F-35A Spanks Su-57

Just a little something to hold you over until I can get my hands on my F-4E I ordered in October of last year.
This was also an excuse to make Ruskies angry. They absolutely hate seeing their state-of-the-art and unmatched precious baby getting slapped around in video games. Especially by the F-35 for some reason. I can't wait to read their comments.

[@xyz-hj6ul]

Always nice to see added F-35 content. Wish they would finish the cockpit, sensor and weapons systems to at least an F-15E level of function. Half of what makes the Lightning special is the data integration and big picture approach to SA, both on the MPCD and on the helmet.
That said... It's very hard to believe that an Su-57 will sit there and fail to maneuver against the threat.
Lotta power there and enough altitude to put some three dimensional maneuver into it. Add the TVC, if it's ever perfected, as it is with some versions of the Grinnelli F-22 and the Su-30SM, and you have a frighteningly capable WVR jet.
Especially as the Felon has DIRCM and MAWS systems to cue the defense against the missile, if not the stealthy F-35 attacker.
Keep contributing. Look forward to more.

[@RedFail1-1]

That's ED's AI for you. This is AI vs AI. I tried this with the F-22 and it never launches a single missile. Just flies around the entire time.

[@xyz-hj6ul]

​@@RedFail1-1
I'm not at all surprised. DCS world is effectively FC3 code and so it's the backside of everything being done with DCS at the moment and retreating further and further in the rear view mirror.
Have you tried fiddling with pilot settings and max/min-range firing opportunities? How about pushing weapons to the external pylons? I seem to recall this mod was built on an Su-27 flanker EFM and so maybe it's just not deploying weapons it doesn't think it has?
The next thing to do is try tying it to an A-50 and seeing if that helps and then, (court of last resort) looking at aspects and altitudes.
Given how each jet has it's own fast/slow/hi/low advantages (for wing and thrust loading) as a minimum envelope within which to set tactics, it would _really be nice_ to be able to set up fights with specific engagement geometries whose native algorithms reflected the abilities of particular jets.
The Su-57 has a wing area of 848 square feet, a combat takeoff weight of 64,000lbs and a wing loading of ~78psf. Combined with a thrust loading of either 1.05:1 or 1.25:1, depending on whether it's got the AL-41 or AL-51 engines and probably north of .85:1 in IRT.
As such, clean, it should be motoring in at Mach 1.2 to 1.5 and 40-50,000ft, like an F-22. Above the con bands.
With the added benefits that its missiles go further and _in look down mode_, it gets to see the 'hotside' of the F-35, cockpit, cannon, fuselage/tails and ECS. All of which create a much larger signature than the lower hemisphere or head-on signatures.
Conversely, the F-35 is like a really heavy F-16 (full tanks, X4 GBU-38, X4 AIM-120, Three Pods) with half the drag. At 470sqft and 110psf with a T/Wr in the .93 area, it's going to want to fight in the 20-25,000ft band.
Which means that it's in constant look up on the Felon.
This is a bit of a compromising situation, given that the EOTS is below the nose but at night, our better visionics and datalink vectoring means at least the contrail issue should not be too bad.
Avionics wise, the Su-57 has a first generation (No-36 Byelka, 'Squirrel' radar) in the 15-20kw range and a KS101 FPA IRST which should give it active/passive detection ranges that are competitive with the F-35, even if the F-35 stays radar silent and doesn't give the L401 Himalaya ICMS a freebie passive track.
Where the F-35 comes out ahead is in 'digital stealth' as the 'wormhole generator' of the ASQ-239 suite and, along with every other form of (noise) jamming that's simply not well (active cancellation) modeled in DCS at the moment. But can be replicated with a really low effective RCS (passive about .002m2, WHOG + passive = .0001m2, equivalent to the Raptor only covering more bands).
Coupled to the DAS system which is 15-20nm capable and global coveraged as an SAIRST, it should be able to steer around the sensor cones of the Su-57.
At which point, it's just a matter of time before the Su-57s either run over the threat detection bubble with their own sensor/missile WEZ, probably with a 2-up, 1-back sensor-shooter setup. Or the F-35s impale them like a pig on a boar spear, with snap-up AMRAAM, launched from the edges of their sensor cones.
Lots of flanking and tac turns in there.
As soon as they launch, day or night, the KS101 MAWS system on the Felon and the AAQ-37 (DAS) on the F-35 should both cue to threat and each side 'fire down bearing!' as they break away and try to extend. You don't have to point the nose to do this, though there is a range penalty.
The F-35 has a pretty big hole card here, in the ALE-70 towed decoy.
Whoever lives, then comes back into the fight on a very high aspect and declination angle, pushing max Mach to keep energy levels high for the second and third shots as they both spiral down to lower levels where their wings can start to bite real air, around 19,000ft.
The Su-57 pilots will have an alternative 'get lit and get gone' option, putting their Felons into hyperdrive and just stepping away from the largely subsonic Lightning's counter engagement (which is where the 30-50nm trailer gets his lumps in, shooting them as they try to give chase).
Frankly, this kinematics dominance is why we need the F-22 or something like it, to hold and dominate the high fast envelope and could also really use something like a stealthy version of the MQ-20 with a Legion Pod (mega IRST) to get early tracks on the Russian fighters.
It's bad news for the Lightnings if we don't have either.
But The Point Is: If you emulate that final phase of the merge fight where everyone is aware of each other and the fight entry is largely vertical, the resulting DACM maneuver phase becomes really dynamic.
Which, from an entertainment level, is cool. Even as it better emulates who actual pilots think: trying to avoid the threat sensor cone 'get behind' missile engagement zones, rather than fly directly (co-altitude) into their opponent's eyeball-to-eyeball, nose-on expectation of a fight.
You come from below the sill line or above the eyeline. And charge through. Firing opportunities are really fleeting and you depend on helmet-HOBs and extreme 'nose up = shoot!' energy conservation because you are playing with about half your sea level thrust as lift.
For a near hypersonic AIM-120D or R-77-1, never mind a thrust vectoring AIM-9X or K-74, it may not matter. But for a jet, that density altitude factor genuinely does.
So much so that, contrary to normal conditions where rolling in from the top is considered a dominant position, everybody is going to be 'diving through' the fight plane, hoping to get a look up shot into burners at the same time as they deny the HOB envelope on dogfight missiles by being behind the threat velocity vector.
That little lag as you roll in and commit to pulling through, 'second' (maneuvering in relation to the bad guy) is _fatal_ and you are literally better off, clearing neutral and letting someone shelfed back, in trail, take the shots as you separate and disengage.
Proving the point that air combat is a division fight or it is a Russian Roulette, Pyrrhic Tragedy, waiting to happen.
If your AI will not play today, then you are well and truly screwed for getting that kind of dynamic entry fight going.
And so you have the early break and 2-circle stern conversion into a strafe rag target.
Not a criticism, just a commentary on what ED needs to pay heed to if they want to truly improve the game.
Fighter Pilots do not do ACM as carousel rate fights based on a horizontal circle STR and over shoulder helmet missile performance. Haven't done so in decades.
It's all fast slash and clear the shot lane, playing through so that the next friendlies can have their turn, from an unexpected aspect. He who lingers in the squirrel cage is gonna get bit, likely by someone who is hawking the fight from the outside.

[@RedFail1-1]

@@xyz-hj6ul I did read all of that. Very well said.
Now if we could just get players on PvP servers to invest as much effort into learning all of this, it might actually be challenging and fun to play MP. Rather than everyone making the same mistakes over and over, flying out solo looking for the first dogfight they can find trying to be GS or Maverick, creating lackluster engagements. Fighting against players is sometimes worse than fighting the broken AI.
It's nice to find someone in my comments who actually knows what they are talking about.

[@xaina222]

Maneuvering against a fox2 is always going to be a bad time.

[@clean713]

Bros sharpening is on lvl 10000 ;)

[@RedFail1-1]

As far as the bar goes

[@arkie87]

why graphics potato?

[@RedFail1-1]

Because I'm a disabled vet living on $600 a month. Maybe when I'm rich and famous I'll worry about graphics over eating and having a roof.

[@arkie87]

@@RedFail1-1 thank you for your service

[@brian-us6vw]

I think the graphics arent that bad

[@bobbyraejohnson]

Why you put potato up your mommas vagina?

[@yousifmq]

​@@RedFail1-1 the graphics are good man, keep up the good content, subbed 🤗

[@sagarnehra2981]

USA Lumber 1😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
F 35😂😂😂😂😂

[@shisoy4809]

In a dogfight the SU57 smokes F35