gun: Maverick".
From what I've seen, the flat nozzles are angled at 45° viewed from behind . So, with only a single axis of movement, by mixing the 2 nozzles, it's possible to have pitch, yaw and roll control . Less than the former thrust vectoring nozles, but with the advantage of the lower radar signature of the flat nozzles .
On the video I actually saw the nozzles rotating and turning freely in all directions. It obviously was a 3D render but not impossible. I guess, time will tell.
Su-57 square nozzle is pseudo-3D TVC. And this is often confusing people when media, and not only them, show incorrect animations of it. This is similar to Su-30MKI TVC - practically 2D, but each engine is rotated so that when the nozzles point up, they also point outward and when they point down - they also point inward. Plus the nozzle can move individually. As opposed to F-22 which has the nozzles aligned and moving only together.
I believe you are correct, the complexity referred to in the article i think is referring to the structure of the nozzle itself, being 3d printed to have bypass air to cool the exhaust.
But heavier and less efficient, although looking at how many actuators Russian 3D-vectoring nozzles seem to have the overall weight might actually be similar.
@@RichelieuUnlimited Yeah, hard to tell from the info available atm, I'm sure the serrated version intended for the new engine performs a lot better overall, but this design is obviously a much better stealth profile. I'm guessing it will come down to how well the new engine performs has to what they eventually use.
If u mean the Iranian ones then sadly no, Iran is Reportedly planning to retire both their Tomcats and Phantoms once they get a sufficient number of Flankers. Welp, at least the Old Lady can finally rest peacefully.
Всё военное оборудование производится внутри страны а в диапазоне 2005-2014 годов были модификации техники с добавлением западных компонентов , проще говоря модификации на экспорт . Конечно были и мелкие детали электроники но это можно производить и у себя , единственное в чем сложность это трата денег на собственное производство. Хоть денег у нас и бесконечное колличество нужно продумывать такие большие стройки так что бы потом экономика не страдала а это значит что будут гражданские товары . Сейчас уже ведётся дискуссия про микродвигатели электрические , которые будут распространяться и на внутренний рынок из которых можно будет делать любительские дроны , планеры и возможно оживет маля авиация .
Three thing's the Russian's have across all aircraft is : 1.Good looking 2. Air superiority 3. Cost effective They've always focused more on real methods of war which is artillery. Now that they may have to defend against Nato they have become more focused on air combat.
1. MIG21 is the ugliest plane ever made. MIG25 and MIG27 are just boxshaped ugly things. And their more modern planes have an ugly pin at their back. 2. They usually have a piss poor kill ratio. Like MIG21 for example with 3 planes lost for every enemy aircraft shot down. Also MIG29 have a negative kill ratio. 3. Planes are not cost effective if they get shot down before they can deal damage to the enemy. 4. I havn't noticed that russias military being more focused at fighting real wars than other militaries. Looks more like its industry is creating prestige projects for its politicians - like building aircraft carriers and cruisers instead of small coastal ships more suited for russias actual military needs and gaining the maximum amount of bang for the buck. And russian artillery compared to Nato artillery shows us guns with less range, less precision, longer reload time, longer time for it to be made ready for action, more time to prepare to move the artillery piece after it have fired. And artillery consumtion is higher on average for scoring a hit - which cause a logistical burden as many more tons of ammuntion needs to be transported. And gun barrels worns down faster when they need to fire more often before they can score a hit. So my conclusion is that all the worlds 4 best artillery pieces are found in the western world: Panzerhaubitze 2000, Archer, Caesar and K9 Thunder.
Looks are subjective. Never measure of effectiveness. They have no air superiority in their current conflict. And most of that has been achieved through surface-to-air missiles. And costs? You don't see anyone lining up to buy Russian aircraft....
@@nattygsbord 1. Looks are subjective this entire argument is flawed 2. The mig 21 is a second generation jet that was able to during the Vietnam War consistently compete with the F4 phantom 2 a third generation jet that was much more advanced and consistently out competed every other US aircraft from that conflict it also during the 1971 India Pakistan war massively outcompeted the F104 a second generation jet that was the US counterpart to the mig 21 it performed so well in these early wars then it became the most exported fighter jet of all time by far but this led to the mig 21 to be used long past when it should have been retired it is still being in the air forces of some nations to this day this meant that the mig 21 later on had to compete with aircraft generations ahead of them in terms of technology such as in Iran Iraq war Israeli arab wars or the first Gulf War but even then you'd only come to the conclusion of a 3 to 1 loss ratio if you uncritically accepted the kill to loss ratios from Iran, Israel and America during all of these conflicts this is problematic because nations routinely lie about air to kill ratios even Western nations so accepting these numbers without question is very problematic specially for Iran which is a nation that is frequently stated as being untrustworthy today and yet you are willing to accept their numbers just because it makes the F-14 look good As for the mig 29 the only reason its kill ratio is poor is because it got outcompeted by the SU27 in the Eritrean Ethiopian wars another Russian jet and poor performance in the first Gulf War which can be explained by the fact that they were exported downgraded Mig 29 unable to use the most modern missiles. 3. My second point answers this 4. You accuse them Of making prestige projects instead of useful projects and yet one of your two examples is making aircraft carriers something Russia hasn't done since the 1980s cruisers are useful for coastal defence and as for making small ships they are doing that. Your point about artillery is also completely wrong if we compare Russia's most modern artillery 2S43 Malva which has a range of 70 kilometres versus 54 kilometres for the Panzerhaubitze 2000 50 for the Archer 55 for the CAESAR and 60 for the K9 Thunder in terms of reloaded speed the2s43 Malva can fire 7 shells in one minute compared to the Panzerhaubitze 2000 10 the archer 7 the CAESAR 6 and K9 Thunders 7 what we can see is that the 2S43 Malva is pretty compatible to these systems in terms of fire rate not the best not the worst accuracy isn't something that could be properly measured considering all of these systems can fire programmable munitions probably compatible. modern systems like this do not make up the majority of Russia's artillery arsenal which is mostly made-up of older systems but this is largely because of the sheer number of older systems rather than Russia's inability to produce modern ones. the one area of artillery commitment that you did not consider is that Russia has way more artillery The US has 2862 artillery pieces Russia has 14564 artillery pieces how could you say Russia is not committed to artillery when they have over five times the artillery pieces as the US.
@@nattygsbord The MiG-21 is meh, the MiG-27 is not at ALL boxshaped. What pin are you talking about? They don't? Very few aircraft there have a kill ratio to begin with, as the last air to air engagement before the ongoing series of wars was in the '80s.
It could never be a prosperous country when it is seen as an adversary to US interests. Look how the US is trying to slow down Chinese chip development. NATO Admiral Rob Bauer said that Ukraine is of strategic importance. Not that hard to figure out why Russia has the same view.
@@Holztransistor Russias ruling elite just have to scapegoat Johnny foreigner, because how else can they justify stealing all their country's wealth an putting it all in their own pockets? So they hide behind a fake patriotism. How else will they justify making themselves rich while the rest of russian people getting nothing? In what ways would the average russian get a better life under Putin and his corrupt cronies than if they had foreign multinational oil companies plundering all oil and gas from russia? The answer is of course that they havn't got anything better at all by having their corrupt elite taking all their money to build yachts, buy apartments in London and build luxury palaces. And to keep Putin safely in power of his country have an oversized security apparatus been created to waste even more money. Other oil rich countries can prosper - Like Norway. However russia does not perhaps have enough oil to lift 144 million people out of poverty, but if the money was well used then it could go a long way. And the Dutch disease is not inevitable. But the corrupt elite do not wanna see people getting rich from other sources of wealth that could challange their power base, so russia is what it is. Its fossile fuel riches has become more of a curse than a blessing. And the dictatorship breeds corruption, which breeds ineffiecency. And the country is afraid of all forms of change. Putin is basically waging a war against modernism. Putinists think that best thing is to drive the car backwards into the future.
Они все ещё будут на СУ-30см правда вероятно и им могут сделать такие же как и у су57 😅 ещё остался СУ-75😂 Но он вроде экспортный вариант так что там не напрягаются вроде .
I think it's possible that the SU57 is a 5 plus generation plane because of its radar and sensor suite, which there's very little information on other than that, it's extremely large, complicated, and has multiple types of sensors all over the plane. Its hard to tell because we are still waiting to see how fith gen is going to shake out. If a plane is made to counter 5th gen effectively, does that make it 6th gen? I have heard L band radars can track stealth and have very long range foe the power levels and conditions, but lack the prescision for targeting. The russians put auxilary L band radars behind the leading edge. If I understand correctly they are the fisrt to do so onna fighter. Theoretically they could use the L band for situational awareness, and narrow the area the asea radar array focuses on. The l bands may also give initial guidance to get a missile close, then use an infared seeker for terminal guidance. If I understand correctly the russians have some of the longest range infared missiles, or at least did at one time.
You are right. Su57 got all around radar's first fighter in the world and to be short because he is full of new things, about this helmet Su57 got look and shoot by default but new helmet is something like F35 not for look and shoot, that Russia got with Mig29 and Su27 so in 70s, but C.V. is too much biased and that's strange for pilot because they are best of best at least in my country. Be well.
@@aquilesca5tr0 It doesn't? Its radar is FAR ahead of the F-22's in terms of both power and versatility. Why in the everliving hell would an air superiority fighter need a strike fighter's EOTS? It does absolute jack.
@@readyon3506 radar don´t works like that, real life isn´t a video game, the su57 has a radar smaller and with less antennas than the f35. We know for certain that russian electronics are decades behind even civilian tech and we know that their su35 radars are much weaker than advertised as proven in exercises
Just learned this week (from the Not A Pound for Air to Ground channel) that a HMCS was proposed for the F-106, of all things. It would have been based off the tech that was to be used in the still-born AH-56 Cheyenne attack helicopter (and which presumably made it's way into the AH-64).
Since the mid-80s and 90s, most of the Russian developments in the field of electronics were curtailed or destroyed at the request of advisers from the United States (CIA), who at that time did everything to set the country's development back decades so that it would be easier to tear Russia to pieces. And for this reason, such developments as the optical electronic helmet of the pilot had to start almost from scratch in the 2000s. and this was also greatly hampered by problems in related fields and lost competencies and time in microelectronics. In fact, we have to catch up with a 15-year lag, and in these areas it is very difficult .
That sounds like russian excuses. Russia blames every problem they have on the west. There are several problems with this claim. 1. How do you suppose the cia simply requested domestic russian labs and companies destroy their own work on behalf of the americans and why would they listen? 2. When did russia present any advanced electronics? I dont see any evidence of russia initially coming out with an advanced electronics platform and then suddenly going backwards and having to re develop. Their electronics have ALWAYS been inferior. The usa developed solid state electronics in the 1970s in the f111 and the russians were still using tubes. I dont believe this silly claim in the slightest.
The Cosmopolitans, the Capitalists, the Jews, the CIA. Always somebody else. Howbout lookin in the mirror? How many times you need to step on the rakes to get the clue...
Mover, if you watch a channel called Millennium7 he explains how the IR cameras work in the Su57. I'm not sure if it's integrated into the helmet but he said that the SU-57 can see through the plane with IR cameras the same way as the F-35 just not 360 degrees something like 270. I'd be really surprised if that's not integrated into the new helmet.
Do you know if su57 is used as an awacs? At least temporary. I've seen couple of things that suggest that su27/30/35 are provided with intelligence from airborne platform possibly using SU-57, after A-50 incidents early 2024.
The thrust vectoring appears to be angled but moves up or down. While previous engines moved up,down,left,right. Or do the angled move all four directions?
I feel like some kind of 3D thrust vectoring like this is going to be included in NGAD. All the concepts we've seen so far lack vertical stabilizers, and they're going to need some way to control yaw.
They're gonna have ports that divert thrust through the body to move the plane, like the space shuttle reactor thrusters. This will enable better stealth and manuverability in ultrahigh altitudes. A space fighter essentially that can handle LEO satellites and rain hypersonic missiles from high above any other fighter. Top attack worked so well with tanks in Ukraine we figured why not apply that to air combat. Its not "thurst" per se but redirected bleed air.
@@RedTail1-1 That will work if the engines are far apart, but if they're close together like a Hornet differential thrust won't have as much leverage to impact yaw. You also only get half the thrust because you have to reduce the power of one engine. If 2D thrust vectoring will be adopted from the 22 for high AOA pitch control, they might as well go 3D.
Well, historically, US aviation was developed and used against third world countries that have no air defense or it is at the level of the Second World War or close, and now everyone has portable MANPADS and air defense systems from Russia or China, and here invincible fighters turned out to be very easy to destroy, so in Ukraine, at first, an F-16 was shot down by "friendly fire" one fighter and then another "accidentally crashed" then another, you can trace the trend when invincible NATO weapons such as Leopards or Abrams cannot drive on dirt roads, and 90% of the time they are in for repairs, because this is a very "reliable" tank, but in reality they are no better than Russian tanks, only more expensive and more complex, their advertised advantages turned out to be simply useless, since they can't even get to the battlefield, and if they did, well, FPV drones don't care if the Abrams, Leopards or T-72 tanks. This is exactly why they don't want to use the F-22 in Ukraine, because they will be shot down, and this one will seriously damage the reputation of the invincible "stealth" fighter, maybe it is invincible against an African country now, but it will be shot down against Russia without any problems.
From promo video i've seen idk if their 3 axis is real tbh i think 2 axis is possible but the third one that move sideway is a bit questionable but i could wait untill their show it during airshow.
1. There is a pic of a F-22 pilpt wearing the Scorpion helmet. Any news in this regard? 2. According to the first USN F-35C SQN commander, the F-35 is good detectable from behind with IR.
They talk about next gen in terms of the engines and it being capable of operating unmanned drones directly from the plane itself. That's what they mean by the 6th gen capabilities.
This flat nozzle design by the Russian is actual simpler by far, that the one with round nozzles. The reason is that each element in the round nozzle has its own hydro-mechanical actuator, where as in in the flat nozzle you have actuators above and below the nozzles, and another pair outside the horizontal planes. The mechanism is easier, more durable and much lighter
It isn't at ALL simpler. In comparison to the AL-41 it can be argued that it is, but the AL-51's thrust vectoring design is more streamlined than even the PW F100-232's linkages.
The Russians are prudently continuing to develop fighter aircraft as any nation concerned with protecting it's interests should. Objectively, given continued advancement efforts, if the Su-57 has not yet surpassed the capability of the F22, that day's arrival is as certain as the sunrise.
Let's be honest Su57 is really not much more than an EVOLVED Su35. (not that that's a bad thing). A bit akin to something like Silent Eagle. A Flanker made to Stealth characteristics(and so squished essentially 😂)
Obama? The initial plan was to produce 750 of them. Dick Cheney, in 1990, reduced the number to 648. In 1993 it was reduced to 442, because of the end of the Cold War, and then the USAF said it only needed 381. The number dropped to 339 in 1997 and then to 277 in 2003. When the US decided its enemy, for the foreseeable future, would be insurgents without an air force, Rumsfeld cut the number to 183 in 2004. By the time Obama became president, the F-22 was already at its lowest production order. If anything, he was the only one who didn't reduce it any further. He could have pushed for an increase but didn't, but it sounds counterfactual to me to blame him when every previous administration, from 1990 to 2008, did the F-22 worse.
@aquilesca5tr0 You can never really know for sure, because if the Su-57 operates as intended, then whoever faces it won’t $urvive to tell the tale. One thing is certain that it’s being used quite frequently
1 SU-57 confirmed lost in this war. So yes, I can confirm that it got more combat experience than F-22. Perhaps not the type of experience russia wanted.
@@nattygsbord No Su-57s have been confirmed as lost? The only SOMEWHAT debatable "loss" was a damaged T-50 at a test facility that was hit by a cruise munition.
@@jordancourse5102 from what I understand, it was only for pointing the radar, and thus aiming the radar missiles, I'm not sure if the sidewinders could also be aimed with radar slaving
Naw, what they did was add a gear shifter to the pilots pedal/propulsion system. This allows the pilot to adjust their pedaling intensity to the situation. They added larger pedals to prevent the notorious issue of pilots feet slipping off at high pedaling speeds and they removed the horn.
Mig-31k, Mig-31BM are the best interceptor fighter jets on the planet. They exceed 3000km/h. The modernization of these jets is to make an almost new jet.
Had top speed been most important, then I doubt that the US Navy would have replaced the F-4 Phantom with slower planes, as it is still the fastest plane to have flown in the US Navy til this day. And likewise do I doubt that Sweden would have let Gripen replace the much faster Viggen which was so fast that it was capable of hunting down a SR-71 Blackbird and gain a missile lock on it. Flying super fast is just dumb, and cause stress on the airframe and it also dramatically increase the fuel consumtion and thereby decrease range and flying time. And nearly all air combats happens in speeds near Mach 1, and air combats at Mach 2 are as rare as unicorns. So flying 3000km/h is a worthless skill. It just shows that the designers of the aircraft have prioritized the wrong things, and therefore are incompetent. A fast flying plane is just about bragging rights, and not about effiency on a battlefield.
@@nattygsbordyeah that's why US builds entire fleet of fast F-15EXs to support slow F-35s, as well as wanting NGAD to be hypersonic, yeah, speed totally doesn't matter
@@Янус_Ырт Speed is only important up to a point, say Mach 2. Beyond that it doesn't matter that much. And the reason why USA keeps the F15EX probably has to do more with its ability to have more hardpoints than just the 4 sitting on F35. Plus that F-15EX will be able to carry much larger long range missiles that are too big to fit inside the weapons box of F22 and F35. So it is mostly just a missile truck, using F15s powerful performance and big cargo carrying capacity. Mach2 dogfight capabilities are not a priority. Only people who knows nothing about aircrafts and air combat believes such things are important. Planes do not normally fly at those speeds. To reach those speeds you normally need to use an afterburner which dramatically increase the fuel consumption. And normally will the plane run out of fuel after between 3 and 15 minutes. And training an aircraft in peace time to fly at those speeds would probably not be welcome, as it puts the aircraft under enormous stress and pressure - which shorten the life of an extremely expensive aircraft.
As someone who mocked Russians on podcast for air defence friendly fire incidents (like it never happens in US) What's your thoughts about F18 getting shot down and another jet narrowly scape getting shot down by friendly fire in less than a week ??? 🤡
The US attacks more than they defend. That makes multirole and attackers are lot more valuable than fighters. They could pump out more Raptors but all they'd do mostly is intercept civilian aircraft lol
@@WALTERBROADDUS but our fighters aren't the undisputed ass kickers that they once were. In air combat, you WANT the unfair advantage! We no longer have that. Yes, the F-22 is good, but thanks to Commie Obama, we don't have enough of them. The F-35 is good in BVR, but in WVR, it's perhaps F-16 level; it's not at Su-27 level, let alone Su-57 level.
B-21 can do most of what NGAD would have, and the Navy F/A-XX is still in development. If that's falling behind, I'd sure like to fall behind a bit more
@@BreandanAnraoi I suppose the USAF could use the Navy's F/A-XX; it wouldn't be the first time the USAF used USN aircraft. Remember the F-4 Phantom II? That started life as a Navy fighter. I'd like to see us return to the days of the Century Series fighters, the F-8 Crusader, etc., where we designed and built new, cutting edge fighters every couple of years.
Modernize the A-10 (angry Hog) maybe with mild burners 😬-Skid can be chief of program. Modernize the F-14 (Tomcat six-9). Mover chief pilot and Gonky buckled in the backseat. TG-Mav was zero CGI (therefore factual) and proved the 54 year old Tomcat can whoop the 57. 🫡
It is more about the plane movements that the nozzle can control: - F-22 is considered having "2D" because its nozzle can control pitch (moving up or down together) and roll (moving each one separately in opposed directions - one up and the other down - so creating a movement on the roll axis) - a plane with "3D nozzle", aside the above, can also move "left-right", so acting also in the "yaw" axis of the plane. The common used russian planes with such (Su-35 and actual SU-57) have "round nozzles" that can vector themselves in all directions, so they have a "pure" 3D nozzle capabilities... the "new SU-57" discussed here has similar nozzles to those of the F-22 (rectangular, and capable to move only up or down) but as it was shown, they are mounted at an agle, rather than horizontally alike in the F-22: they will loose some degree of freedom rather than a "pure round 3D nozzle", but still capable to influence all the 3 movement axis (pitch, roll and yaw), even if in a slightly diminished capability... The diminished return in manouverability could be considered a good trade-off, when "flat nozzles" have better performance in anti-radar performance (a round surface will have ALWAYS a face that could rebound radar waves to its receptor... that is why modern "stealth planes" try to avoid much as possible a perfect round shape - they are all flat-angular surfaces - F-22/F-35 alike, or the old F-117 - or very squashed - alike the B-2 and future deployed B-21)
@@CapitanoAraym Actual Su-57? Even the T-50 had it, as it and the Su-35S have the same engine. Current Su-57Ms still build on this design. They are pure 3D nozzles? They have 20dg of movement in their primary axis with 16dg of supplemental movement left/right. The F-35 features a round nozzle, unlike the F-22.
As the su35 is already quite excellent, if the russians can keep enough mystery around the felon then western countries will always be cautious around russias ability. It has to be better than thier navy and army anyway
Why do people talk about the Su-57 like it's a real production aircraft? Haven't we learned to stop giving the Russians the benefit of doubt on their claims yet?
Because it's a real production aircraft since 2020 and has over 80 confirmed combat sorties with Kh-59 Mk2 launched at ground targets in Ukraine. F-22 on the other hand - one Chinese balloon.
@@dimbasz By that logic the Armata is a production tank, you clown. "Production" since 2020? LOL. It flew first in 2010, and there are less than 35 of them. That's a limited edition, not a production model. And how dare you bring up the F-22. You know it's a bitch move because you _should_ be talking about the F-35, but even so, there are 6x as many F-22s as Su-57, and we STOPPED production of those in Dec of '11. this is the level of dumbassery that's left of the Russian military defenders and it's pathetic. If the Su57 were 50% of what they claim, it'd be flying successful SEAD over Ukraine and the war would be over. Instead, Ivan is left to chuck long range missiles from Russia out of fear of Patriot and a few half trained F-16 pilots.
You know, since we need modern, capable, and affordable fighters (something we can't do anymore), why not license build the Korean KF-21 Bromae? It's the F-22's Mini Me. We could afford 1,000 of them!
@@WALTERBROADDUS as I've said elsewhere, the best fighter in the world means nothing if you don't have enough of them. Look at Germany's Me262 at the end of WWII; it was the F-22 of its day, yet it made no difference. Why? Germany never had more than 70 in service; that was a drop in the bucket compared to the thousands of inferior prop driven fighters of the Allies. It's better to have a large number of good fighters vs. having a few elite fighters.
The current single test example of an LO thrust vectoring exhaust nozzle on an Su-57 is 2D only and is angled off of 90degrees to try and get more angle performance.
@@ГеоргийМурзич The Su57 doesn't have this design as evidenced by the fact that its only just now testing one... The Su-35 also does not have 2D nozzles of any kind.
@@chrismaggio7879 Elon thinks the F-35 is a waste of resources because it has a pilot in it; he's not going to do anything to help update anything that has a pilot in it and also isn't as good.
Looks like they made the exhaust nozzle more stealthy. Yes, they are finally getting around to streamlining the RCS ... somewhat. The Russian design concept is to have low hour "things" like engines that break and you just replace them completely vs having a complex repair chain. Also, notice how Russian airfields are only now getting more aircraft hangars, for decades everything just sat in the open, winter or summer. HMS, yep, the first in the 80s. Cool. How much did we train against the HMS and ARCHER? :) Its a step up but not quite playing ball with F-22.
The SU-57 is for sale, so these upgrades are probably at least to some degree for marketing. And even if you can't compete with the US and China, what can they do? Shut down their flight industry completly? Freeze it? They have engineers on their payroll and why shouldn't they implant new stuff? Like I said, the alternative would be to completly axe their aircraft-industry. But that wouldn't look good for the population, would it?
China made it with stolen technology from Russia and US made f35 with 15 other countries and it still took 20 years to make it, Russia made su57 alone. They are competing pretty good.
@@noir1923 Su-57 issues aren't the design itself, its the production and procurement. F35 took a long time yes, but there are over 1,000 in service right now, whereas Su-57 barely has a squadron.
"The Documentary Top Gun Maverick"
I almost spat my coffee out in laughter there
Same here
You'll enjoy "Mover ruins movies" on Iron Eagle then :)
@@steveman1982 Looks like I have not seen that. Thanks for the recommendation.
-From another Steve
It's a recurring joke on this channel.
Classic Mover :)
People do not understand that Russia was the first country to introduce flat nozzles in the VTOL Yak-38/41 program of the 1970s, they are mentioned only for the purpose of testing the thrust vector, I quote Yakovlev: "a flat biaxial nozzle was developed in the second half of the 1970s for the vertical take-off and landing fighter Yak-41 (VTOL). An original solution was used to rotate it - the nozzle was divided into three segments, which, rotating in opposite directions relative to each other, provided a deviation of the thrust vector in the vertical plane by an angle of 95 ° (in vertical takeoff and landing mode). For short takeoffs, the nozzle was installed at an angle of 62°. This solution made it possible to use the afterburner both in horizontal flight and in vertical mode.
The stealth technology was created by Russia, not the US. It is Russian technology! The helmet was also created by the Russians, they used such a helmet on the MiG-29. The vertical takeoff and landing technology used on the F-35 was also created by the Russians, Lockheed Martin contracted the Yakovlev Design Bureau to improve the Yak-141 design.
The Yak-38/41 didn't have flat nozzles? The Yak-41 had a pivot beyond the augmentor but before the nozzle that allowed it to perform VTOL operations. The Yak-38 simply had vented outlets, not a nozzle.
I agree..
@@globalpower6967stealth is not a Russian technology. A Russian mathematician came up with the mathematical equation that would estimate radar cross section. The Soviet government saw no use for this equation and allowed him to openly publish his formula.
Lockheed Martin’s skunkworks read this equation and recognized its utility in simplifying its efforts in creating a stealth aircraft as before this equation they had to physically make a mock up and test it against a radar via trial and error.
Radar Stealth is an American technology.
Also Lockheed already had a 3 swiveling nozzle designed before the yak 38 they simply bought flight data from yak in order to cross reference their designs with real world flight data as the American equivalent was deemed to expensive and never got past the design stage
Russian military upgrades were behind because they had entire decades where there was no money investment in R&D due to the economic turmoil of the 1990s and early 2000s , they are playing catchup
Still have catching up to do with AESA and avionics
Keep telling yourself that, if ww3 breaks without nukes, I would enjoy watching our front lines gets decimated over overconfidence bs, as if Germany in ww2 not only caught up in less than 5 years, but significantly had breakthroughs after breakthroughs. Half of Soviet Union used barter system after ww2, and yet we lost every step of the way in race to space until they stopped because flat out broke, we had to bring German scientists that worked with V2 to help. They were the first to make VTOL just to make their overweight mig able to take off, scrapped it when the vtol itself used too much fuel and added more weight. And they had hypersonic missiles before we do. And to make it worse, current proxy war, other than stock abrams, we have seen 59 Tomahawks rendered useless, ATACMS was granted to shoot inside Russia, ZERO made any impact, hits target but fails to destroy them, Bradleys also useless, Strykers, HIMARS, Stingers and Javelins, etc etc.. and we still have overconfident people thinking they will stay behind us after our greatest bs, F35. New Abrams came out, even more useless, more techs but the fact that rendered the stock abrams feature useless, still there and only manned by 3 crews which a buddy of mine said hell nawh, 4 crew already hard enough, 3 crew with that much delicate tech, that's just waiting for disaster. Never ever underestimate anyone, we lost 30% of our unit on DDay, let me remind you, Germany main army was gone in 1943 may after losing stalingrad, 30% casualties, highest and worst record than France had, and we didn't land alone on DDay, UK and Canada also joined.
@@phunkracy s-400 radars are aesa...
@@keslerjenkins9683 is S-400 a fighter jet? Su-57 by all reports is not great and Su-35 still use PESA
@@phunkracy Russia has already announced a large-scale modernization of the Su-35, 30, 34 aircraft. They have started to modernize them to the 5th generation, it has been stated that all 5th generation systems from the Su-57 will be used. The engine was presented in China and this engine was not developed for the Su-57, but for the modernization of 4++ aircraft. Radars will also be replaced. Russia has announced the modernization of its 4++ generation aircraft
the guy on Millenium 7 - also pointed out that the flat nozzles aren't flat but have a slight v-shape and are hollow to allow cool air to flow through them .....
seems they had to master 3D printing of the parts to put this design into production ....
not a "straight" copy of the F-22 after all .... but an evolution
Yep
You don't need 3D printing for that.
@@ctmme, true, but supposedly that is part of their goal making these.
They aim to make 90% of the nozzle assembly 3D -printable. That's something to aim for, I suppose, both figuratively AND literally.
@@ctmme you actually do, with all the intricate internal profile of the exhaust peatal for cool air flow it is only viable to use 3D printing for its production
The Russians do not copy anyone. They simply try to make everything better. In the annuls of history, they have been copied far often than they have copied
"In the documentary, 'Top Gun: Maverick'." Classic!!!
The Nose, Wingtips and Tail radar can all acts as a Diamond Array for Passive Radio Direction Finding.
That means if the SU57 wants to penetrate an IADs system it can guide itself away from emission sources.
I get a little annoyed sometimes when people say more parts means more likely to break that only applies when the parts are designed poorly. It's a poor design problem not a more parts problem.
For example, switching from single overhead cam to dual over head cam. Spread the wear out between two separate parts allowing for more long term reliability with higher performance.
This mindset comes from Americans working on German things because the Germans tend to overcomplicate everything..
The Su-57 nozzles are air-cooled. Raptor doesn't have anything like that. The Raptor will have more infrared radiation than the Su-57.
What are you rambling about?
@@WALTERBROADDUS Is it not clear to you?
@@TheArcticFoxxo Nope. The exhaust is not being cooled.
@@WALTERBROADDUSSu57's nozzles ARE air cooled lol, look at the nozzles closely, it has vents right underneath the external panel
@super-maneuverability592 you expect your are going to chill your beer on it?🍺 Your not fooling a heat-seeking missile very much.
Most beautiful bird 🐦 in the sky by far 😢
Millennium 7 * History Tech
did an interesting video on the SU-57M
that dude is a joke with his super duper game-changing ultrasonic stealth intergalactic ballistic peanut missiles
@@issadraco532 , Nope, Millenium*7 is the most professional channel on YT about aviation and less biased.
@@issadraco532why so salty lol. You really think that missile can by intercepted? 😂
@@maksimluzin1121 Russian propagandist Millenium*7 are is the most professional channel on YT just like the su-57 is the best plane in the world 🤣
@@amunra5330 Already intercepted multiple times in Ukraine
Nice breakdown, Mover. Nice using the historical documentary Topgun Maverick as reference. The SU57 does get a lot of hate, but I would be more than happy to try it out.
Maybe in Topgun 3, Maverick steals the Felon.
With the help of Major Gant obviously...
@Trig0r now that would be cool
Su57 does get a lot of hate😂😂😂
Everything Russian does get a lot of hate
Bias is extremely wild sadly@@glovemaker2
@@glovemaker2 In the United States and that neoliberal monstrosity called EU maybe, but we in the rest of the world aren't rabid. And good on Mover to cite some credible, solid sources like the documentary "Top Gun: Maverick".
Transformers: Dark of the Moon is my favorite documentary.
According to that documentary, there is no F-22 better than the Starscream variant. Nobody got anything on that.
@FirestormX9 we found alien robots on the moon, and the government is lying to us. Also, the F-22 is capable of space flight.
@@FirestormX9 agree
Nothing beats Hot Shots, especially for realism.
From what I've seen, the flat nozzles are angled at 45° viewed from behind . So, with only a single axis of movement, by mixing the 2 nozzles, it's possible to have pitch, yaw and roll control . Less than the former thrust vectoring nozles, but with the advantage of the lower radar signature of the flat nozzles .
On the video I actually saw the nozzles rotating and turning freely in all directions. It obviously was a 3D render but not impossible. I guess, time will tell.
@@pajownik No need time. There are already real photo and video of the plane with that nozzle.
@@kondor-n1d But I didn't see it rotating and turning freely in all directions.
@@pajownik Because it didn't turning freely in all directions. It works the same way as all previous nozzles Su 30, 35C, 57.
Su-57 square nozzle is pseudo-3D TVC. And this is often confusing people when media, and not only them, show incorrect animations of it. This is similar to Su-30MKI TVC - practically 2D, but each engine is rotated so that when the nozzles point up, they also point outward and when they point down - they also point inward. Plus the nozzle can move individually. As opposed to F-22 which has the nozzles aligned and moving only together.
Flat nozzle should be less complex. Fewer actuators and stuff.
I believe you are correct, the complexity referred to in the article i think is referring to the structure of the nozzle itself, being 3d printed to have bypass air to cool the exhaust.
But heavier and less efficient, although looking at how many actuators Russian 3D-vectoring nozzles seem to have the overall weight might actually be similar.
@@RichelieuUnlimited Yeah, hard to tell from the info available atm, I'm sure the serrated version intended for the new engine performs a lot better overall, but this design is obviously a much better stealth profile. I'm guessing it will come down to how well the new engine performs has to what they eventually use.
Does this mean we'll "modernize" the TOMCATS?!
Yeah it’s called the F35
@@CNSTAdventures F-35 has nothing on the tomcat. It's like 30% slower with less range.
If u mean the Iranian ones then sadly no, Iran is Reportedly planning to retire both their Tomcats and Phantoms once they get a sufficient number of Flankers. Welp, at least the Old Lady can finally rest peacefully.
@@pandasonic1294 They should sell to private American contractors/Grumman.
@mikeyplayzwrld lol, good luck.
The helmet is now domestically produced (as are all military components) which is what took so long. Go Go Sanctions!
Всё военное оборудование производится внутри страны а в диапазоне 2005-2014 годов были модификации техники с добавлением западных компонентов , проще говоря модификации на экспорт . Конечно были и мелкие детали электроники но это можно производить и у себя , единственное в чем сложность это трата денег на собственное производство. Хоть денег у нас и бесконечное колличество нужно продумывать такие большие стройки так что бы потом экономика не страдала а это значит что будут гражданские товары . Сейчас уже ведётся дискуссия про микродвигатели электрические , которые будут распространяться и на внутренний рынок из которых можно будет делать любительские дроны , планеры и возможно оживет маля авиация .
Love your videos, Mover. Thanks for doing what you do
Three thing's the Russian's have across all aircraft is :
1.Good looking 2. Air superiority 3. Cost effective
They've always focused more on real methods of war which is artillery. Now that they may have to defend against Nato they have become more focused on air combat.
1. MIG21 is the ugliest plane ever made. MIG25 and MIG27 are just boxshaped ugly things. And their more modern planes have an ugly pin at their back.
2. They usually have a piss poor kill ratio. Like MIG21 for example with 3 planes lost for every enemy aircraft shot down. Also MIG29 have a negative kill ratio.
3. Planes are not cost effective if they get shot down before they can deal damage to the enemy.
4. I havn't noticed that russias military being more focused at fighting real wars than other militaries. Looks more like its industry is creating prestige projects for its politicians - like building aircraft carriers and cruisers instead of small coastal ships more suited for russias actual military needs and gaining the maximum amount of bang for the buck.
And russian artillery compared to Nato artillery shows us guns with less range, less precision, longer reload time, longer time for it to be made ready for action, more time to prepare to move the artillery piece after it have fired. And artillery consumtion is higher on average for scoring a hit - which cause a logistical burden as many more tons of ammuntion needs to be transported. And gun barrels worns down faster when they need to fire more often before they can score a hit.
So my conclusion is that all the worlds 4 best artillery pieces are found in the western world: Panzerhaubitze 2000, Archer, Caesar and K9 Thunder.
Looks are subjective. Never measure of effectiveness. They have no air superiority in their current conflict. And most of that has been achieved through surface-to-air missiles. And costs? You don't see anyone lining up to buy Russian aircraft....
@@nattygsbord 1. Looks are subjective this entire argument is flawed
2. The mig 21 is a second generation jet that was able to during the Vietnam War consistently compete with the F4 phantom 2 a third generation jet that was much more advanced and consistently out competed every other US aircraft from that conflict it also during the 1971 India Pakistan war massively outcompeted the F104 a second generation jet that was the US counterpart to the mig 21 it performed so well in these early wars then it became the most exported fighter jet of all time by far but this led to the mig 21 to be used long past when it should have been retired it is still being in the air forces of some nations to this day this meant that the mig 21 later on had to compete with aircraft generations ahead of them in terms of technology such as in Iran Iraq war Israeli arab wars or the first Gulf War but even then you'd only come to the conclusion of a 3 to 1 loss ratio if you uncritically accepted the kill to loss ratios from Iran, Israel and America during all of these conflicts this is problematic because nations routinely lie about air to kill ratios even Western nations so accepting these numbers without question is very problematic specially for Iran which is a nation that is frequently stated as being untrustworthy today and yet you are willing to accept their numbers just because it makes the F-14 look good As for the mig 29 the only reason its kill ratio is poor is because it got outcompeted by the SU27 in the Eritrean Ethiopian wars another Russian jet and poor performance in the first Gulf War which can be explained by the fact that they were exported downgraded Mig 29 unable to use the most modern missiles.
3. My second point answers this
4. You accuse them Of making prestige projects instead of useful projects and yet one of your two examples is making aircraft carriers something Russia hasn't done since the 1980s cruisers are useful for coastal defence and as for making small ships they are doing that.
Your point about artillery is also completely wrong if we compare Russia's most modern artillery 2S43 Malva which has a range of 70 kilometres versus 54 kilometres for the Panzerhaubitze 2000 50 for the Archer 55 for the CAESAR and 60 for the K9 Thunder in terms of reloaded speed the2s43 Malva can fire 7 shells in one minute compared to the Panzerhaubitze 2000 10 the archer 7 the CAESAR 6 and K9 Thunders 7 what we can see is that the 2S43 Malva is pretty compatible to these systems in terms of fire rate not the best not the worst accuracy isn't something that could be properly measured considering all of these systems can fire programmable munitions probably compatible. modern systems like this do not make up the majority of Russia's artillery arsenal which is mostly made-up of older systems but this is largely because of the sheer number of older systems rather than Russia's inability to produce modern ones. the one area of artillery commitment that you did not consider is that Russia has way more artillery The US has 2862 artillery pieces Russia has 14564 artillery pieces how could you say Russia is not committed to artillery when they have over five times the artillery pieces as the US.
@@nattygsbord The MiG-21 is meh, the MiG-27 is not at ALL boxshaped. What pin are you talking about?
They don't? Very few aircraft there have a kill ratio to begin with, as the last air to air engagement before the ongoing series of wars was in the '80s.
@@WALTERBROADDUS No air superiority? I take it that a lack of Ukrainian aircraft operating within 50km of the frontline isn't air superiority, right?
Probably translation of news on helmet upgrade is not correct - it was developed to be very close in features to F-35 helmet.
Another non-biased RU/US analyse🙂 - keep them coming
The upcoming Mig-41 ( Mig-31 successor) will be a 6th generation’s fighter, So we might call this one a Gen 5+
You have to realize Russia is doing all these amidst sanction, imagine what they would have if not for those.
Maybe it could have been a normal prosperous country with toilets, so it didn't have to steal toilets from neighbouring countries?
It could never be a prosperous country when it is seen as an adversary to US interests. Look how the US is trying to slow down Chinese chip development. NATO Admiral Rob Bauer said that Ukraine is of strategic importance. Not that hard to figure out why Russia has the same view.
Russia still use western electrinics, what are talking about?
@@vp6087 What exactly didn't you understand?
@@Holztransistor
Russias ruling elite just have to scapegoat Johnny foreigner, because how else can they justify stealing all their country's wealth an putting it all in their own pockets? So they hide behind a fake patriotism. How else will they justify making themselves rich while the rest of russian people getting nothing? In what ways would the average russian get a better life under Putin and his corrupt cronies than if they had foreign multinational oil companies plundering all oil and gas from russia?
The answer is of course that they havn't got anything better at all by having their corrupt elite taking all their money to build yachts, buy apartments in London and build luxury palaces.
And to keep Putin safely in power of his country have an oversized security apparatus been created to waste even more money.
Other oil rich countries can prosper - Like Norway. However russia does not perhaps have enough oil to lift 144 million people out of poverty, but if the money was well used then it could go a long way. And the Dutch disease is not inevitable. But the corrupt elite do not wanna see people getting rich from other sources of wealth that could challange their power base, so russia is what it is.
Its fossile fuel riches has become more of a curse than a blessing.
And the dictatorship breeds corruption, which breeds ineffiecency. And the country is afraid of all forms of change. Putin is basically waging a war against modernism. Putinists think that best thing is to drive the car backwards into the future.
Not gonna lie i think i miss the round nozzels because it was soo iconic in the flanker family
Они все ещё будут на СУ-30см правда вероятно и им могут сделать такие же как и у су57 😅 ещё остался СУ-75😂 Но он вроде экспортный вариант так что там не напрягаются вроде .
I think it's possible that the SU57 is a 5 plus generation plane because of its radar and sensor suite, which there's very little information on other than that, it's extremely large, complicated, and has multiple types of sensors all over the plane.
Its hard to tell because we are still waiting to see how fith gen is going to shake out.
If a plane is made to counter 5th gen effectively, does that make it 6th gen?
I have heard L band radars can track stealth and have very long range foe the power levels and conditions, but lack the prescision for targeting.
The russians put auxilary L band radars behind the leading edge. If I understand correctly they are the fisrt to do so onna fighter. Theoretically they could use the L band for situational awareness, and narrow the area the asea radar array focuses on.
The l bands may also give initial guidance to get a missile close, then use an infared seeker for terminal guidance. If I understand correctly the russians have some of the longest range infared missiles, or at least did at one time.
You are right. Su57 got all around radar's first fighter in the world and to be short because he is full of new things, about this helmet Su57 got look and shoot by default but new helmet is something like F35 not for look and shoot, that Russia got with Mig29 and Su27 so in 70s, but C.V. is too much biased and that's strange for pilot because they are best of best at least in my country. Be well.
Radar and sensor suite? it has a less advanced radar than the f22 and doesn´t have the eots of the f35
@@aquilesca5tr0 It doesn't? Its radar is FAR ahead of the F-22's in terms of both power and versatility.
Why in the everliving hell would an air superiority fighter need a strike fighter's EOTS? It does absolute jack.
@@aquilesca5tr0SU-57 Radar’s has 400 km range, F22 is only 200 km
@@readyon3506 radar don´t works like that, real life isn´t a video game, the su57 has a radar smaller and with less antennas than the f35. We know for certain that russian electronics are decades behind even civilian tech and we know that their su35 radars are much weaker than advertised as proven in exercises
Thanks for the pretty unbiased just the facts breakdown
Just learned this week (from the Not A Pound for Air to Ground channel) that a HMCS was proposed for the F-106, of all things. It would have been based off the tech that was to be used in the still-born AH-56 Cheyenne attack helicopter (and which presumably made it's way into the AH-64).
Since the mid-80s and 90s, most of the Russian developments in the field of electronics were curtailed or destroyed at the request of advisers from the United States (CIA), who at that time did everything to set the country's development back decades so that it would be easier to tear Russia to pieces. And for this reason, such developments as the optical electronic helmet of the pilot had to start almost from scratch in the 2000s. and this was also greatly hampered by problems in related fields and lost competencies and time in microelectronics. In fact, we have to catch up with a 15-year lag, and in these areas it is very difficult .
That sounds like russian excuses. Russia blames every problem they have on the west. There are several problems with this claim.
1. How do you suppose the cia simply requested domestic russian labs and companies destroy their own work on behalf of the americans and why would they listen?
2. When did russia present any advanced electronics? I dont see any evidence of russia initially coming out with an advanced electronics platform and then suddenly going backwards and having to re develop. Their electronics have ALWAYS been inferior. The usa developed solid state electronics in the 1970s in the f111 and the russians were still using tubes.
I dont believe this silly claim in the slightest.
The Cosmopolitans, the Capitalists, the Jews, the CIA. Always somebody else. Howbout lookin in the mirror? How many times you need to step on the rakes to get the clue...
Merry Christmas Mover.🎁🎄
Mover, if you watch a channel called Millennium7 he explains how the IR cameras work in the Su57. I'm not sure if it's integrated into the helmet but he said that the SU-57 can see through the plane with IR cameras the same way as the F-35 just not 360 degrees something like 270. I'd be really surprised if that's not integrated into the new helmet.
Do you know if su57 is used as an awacs? At least temporary. I've seen couple of things that suggest that su27/30/35 are provided with intelligence from airborne platform possibly using SU-57, after A-50 incidents early 2024.
The thrust vectoring appears to be angled but moves up or down. While previous engines moved up,down,left,right. Or do the angled move all four directions?
Any video on the Weekend friendly Fire Mess?
Covered it on the podcast.
@@CWLemoine But does SU-57 break П-42 climbing records?
Forget stealth fighters.
It’s time for endo-Exo atmospheric fighters.
Star Wars
We need interplanetary travel first.
Their traditional, 3-D nozzles are way more complicated than this one
They aren't
It's getting a modular cup holder/ash tray apparently 😁
I think they finally got an export order as well, it got announced at the China air show. Didn't say who though.
T-50 means that the prototype for Su-57 is a tank built in 1950.
Oh boy, wait until you hear about the T-50 tank from... You guessed it! 1941!
@@TheArcticFoxxoAlso the prototype for the Su-27, the T-10, is a tank from 1953 and not from 2010 as one would believe
@@FRGBlackBurn The Su-57 isn't even a plane either, it's the domestic designation for the T-48 motor gun carriage (that's right, made in 1943!).
Still have more fly hours
I feel like some kind of 3D thrust vectoring like this is going to be included in NGAD. All the concepts we've seen so far lack vertical stabilizers, and they're going to need some way to control yaw.
Differential thrust
@@RedTail1-1not efficient or precise.
They're gonna have ports that divert thrust through the body to move the plane, like the space shuttle reactor thrusters. This will enable better stealth and manuverability in ultrahigh altitudes. A space fighter essentially that can handle LEO satellites and rain hypersonic missiles from high above any other fighter. Top attack worked so well with tanks in Ukraine we figured why not apply that to air combat.
Its not "thurst" per se but redirected bleed air.
@@RedTail1-1 That will work if the engines are far apart, but if they're close together like a Hornet differential thrust won't have as much leverage to impact yaw. You also only get half the thrust because you have to reduce the power of one engine. If 2D thrust vectoring will be adopted from the 22 for high AOA pitch control, they might as well go 3D.
The can use drag rudders, like the B-2 and B-21.
Nice review Mr Lemoine 👍
Make a review about an F18 that being shot down in red sea by "Friendly Fire"
Well, historically, US aviation was developed and used against third world countries that have no air defense or it is at the level of the Second World War or close, and now everyone has portable MANPADS and air defense systems from Russia or China, and here invincible fighters turned out to be very easy to destroy, so in Ukraine, at first, an F-16 was shot down by "friendly fire" one fighter and then another "accidentally crashed" then another, you can trace the trend when invincible NATO weapons such as Leopards or Abrams cannot drive on dirt roads, and 90% of the time they are in for repairs, because this is a very "reliable" tank, but in reality they are no better than Russian tanks, only more expensive and more complex, their advertised advantages turned out to be simply useless, since they can't even get to the battlefield, and if they did, well, FPV drones don't care if the Abrams, Leopards or T-72 tanks. This is exactly why they don't want to use the F-22 in Ukraine, because they will be shot down, and this one will seriously damage the reputation of the invincible "stealth" fighter, maybe it is invincible against an African country now, but it will be shot down against Russia without any problems.
The first hurdle is will any of these upgrade be delivered?
Russia has a long history of upgrade packages not failing to be rolled out.
Su-57Ms have been delivered since late 2023.
Can you substantiate that history?
From promo video i've seen idk if their 3 axis is real tbh i think 2 axis is possible but the third one that move sideway is a bit questionable but i could wait untill their show it during airshow.
Cy 57 #51F1 They have nailed it...
1. There is a pic of a F-22 pilpt wearing the Scorpion helmet. Any news in this regard?
2. According to the first USN F-35C SQN commander, the F-35 is good detectable from behind with IR.
👽👽👽👽pls bring bigmac in $1 menu👽👽👽👽
They talk about next gen in terms of the engines and it being capable of operating unmanned drones directly from the plane itself. That's what they mean by the 6th gen capabilities.
Modernizing a plane that just came out. And they don’t even have enough for a “squadron”
This flat nozzle design by the Russian is actual simpler by far, that the one with round nozzles. The reason is that each element in the round nozzle has its own hydro-mechanical actuator, where as in in the flat nozzle you have actuators above and below the nozzles, and another pair outside the horizontal planes. The mechanism is easier, more durable and much lighter
It isn't at ALL simpler. In comparison to the AL-41 it can be argued that it is, but the AL-51's thrust vectoring design is more streamlined than even the PW F100-232's linkages.
@@TheArcticFoxxo The Al-41, Al-51 and P/W F119 and the P/W F135 are of Russian derivation...
@@MaboloLibwese I never said otherwise?
@@TheArcticFoxxo I was trying to bait you to say I was wrong
@@MaboloLibwese Well, you are. The issue I had with it wasn't the accuracy, but the relevance.
It's another test design. On an actual flying jet. That makes sense. I'm only surprised that they released photos.
I would argue that it’s just enhancing to Gen 5 on par with the YF-23 and F-22 it’s definitely a better aircraft than the F-35
The Russians are prudently continuing to develop fighter aircraft as any nation concerned with protecting it's interests should. Objectively, given continued advancement efforts, if the Su-57 has not yet surpassed the capability of the F22, that day's arrival is as certain as the sunrise.
Let's be honest
Su57 is really not much more than an EVOLVED Su35. (not that that's a bad thing). A bit akin to something like Silent Eagle. A Flanker made to Stealth characteristics(and so squished essentially 😂)
Where Ace combat 7 react?
C.W. 3 Russian systems I want to hear about MIG-41, S-500 and when the S-700 is coming?
great video
Every time I hear "no new F-22" my mind goes "Thank you Obama"
It is more then a decade since that happened and I am still angry about it.
At least give it scorpion or SOMETHING
Obama? The initial plan was to produce 750 of them. Dick Cheney, in 1990, reduced the number to 648. In 1993 it was reduced to 442, because of the end of the Cold War, and then the USAF said it only needed 381. The number dropped to 339 in 1997 and then to 277 in 2003. When the US decided its enemy, for the foreseeable future, would be insurgents without an air force, Rumsfeld cut the number to 183 in 2004. By the time Obama became president, the F-22 was already at its lowest production order. If anything, he was the only one who didn't reduce it any further.
He could have pushed for an increase but didn't, but it sounds counterfactual to me to blame him when every previous administration, from 1990 to 2008, did the F-22 worse.
Probably someone already asked, but what is outro music? It's cool af
Better barrel rolls🛩✈
Su57 have more combat experience than f22. Ukr reported more than 80 encounter of the Kh-59MK2 missile exclusively used by the su-57.
That is isn´t really combat experience, a cargo plane can launch cruise missiles
@@aquilesca5tr0 1 air to air kill with another disputed from beyond 200km seems like combat experience
@aquilesca5tr0 You can never really know for sure, because if the Su-57 operates as intended, then whoever faces it won’t $urvive to tell the tale. One thing is certain that it’s being used quite frequently
1 SU-57 confirmed lost in this war. So yes, I can confirm that it got more combat experience than F-22. Perhaps not the type of experience russia wanted.
@@nattygsbord No Su-57s have been confirmed as lost? The only SOMEWHAT debatable "loss" was a damaged T-50 at a test facility that was hit by a cruise munition.
Quick correction. The US Navy was the first to field a HMCS system with the VTAS starting in 1969. 3:22
When was it first used operationally?
Quick correction, VTAS was not adopted until March 1972.
@@nemesis2264did it work though? On a F4-J the sidewinders at that time weren’t high off boresight at all.
@@jordancourse5102 from what I understand, it was only for pointing the radar, and thus aiming the radar missiles, I'm not sure if the sidewinders could also be aimed with radar slaving
@@jordancourse5102 Did I even mention anything about it working or not though?
I simply stated it was not adopted until March 1972.
Good video
Naw, what they did was add a gear shifter to the pilots pedal/propulsion system. This allows the pilot to adjust their pedaling intensity to the situation.
They added larger pedals to prevent the notorious issue of pilots feet slipping off at high pedaling speeds and they removed the horn.
Some one made a video of mavericks solo proving run over dubbed with the song Freebird...you should check it out.
Algorithmic engagement comment.
Please react on Houtese short down the American F15 .
Cutest girl.. top model beauty but humble.. someone will be or is very lucky :)
Er the F-35 they are building loads… building 1 or 2 a month is not loads
Mig-31k, Mig-31BM are the best interceptor fighter jets on the planet. They exceed 3000km/h. The modernization of these jets is to make an almost new jet.
You are living in the year 1970 apparently? And are still using those metrics and tactics.
Had top speed been most important, then I doubt that the US Navy would have replaced the F-4 Phantom with slower planes, as it is still the fastest plane to have flown in the US Navy til this day. And likewise do I doubt that Sweden would have let Gripen replace the much faster Viggen which was so fast that it was capable of hunting down a SR-71 Blackbird and gain a missile lock on it.
Flying super fast is just dumb, and cause stress on the airframe and it also dramatically increase the fuel consumtion and thereby decrease range and flying time. And nearly all air combats happens in speeds near Mach 1, and air combats at Mach 2 are as rare as unicorns.
So flying 3000km/h is a worthless skill. It just shows that the designers of the aircraft have prioritized the wrong things, and therefore are incompetent. A fast flying plane is just about bragging rights, and not about effiency on a battlefield.
@@nattygsbordyeah that's why US builds entire fleet of fast F-15EXs to support slow F-35s, as well as wanting NGAD to be hypersonic, yeah, speed totally doesn't matter
@@Янус_Ырт Speed is only important up to a point, say Mach 2. Beyond that it doesn't matter that much.
And the reason why USA keeps the F15EX probably has to do more with its ability to have more hardpoints than just the 4 sitting on F35. Plus that F-15EX will be able to carry much larger long range missiles that are too big to fit inside the weapons box of F22 and F35. So it is mostly just a missile truck, using F15s powerful performance and big cargo carrying capacity. Mach2 dogfight capabilities are not a priority.
Only people who knows nothing about aircrafts and air combat believes such things are important.
Planes do not normally fly at those speeds. To reach those speeds you normally need to use an afterburner which dramatically increase the fuel consumption. And normally will the plane run out of fuel after between 3 and 15 minutes. And training an aircraft in peace time to fly at those speeds would probably not be welcome, as it puts the aircraft under enormous stress and pressure - which shorten the life of an extremely expensive aircraft.
And MiG-25 and 31 designed by Ukranians
No thoughts, none, I am a meat popsicle.
So no video on the f18 crash?
We did it last night on the podcast.
Has any of this been approved by Elon? Until then it's just speculation.
Imagine a Yf23 with three-dimensional thrust vectoring
If you look closely, I think the Su 57 was inspired in the YF23 because it is very similar in appearance in some aspects
@@manuel969 If the SU57 had a double delta wing I would say yes, but it is a lifting body, like the F23 was, unlike the F22 which is a flying brick
@@MrJunglebear1 Brick? You're sauced.
As someone who mocked Russians on podcast for air defence friendly fire incidents (like it never happens in US) What's your thoughts about F18 getting shot down and another jet narrowly scape getting shot down by friendly fire in less than a week ??? 🤡
We stopped building the F-22, and we're not doing NGAD anymore. We're FALLING BEHIND!
The sky is not falling.
The US attacks more than they defend. That makes multirole and attackers are lot more valuable than fighters. They could pump out more Raptors but all they'd do mostly is intercept civilian aircraft lol
@@WALTERBROADDUS but our fighters aren't the undisputed ass kickers that they once were. In air combat, you WANT the unfair advantage! We no longer have that. Yes, the F-22 is good, but thanks to Commie Obama, we don't have enough of them. The F-35 is good in BVR, but in WVR, it's perhaps F-16 level; it's not at Su-27 level, let alone Su-57 level.
B-21 can do most of what NGAD would have, and the Navy F/A-XX is still in development. If that's falling behind, I'd sure like to fall behind a bit more
@@BreandanAnraoi I suppose the USAF could use the Navy's F/A-XX; it wouldn't be the first time the USAF used USN aircraft. Remember the F-4 Phantom II? That started life as a Navy fighter.
I'd like to see us return to the days of the Century Series fighters, the F-8 Crusader, etc., where we designed and built new, cutting edge fighters every couple of years.
Modernize the A-10 (angry Hog) maybe with mild burners 😬-Skid can be chief of program.
Modernize the F-14 (Tomcat six-9). Mover chief pilot and Gonky buckled in the backseat.
TG-Mav was zero CGI (therefore factual) and proved the 54 year old Tomcat can whoop the 57. 🫡
No....
WTF is a 3d thrust vectoring nozzle? Up-down, port-starboard, and ?-?
Are they counting nozzle dilation? (big-small opening)
It is more about the plane movements that the nozzle can control:
- F-22 is considered having "2D" because its nozzle can control pitch (moving up or down together) and roll (moving each one separately in opposed directions - one up and the other down - so creating a movement on the roll axis)
- a plane with "3D nozzle", aside the above, can also move "left-right", so acting also in the "yaw" axis of the plane. The common used russian planes with such (Su-35 and actual SU-57) have "round nozzles" that can vector themselves in all directions, so they have a "pure" 3D nozzle capabilities... the "new SU-57" discussed here has similar nozzles to those of the F-22 (rectangular, and capable to move only up or down) but as it was shown, they are mounted at an agle, rather than horizontally alike in the F-22: they will loose some degree of freedom rather than a "pure round 3D nozzle", but still capable to influence all the 3 movement axis (pitch, roll and yaw), even if in a slightly diminished capability...
The diminished return in manouverability could be considered a good trade-off, when "flat nozzles" have better performance in anti-radar performance (a round surface will have ALWAYS a face that could rebound radar waves to its receptor... that is why modern "stealth planes" try to avoid much as possible a perfect round shape - they are all flat-angular surfaces - F-22/F-35 alike, or the old F-117 - or very squashed - alike the B-2 and future deployed B-21)
Up Down. Rotate 90Degrees, the Up down becomes Left Right. You can set the rotation to any degrees and can get 3D movement.
2D is up/down, 3D is up/down/sideways.
@@masoodjalal1152 They don't rotate
@@CapitanoAraym Actual Su-57? Even the T-50 had it, as it and the Su-35S have the same engine. Current Su-57Ms still build on this design.
They are pure 3D nozzles? They have 20dg of movement in their primary axis with 16dg of supplemental movement left/right.
The F-35 features a round nozzle, unlike the F-22.
As the su35 is already quite excellent, if the russians can keep enough mystery around the felon then western countries will always be cautious around russias ability. It has to be better than thier navy and army anyway
So it's getting a "working" ejection seat, a LORAN C system, rear view mirrors and a handicap placard?
Special Self-Disassemble Operation.
It's 3d tvc just like the Su-30 it's just canted.
Being canted has nothing to do with what type of thrust vectoring it has? The Su-30 has 2D (except for the 30SM2) while the Su-35S and Su-57 have 3D.
Why do people talk about the Su-57 like it's a real production aircraft? Haven't we learned to stop giving the Russians the benefit of doubt on their claims yet?
Because it's a real production aircraft since 2020 and has over 80 confirmed combat sorties with Kh-59 Mk2 launched at ground targets in Ukraine.
F-22 on the other hand - one Chinese balloon.
@@dimbasz By that logic the Armata is a production tank, you clown. "Production" since 2020? LOL. It flew first in 2010, and there are less than 35 of them. That's a limited edition, not a production model. And how dare you bring up the F-22. You know it's a bitch move because you _should_ be talking about the F-35, but even so, there are 6x as many F-22s as Su-57, and we STOPPED production of those in Dec of '11.
this is the level of dumbassery that's left of the Russian military defenders and it's pathetic. If the Su57 were 50% of what they claim, it'd be flying successful SEAD over Ukraine and the war would be over. Instead, Ivan is left to chuck long range missiles from Russia out of fear of Patriot and a few half trained F-16 pilots.
This is an AI helmet.
It isn't.
Hot shots the best
Mover, I’m not impressed. It needs to have Jimi Hendrix capabilities for me to be impressed.
beau beast...
My favorite documentary is Armageddon, but Top Gun is pretty good too.
You know, since we need modern, capable, and affordable fighters (something we can't do anymore), why not license build the Korean KF-21 Bromae? It's the F-22's Mini Me. We could afford 1,000 of them!
Step backward in technology and capability.
@@WALTERBROADDUS how do you figure?
@@WALTERBROADDUS as I've said elsewhere, the best fighter in the world means nothing if you don't have enough of them. Look at Germany's Me262 at the end of WWII; it was the F-22 of its day, yet it made no difference. Why? Germany never had more than 70 in service; that was a drop in the bucket compared to the thousands of inferior prop driven fighters of the Allies. It's better to have a large number of good fighters vs. having a few elite fighters.
The current single test example of an LO thrust vectoring exhaust nozzle on an Su-57 is 2D only and is angled off of 90degrees to try and get more angle performance.
It kept slanted 2D TVC design used in Su-35 and 57
@@ГеоргийМурзич The Su57 doesn't have this design as evidenced by the fact that its only just now testing one...
The Su-35 also does not have 2D nozzles of any kind.
@@Ihasanart what I meant is that both Su-35S and 57 have axisymmetrical nozzles with slanted 2D TVC
@@Ihasanart TVC: Thrust Vectoring Control
@@ГеоргийМурзич No they don't.
all available in 20-30 yrs
Round nosels were superior and more complex, this is downgrading to American lvl
Nice, can they afford to upgrade all 10 of them?
They are in talks with Elon...
@@chrismaggio7879 Elon thinks the F-35 is a waste of resources because it has a pilot in it; he's not going to do anything to help update anything that has a pilot in it and also isn't as good.
cnn told you they have 10..??
Even with the ones they've lost, I believe they have more than 10.
@@PhycoKrusk None have been lost, and there are 33/34 (debated due to the conflicting comments of 1 being held back for testing)
🐷 👁
🗽👉💪🏾💪💪🏻🦅🗽🇺🇸🇺🇸
Looks like they made the exhaust nozzle more stealthy. Yes, they are finally getting around to streamlining the RCS ... somewhat. The Russian design concept is to have low hour "things" like engines that break and you just replace them completely vs having a complex repair chain. Also, notice how Russian airfields are only now getting more aircraft hangars, for decades everything just sat in the open, winter or summer. HMS, yep, the first in the 80s. Cool. How much did we train against the HMS and ARCHER? :) Its a step up but not quite playing ball with F-22.
why russia is still trying to compete with the US and now China is beyond me.
The SU-57 is for sale, so these upgrades are probably at least to some degree for marketing.
And even if you can't compete with the US and China, what can they do? Shut down their flight industry completly? Freeze it? They have engineers on their payroll and why shouldn't they implant new stuff?
Like I said, the alternative would be to completly axe their aircraft-industry. But that wouldn't look good for the population, would it?
China made it with stolen technology from Russia and US made f35 with 15 other countries and it still took 20 years to make it, Russia made su57 alone. They are competing pretty good.
@@wedgeantilles8575 I think they should start over with a clean sheet design, that realistically looks at their production and capacity
@@noir1923 Su-57 issues aren't the design itself, its the production and procurement. F35 took a long time yes, but there are over 1,000 in service right now, whereas Su-57 barely has a squadron.
lol do you know what engines are on the j-20 and j-35 as we speak🤦🏾♂️😂
Wait wait so they are modernizing a vehicle they haven’t even finished a full series on, wtf kinda backwards think speak is this 😂😂
India need SU-57
good looking plane from the side and front.. but i've more faith in that Turkish Kaan jet than this one.
It is not even in mass production, there are less than two dozen, and they already announce "upgrades" - the flying Lada must be real piece of work...