Ignoring the Russian bot in the comments, excellent video as always. It is interesting to see how eastern designs have great control in low speed. While from air show experience I’ve seen western jets posses great control in fast speed.
Thanks! Indeed, western airshows focus more on speed/agility while the russian ones highlight low-speed maneuverability. That said, that's only what 'we're shown'. Meaning, that russian jets flying at faster speeds perform pretty comparable to western (plane agility is directly speed-related), meanwhile, although many western jets still have a great controllability at low speeds, they aren't a match for what we see here, IMO. :)
@@Airguardian that I sort of disagree with. Soviet doctrine was to close the gap in the merge and use it’s better low speed maneuverability to win. Russian fighters are designed with this doctrine in mind. Western fighters perform better at 2 circle and fast maneuvering fights because we chose to optimize for BVR combat. Also the USAF ran a study on super maneuverability and determined the capabilities aren’t worthy of additional investment. Again I’m not trynna start anything. But Russian and western planes are designed differently and perform differently to succeed at different things.
@@enriqueelresitas9901 maneuverable air battles are conducted at speeds of less than 1000 km/h.at high speeds, there is more radius, more overG, and anyway any intensive maneuvers lead to a loss of speed, so for close-range maneuverable combat, high stability and controllability characteristics at low speed are the basis
So... Where exactly is the physics being bent in here? TVC is known to man for how long exactly? It's used in rocketry on a regular basis too. The Russians decided it was a good thing to put it on fighter jets, while the Americans mostly agreed on the gains not particularly worth the trouble (apart from the Raptor, that is). No physics bending whatsoever or even anything out of ordinary is happening here - the thing can't even do a tailstand. If it could tail hover and especially land like X-13 Vertijet, now that would be pretty impressive indeed.
"" while the Americans mostly agreed on the gains not particularly worth the trouble" (c) Yeah, we all remember that perfectly well. Those 3 sticks attached to the back with a scotch tape.
What I really want to know, this is why I ask why I read so many Americans, endlessly claiming the F-22 is so much better than the Russian SU-57, (that relies on washing machine, chip technology), and has the radar cross-section (RCS) of a Jumbo jet? LOL. Firstly, they can't know the RCS of any military aircraft, as they're always classified, so really, just what is it all about? And then, if you ask, what they've ever seen the F-22, actually do?, (that would allow them to hold that opinion), you'll only find they can answer that, (as they've never seen the F-22 do anything), well, other than flying over a beach on a RUclips Video. And, even worse, they don't even ask the obvious questions? Questions like, what do either the F-22 or F-35's have available to them to detect, track, and target enemy stealth aircraft from BVR (beyond visual range)? If they had asked that one question, then maybe, just maybe, they'd start to understand that today's reality, is nothing at all like they think! Seemingly they also don't understand, that stealth alone, defeats high-frequency (short wave), radar, by absorption and deflection, but it does not defeat low-frequency (long wave radar). To detect, track, and target enemy stealth aircraft from BVR, can be done with long-wave radar, (but it must also be enhanced), to remove all background clutter for targeting purposes. So regardless of the aircraft's RCS (they all believe means so much), when they're being detected, tracked and targetted by long wave radar, they're far from stealthy, and they just light up, and stand out, like a beacon in the night. Well, the facts are, that neither the APG-77 radar in the F-22, or the APG-81 radar in the F-35, have any kind of long wave radar, meaning, they can't detect any enemy stealth aircraft from BVR. This is also a fact, the US air force must be fully aware of. Only it seems, the reality is, when the F-35 radars were being designed 14 years ago, there weren't any other stealth aircraft to think about as a potential threat! So, just what do the F-22 or the F-35, actually have available to them to detect enemy stealth aircraft from BVR? They have AWACS, (that can transfer all targetting data to the F-22 - F-35's in real time). Only, that's not possible today. And this is why actually understanding any potential adversaries real abilities, becomes extremely important, critical in fact. Because, on the other hand, this (Russian rubbish), they all claim, is equipped with a 5th generation radar, (with enhanced long-wave radar), their new Byelka (2band) radar used in SU-57. They can detect, track, and target enemy stealth jets from BVR, pretty easily today. They've designed, and developed, the first L-Band fighter radar we've ever seen. They've embedded L-band AESA radars into the leading edges of the wings. The L-band AESA radar "data" gets processed in real time (through extremely powerful Russian computers), being significantly enhanced, removing all background clutter, seeing them perfectly able to detect, track, and engage enemy stealth aircraft from BVR. This new radar technology, along with its very impressive range parameters, and it's jamming ability (over very large areas) make this aircraft deadly to all other aircraft types. (But according to the Americans), it's just Russian rubbish. They can also detect, track, and target enemy stealth fighters, long before they enter Russian airspace, (from much greater distances today), with "real-time" data from all those massive Russian ground (long wave stations), that are all protected with the networked S-400 defensive system. This new (2band) radar, covers all frequencies across all channels, used for tracking, targeting, and also for jamming (over large areas). It's part of Sh121 multifunctional integrated radio electronic system (MIRES) on board the SU-57. So, it's also important to understand that Russia successfully tested this new radar in the SU-35's, so they also have the option of fitting this radar into the SU-35's. Then, seeing the SU-35E at no disadvantage against either the F-22/35. As although the SU-35E can be detected, tracked, targeted and shot down from BVR by the US stealth fighters, the SU-35 equipped with this new radar is just as able to detect, track, target and shoot down the US stealth fighters from BVR. Seeing the all-important, Russian advantage, in BVR missile range, plus the excellent manoeuvring, neither the F-22/F-35 have, as more than critical, (if you're going to avoid simply being blown out of the sky). The truth is, this new Russian 5th generation radar design, has very clear potentials, to provide genuine shared multifunction apertures, with applications including... Search, track, and destroy, missile mid-course guidance, against low signature aircraft, identification of friend or foe with secondary surveillance radar. Passive angle tracking and geolocation of JTIDS-MIDS-Link-16 emitters at long ranges. Passive angle tracking and geolocation of L-band AEWC - AWACS and surface based search radars at long ranges. Passive angle tracking and geolocation of hostile (i.e. Western) IFF and SSR transponders at long ranges. High-powered active jamming of JTIDS-MIDS-Link-16 emitters. High-powered active jamming of satellite navigation receivers over large areas. High-powered active jamming of L-band AEWC-AWACS and surface based search radars at long ranges. High-powered active jamming of guided munition command data links over large areas. [Effectively, and completely, neutralizing the USA's use of AWACS for their detection]. The Tikhomirov NIIP L-band AESA radar, is an extremely important strategic development, and it's a technology which once fully matured and deployed in useful numbers, will render narrowband stealth designs like the F-22 & F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, and many, UAVs, as highly vulnerable to all flanker variants equipped with such radars.
You bring up interesting points. Certainly, the complete RCS profile of a modern jet is not something anyone makes public. That said, I'd assume you can make computer models with reasonably accurate assumptions to simulate and get an estimation of what an aircraft's actual RCS is based on geometry and materials employed. As for L-Band radars, I'm not a radar specialist but from what I know, it would seem these radars are good for detecting, but not so much giving precise targetting data to guide weapons to target. At the end of the day, Stealth is indeed an asset on the field. It's just not an undefeatable asset, so betting it all to a single card seems silly to me. But I wouldn't doubt that it does confer an edge to the jets employing it. One way or another, the lack of IRST on the Raptor and the fact that it sort of needs to keep its own radar off to optimize its stealth advantage makes the whole thing a bit silly... I don't think the russians would have much of a challenge in downing an AWACS from far away with an anti-radiation missile, for instance.
@@Airguardian I've no need, the only question anyone needs to ask to understand this is, what does either the F-35 or F-22 have available to them to detect, track and target any other stealth aircraft from BVR? That's the only point that means anything, as if you're unable to detect enemy stealth aircraft from BVR, then what use could they be to anyone? In fact, how could they survive against any other stealth fighters? That's all you need to understand?
@@Airguardian Dr Carlo Kopp of Air Power Australia explored low band AESAs embedded in the leading edges of the wings, as far back as 2009, and he concluded that this new Russian concept is operationally and technically viable. Study results were not published by APA, due to the potentially (adverse impact) - APA has a long-standing policy of not publishing concepts that might provide potential adversaries with a competitive combat advantage. However, unbeknownst to APA, Tikhomirov NIIP were already working on this concept for two or more years, and they revealed the technology at the Russian MAKS Air show in 2011. Dr Kopp explains - the appearance of the first L-Band fighter radar is an excellent example of focused and intelligent lateral thinking which targets an opponent's weaknesses. This is a sound, technological strategy and practice on the part of Russian industry, that should be recognized. The new Tikhomirov NIIP L-band AESA is the first example of a technology which negates the intended X-band stealth advantage, well before the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (for example) achieves even a limited operational capability. Dr Kopp has produced a detailed forensic engineering study of the new NIIP L-band AESA, and he explores the growth potential in the design. While the NIIP L-Band AESA disclosed at MAKS 2011 might confer only a small combat advantage, the actual known reality shows an inevitable development of this technology, that confers long-term and accelerating air combat advantages, both as a counter to specialized X-Band Low Observability and for the detection and disruption of sensors and digital communications systems, that do operate in the heavily used L-Band. No great originality is required to deploy and further evolve this design - the back-end hardware and software from existing X-band radars can be used with modifications, and publicly disclosed roadmap documents for X-band AESAs can be emulated. The size of the Flanker and its power generation reserves, make integration and cooling a low risk, easily solved standard of engineering problems. And this was back in 2011. We've seen where it went, It resulted in the N036 Byelka radar system that's far superior and more advanced than any western radar, who have no equivalent. Dr Kopp explains - This paper analyses the operational potential of this design, and performs a range of performance estimates based on manufacturer disclosures and known design features. Performance modelling for a range of the feasible configurations indicates the radar will deliver a tactically credible advantage in the search range performance, able to cover vast areas, with air superiority control.
@@stevewing6851 Well, I think the argument on the other end is that positioning information is obtained through datalink from interconnected assets such as AWACS, satellite, ground and maritime radars and/or other legacy fighter jets (F-15, 16, 18, etc) that since they don't have the stealth capability, can just as well keep their radars on and send the data from far away to inform the stealthier jets operating far ahead and closer to the opponent. So in this regard, assuming everything works as intended, the stealthier aircraft would retain a big edge without needing to rely on their own means of detection, essentially becoming just weapon delivery platforms for other birds. THAT IS, again, if all works as intended. I wonder how hard it'd really be to jam those datalinks and leave the 5th gen jets blind. The F-35 has an IRST but it's presumably optimized for ground tracking, rather than air-to-air.
@@Airguardian Hilarious you clearly just don't understand what I've shown you, that leaves AWACS as obsolete today? How can AWACS get any electronic data to either the F-22 or the F-35 in real time, when the SU-57 creates its own air superiority? I mean, really, this isn't difficult to understand! Stealth alone, defeats high-frequency (short wave), radar, by absorption and deflection, but it does not defeat low-frequency (long wave radar). To detect, track, and target enemy stealth aircraft from BVR, can be done with long-wave radar, (but it must also be enhanced), to remove all background clutter for targeting purposes. So regardless of the aircraft's RCS (they all believe means so much), when they're being detected, tracked and targetted by long wave radar, they're far from stealthy, and they just light up, and stand out, like a beacon in the night. I mean, you must understand that, right? Well, neither the APG-77 radar in the F-22, or the APG-81 radar in the F-35, have any kind of long wave radar, hence they're unable to detect any enemy stealth aircraft from BVR. If you think they can? Then that's easy, with what? This is also a fact, the US air force must be fully aware of. Only it seems, the reality is, when the F-35 radars were being designed 14 years ago, there weren't any other stealth aircraft to think about as a potential threat! Do you understand this? So, just what do the F-22 or the F-35, actually have available to them, to detect enemy stealth aircraft from BVR? They have AWACS, (that can transfer all targetting data to the F-22 - F-35's in real time). Only, that's not possible today. And this is why actually understanding any potential adversaries real abilities, becomes extremely important, critical in fact. So what on earth are you talking about? The SU-57 takes air superiority with High-powered active jamming of JTIDS-MIDS-Link-16 emitters. High-powered active jamming of satellite navigation receivers over large areas. High-powered active jamming of L-band AEWC-AWACS and surface based search radars at long ranges. High-powered active jamming of guided munition command data links over large areas. [Effectively, and completely, neutralizing the USA's use of AWACS for their detection]. So again, what don't you understand? Everything I've shown you, are not anything other than the facts, yet bizarrely you start talking about AWACS like it would be some kind of help, (while It's unable to communicate to the US stealth aircraft, as it will be jammed. Oh, unless you believe Russia fall down in the field of Electronic Warfare? While the obviously very well known truth is, we know the Russians are literally decades ahead in EW. Russia have the GaN MMICs, the krasukha, the murmansk-BN, and Magrav technology (NATO: Khibiny) developed by Iranian-born nuclear engineer Mehran Keshe (called “a modern-day Nikola Tesla”). And we know this EW hardware is super impressive, as we've no answer to it, and we've also seen this E/W in action on at least 4 occasions we know of... Obviously claims denied by the USA, only if untrue? Then I'm just left asking why it was, that we saw the response, we saw, from the USA, basically confirming these events? 1) In 2013, we've seen a Russian SU-24 fly repeatedly around and directly over the USS Cook, leaving the Cook helpless to defend itself. 2) In 2014, we've seen a Russian SU-24 (flying at an altitude of only 10 feet), fly directly at, and straight over the USS Ross, eleven times, with the Ross completely unable to prevent It or respond to It. 3) As Russian forces arrived In Syria in 2015 we had many reports of US/NATO/Israeli Radar becoming scrambled, leaving them unable to communicate, or offer any response to the Russian forces. As one report said, the silence from the West was deafening! 4) In March 2015, a further related report notes. Federation submarine naval forces attacked with their advanced electronic defensive weapons the American aircraft carrier USS Theodore Roosevelt (CVN-71) causing it to turn and struggle to the coast of Britain to the amazement of the public. Where she remained for 9 days undergoing Intensive major re-wiring. It's believed the Russian electronic warfare pods (NATO: Khibiny) were used in a Russian trial of this technology for its submarine fleets. White House spokesman Josh Earnest, who said of the encounter with the Cook... "This incident is entirely inconsistent with the professional norms of militaries operating in close proximity with each other in international waters. E/C measures taken by the Russian Federation are unacceptable". To which the Russian MoD replied... "Frankly speaking, [we] do not understand the reason for such a painful reaction of our American colleagues, as the principle of freedom of navigation for the US destroyer, (which is staying in close proximity to a Russian naval base in the Baltic Sea), does [not] at all cancel the principle of freedom of flight for Russian aircraft testing Russian defensive systems". A further Ministry of Defence (MoD) report also stated that for the second time in two years, advanced Federation “electronic warfare defences” have crippled the Arleigh Burke-class guided-missile destroyer USS Donald Cook (DDG-75)- It was noted when Baltic Fleet “special forces elements” offered assistance to tow the destroyer back to their Polish port, the Americans refused to respond. According to this report, in April 2014, the USS Donald Cook, while performing a mission in the Black Sea, substantially violated Federation “territorial integrity” causing President Putin to authorize an “electronic warfare defence” attack against it, that was so devastating this top-line warship was left adrift. When towed back to its Romanian port, its American sailors were so demoralized, that 27 of them filed immediate letters of resignation from the US Navy. One year later, in May 2015, this report continues, and again in the Black Sea, the Arleigh Burke-class guided-missile destroyer USS Ross (DDG-71) substantially violated Federation “territorial integrity” causing President Putin, to once again, authorize an “electronic warfare defence” attack against it. But when confronted with the fate that befell the USS Donald Cook the year prior, it retreated-causing one Russian top-level Naval Officer to state: "It seems that the Americans did not forget the April 2014 USS Donald Cook incident - A Federation SU-24 equipped with EW pods shut down the new American destroyer". This attack encounter of Federation forces with the USS Donald Cook, this report details, began when this American warship began an “aggressive combat manoeuvre” against the Baltic Sea Fleet port in Kaliningrad, to which President Putin authorized an immediate “electronic warfare defence” against it. So you just have nothing to answer any of this? Well, other than some fantasy of AWACS being the answer?
A Russian SU-57 flying well behind the front lines in Russian airspace, detected a Ukrainian SU-27, deep in Ukrainian airspace heading toward Kiev, about 300 km's away, the SU-57 tracked then fired a Russian very long range Vympel R-37 (NATO "Axehead") hypersonic air-to-air BVR missile at the Ukrainian SU-27, from a range of well over 250 km's, blowing it out of the sky, and smashing the previous BVR missile kill range world record, to utter smithereens!
The USA has had the F-22 in service for 19 years, and it finally made its first air-to-air kill in 2023, when it shot down a Chinese weather balloon. LMFAO.
@@codenamecrusade1083 What? It's not only been verified, but we also have footage of the Vympel R-37 on its way to strike the Aircraft near Kiev, filmed by a member of the public in a high rise building as it flew straight past.
What could the F-16 achieve in Ukrainian airspace today?, or in fact, how long could an F-16 survive in Ukrainian airspace? I'd have to estimate the F-16, would have a combat life expectancy of less than 30 minutes over Ukraine, (and that's extremely generous). You only need to understand what it would be facing? Regardless, that we already know it can't survive against the S-300 anti-air defences, it would then need to survive against, for example, a Russian SU-35E? So, how could it survive, is the only real question that counts? The SU-35E is classified a "4++ Generation Fighter" - though its true capabilities go well beyond the original/current crop of 4 & 4+ Generation mounts like the F-15, 16, 18, Eurofighter Typhoon, French Dassault Rafael etc. The SU-35E has a forward and rear-facing Phazotron radar system capable of simultaneous tracking of 34 targets up to 92 miles, (even over extremely uneven terrain). Its cockpit design contains a colour CRT display unit, as well as HUD (Head-Up Display unit) along with digital fly-by-wire (FBW) capability equipped with quadruple redundancy - the onboard computers will always find four different ways to achieve the desired results of its combat mission. Its avionics also include an Irbis-E passive phased array radar system. The SU-35E only falls short of the standard adopted for true 5th Generation, by its lack of stealth, however, as we've seen, the SU-35's tactical value has increased massively, and its overall combat ability has broadened considerably. The F-16 is, in effect, an obsolete, unusable aircraft in Ukraine, and in every way imaginable, and they all must know this, really. And that shows us all the real level of desperation we really are seeing from the USA.
I see it differently. The greatest challenge for the F-16 may not be the russian air force or air defense but rather the strategic missile forces. Since the Viper isn't comfortable operating from unprepared fields, it will only be able to operate from a limited number of airports, which should make their elimination easy enough while still on the ground. Though I wonder if the russians will let them operate in order to have the chance to fight against them.
@@Airguardian Oh please, you see it differently? Yet you can't even tell us how any US stealth jet can detect, track or target any stealth aircraft from BVR? But you want an opinion on the obsolete F-16? Hilarious idiocy… You put up a video of the SU-35E while having no idea about its true capabilities today?
@@stevewing6851 I don't know about 35E (is that an export version of 35S or something?), but I'm pretty sure quite a good number of the 35 airframes was lost in this conflict already - just like the newest T-90Ms. These machines are just that, they are not anything RADICALLY new, so it's normal for them to get killed in the process. And while I'm hardly a huge fan of the keeper of this channel, for a rare time he's actually being very much reasonable in his predictions here, while you seem to be overly religious over a not exactly new aircraft.
@@stevewing6851 I did reply to that just now, in the corresponding post. You seem to be a touch sensitive. By Su-35 E I guess you mean Flanker E (NATO designation) which actually corresponds to the Su-35S, not E, unless I'm missing something. One way or another, I don't feel I need a PhD in radar engineering to post a beautiful video of a fighter jet performing at an airshow, you see. But I welcome debates about these topics as long as they are carried in a respectful manner.
![SU-35 be like: PHYSICS SOLD SEPARATELY ✈️ MAKS 2017 [Remastered]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/2QJbFm_Ppio/mqdefault.jpg)
![SU-35 be like: PHYSICS SOLD SEPARATELY ✈️ MAKS 2017 [Remastered]](/img/tr.png)
Russia makes the most beautiful and capable aircraft in the world!
My all time favourite jet figter.
Hell yeah! :D
beautifull
Fighter Jet 🇷🇺 💪🔥
))
The best camo of SU-27 series. If freewing release this camo and upgrade with gear door and air brake. It's perfect~ !
Amazing 👍
:DDD
best ever
Seharusnya indonesia ttp mlkukan pembelian su,35
They are rewriting the rules of physics.
The rules of ...what?
Is that edible?
xDDD
Ignoring the Russian bot in the comments, excellent video as always. It is interesting to see how eastern designs have great control in low speed. While from air show experience I’ve seen western jets posses great control in fast speed.
Thanks!
Indeed, western airshows focus more on speed/agility while the russian ones highlight low-speed maneuverability.
That said, that's only what 'we're shown'. Meaning, that russian jets flying at faster speeds perform pretty comparable to western (plane agility is directly speed-related), meanwhile, although many western jets still have a great controllability at low speeds, they aren't a match for what we see here, IMO. :)
@@Airguardian that I sort of disagree with. Soviet doctrine was to close the gap in the merge and use it’s better low speed maneuverability to win. Russian fighters are designed with this doctrine in mind. Western fighters perform better at 2 circle and fast maneuvering fights because we chose to optimize for BVR combat. Also the USAF ran a study on super maneuverability and determined the capabilities aren’t worthy of additional investment. Again I’m not trynna start anything. But Russian and western planes are designed differently and perform differently to succeed at different things.
@@enriqueelresitas9901 maneuverable air battles are conducted at speeds of less than 1000 km/h.at high speeds, there is more radius, more overG, and anyway any intensive maneuvers lead to a loss of speed, so for close-range maneuverable combat, high stability and controllability characteristics at low speed are the basis
Combine these maneuvers with helmet-mounted sights and off-boresight IR missiles. Yeah, 'not useful at all'....(/sarcasm)
Only in the minds of uneducated, ignorant haters ;)
I see the Russian bots are alive and well and commenting here I see 😂
IME, bots from all sides, sizes types and colors are alive and well all throughout the internet ;)
I don't need to be russian to admit how amazing this is
Yes with Ukraine advancing backwards from a Russian army retreating forward, what else do you expect.
Another NAFO clown 🤡 calling anyone with opposing views are "bot"
So... Where exactly is the physics being bent in here? TVC is known to man for how long exactly? It's used in rocketry on a regular basis too. The Russians decided it was a good thing to put it on fighter jets, while the Americans mostly agreed on the gains not particularly worth the trouble (apart from the Raptor, that is). No physics bending whatsoever or even anything out of ordinary is happening here - the thing can't even do a tailstand. If it could tail hover and especially land like X-13 Vertijet, now that would be pretty impressive indeed.
r/whooosh
It's an obvious title joke/exaggeration, FFS.
And for your information, it can hover at 80º AoA. I've seen it done.
"" while the Americans mostly agreed on the gains not particularly worth the trouble" (c)
Yeah, we all remember that perfectly well. Those 3 sticks attached to the back with a scotch tape.
@@Airguardian Are you talking about RC models? If there is a video of the real thing hovering like that, I'd love to see it.
What I really want to know, this is why I ask why I read so many Americans, endlessly claiming the F-22 is so much better than the Russian SU-57, (that relies on washing machine, chip technology), and has the radar cross-section (RCS) of a Jumbo jet? LOL.
Firstly, they can't know the RCS of any military aircraft, as they're always classified, so really, just what is it all about? And then, if you ask, what they've ever seen the F-22, actually do?, (that would allow them to hold that opinion), you'll only find they can answer that, (as they've never seen the F-22 do anything), well, other than flying over a beach on a RUclips Video.
And, even worse, they don't even ask the obvious questions? Questions like, what do either the F-22 or F-35's have available to them to detect, track, and target enemy stealth aircraft from BVR (beyond visual range)? If they had asked that one question, then maybe, just maybe, they'd start to understand that today's reality, is nothing at all like they think! Seemingly they also don't understand, that stealth alone, defeats high-frequency (short wave), radar, by absorption and deflection, but it does not defeat low-frequency (long wave radar).
To detect, track, and target enemy stealth aircraft from BVR, can be done with long-wave radar, (but it must also be enhanced), to remove all background clutter for targeting purposes. So regardless of the aircraft's RCS (they all believe means so much), when they're being detected, tracked and targetted by long wave radar, they're far from stealthy, and they just light up, and stand out, like a beacon in the night.
Well, the facts are, that neither the APG-77 radar in the F-22, or the APG-81 radar in the F-35, have any kind of long wave radar, meaning, they can't detect any enemy stealth aircraft from BVR. This is also a fact, the US air force must be fully aware of. Only it seems, the reality is, when the F-35 radars were being designed 14 years ago, there weren't any other stealth aircraft to think about as a potential threat!
So, just what do the F-22 or the F-35, actually have available to them to detect enemy stealth aircraft from BVR? They have AWACS, (that can transfer all targetting data to the F-22 - F-35's in real time). Only, that's not possible today. And this is why actually understanding any potential adversaries real abilities, becomes extremely important, critical in fact.
Because, on the other hand, this (Russian rubbish), they all claim, is equipped with a 5th generation radar, (with enhanced long-wave radar), their new Byelka (2band) radar used in SU-57. They can detect, track, and target enemy stealth jets from BVR, pretty easily today. They've designed, and developed, the first L-Band fighter radar we've ever seen. They've embedded L-band AESA radars into the leading edges of the wings.
The L-band AESA radar "data" gets processed in real time (through extremely powerful Russian computers), being significantly enhanced, removing all background clutter, seeing them perfectly able to detect, track, and engage enemy stealth aircraft from BVR.
This new radar technology, along with its very impressive range parameters, and it's jamming ability (over very large areas) make this aircraft deadly to all other aircraft types. (But according to the Americans), it's just Russian rubbish.
They can also detect, track, and target enemy stealth fighters, long before they enter Russian airspace, (from much greater distances today), with "real-time" data from all those massive Russian ground (long wave stations), that are all protected with the networked S-400 defensive system.
This new (2band) radar, covers all frequencies across all channels, used for tracking, targeting, and also for jamming (over large areas). It's part of Sh121 multifunctional integrated radio electronic system (MIRES) on board the SU-57.
So, it's also important to understand that Russia successfully tested this new radar in the SU-35's, so they also have the option of fitting this radar into the SU-35's. Then, seeing the SU-35E at no disadvantage against either the F-22/35.
As although the SU-35E can be detected, tracked, targeted and shot down from BVR by the US stealth fighters, the SU-35 equipped with this new radar is just as able to detect, track, target and shoot down the US stealth fighters from BVR. Seeing the all-important, Russian advantage, in BVR missile range, plus the excellent manoeuvring, neither the F-22/F-35 have, as more than critical, (if you're going to avoid simply being blown out of the sky).
The truth is, this new Russian 5th generation radar design, has very clear potentials, to provide genuine shared multifunction apertures, with applications including...
Search, track, and destroy, missile mid-course guidance, against low signature aircraft, identification of friend or foe with secondary surveillance radar.
Passive angle tracking and geolocation of JTIDS-MIDS-Link-16 emitters at long ranges.
Passive angle tracking and geolocation of L-band AEWC - AWACS and surface based search radars at long ranges.
Passive angle tracking and geolocation of hostile (i.e. Western) IFF and SSR transponders at long ranges.
High-powered active jamming of JTIDS-MIDS-Link-16 emitters.
High-powered active jamming of satellite navigation receivers over large areas.
High-powered active jamming of L-band AEWC-AWACS and surface based search radars at long ranges.
High-powered active jamming of guided munition command data links over large areas. [Effectively, and completely, neutralizing the USA's use of AWACS for their detection].
The Tikhomirov NIIP L-band AESA radar, is an extremely important strategic development, and it's a technology which once fully matured and deployed in useful numbers, will render narrowband stealth designs like the F-22 & F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, and many, UAVs, as highly vulnerable to all flanker variants equipped with such radars.
You bring up interesting points. Certainly, the complete RCS profile of a modern jet is not something anyone makes public. That said, I'd assume you can make computer models with reasonably accurate assumptions to simulate and get an estimation of what an aircraft's actual RCS is based on geometry and materials employed. As for L-Band radars, I'm not a radar specialist but from what I know, it would seem these radars are good for detecting, but not so much giving precise targetting data to guide weapons to target. At the end of the day, Stealth is indeed an asset on the field. It's just not an undefeatable asset, so betting it all to a single card seems silly to me. But I wouldn't doubt that it does confer an edge to the jets employing it. One way or another, the lack of IRST on the Raptor and the fact that it sort of needs to keep its own radar off to optimize its stealth advantage makes the whole thing a bit silly... I don't think the russians would have much of a challenge in downing an AWACS from far away with an anti-radiation missile, for instance.
@@Airguardian I've no need, the only question anyone needs to ask to understand this is, what does either the F-35 or F-22 have available to them to detect, track and target any other stealth aircraft from BVR?
That's the only point that means anything, as if you're unable to detect enemy stealth aircraft from BVR, then what use could they be to anyone? In fact, how could they survive against any other stealth fighters?
That's all you need to understand?
@@Airguardian Dr Carlo Kopp of Air Power Australia explored low band AESAs embedded in the leading edges of the wings, as far back as 2009, and he concluded that this new Russian concept is operationally and technically viable.
Study results were not published by APA, due to the potentially (adverse impact) - APA has a long-standing policy of not publishing concepts that might provide potential adversaries with a competitive combat advantage.
However, unbeknownst to APA, Tikhomirov NIIP were already working on this concept for two or more years, and they revealed the technology at the Russian MAKS Air show in 2011.
Dr Kopp explains - the appearance of the first L-Band fighter radar is an excellent example of focused and intelligent lateral thinking which targets an opponent's weaknesses. This is a sound, technological strategy and practice on the part of Russian industry, that should be recognized.
The new Tikhomirov NIIP L-band AESA is the first example of a technology which negates the intended X-band stealth advantage, well before the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (for example) achieves even a limited operational capability.
Dr Kopp has produced a detailed forensic engineering study of the new NIIP L-band AESA, and he explores the growth potential in the design.
While the NIIP L-Band AESA disclosed at MAKS 2011 might confer only a small combat advantage, the actual known reality shows an inevitable development of this technology, that confers long-term and accelerating air combat advantages, both as a counter to specialized X-Band Low Observability and for the detection and disruption of sensors and digital communications systems, that do operate in the heavily used L-Band.
No great originality is required to deploy and further evolve this design - the back-end hardware and software from existing X-band radars can be used with modifications, and publicly disclosed roadmap documents for X-band AESAs can be emulated.
The size of the Flanker and its power generation reserves, make integration and cooling a low risk, easily solved standard of engineering problems.
And this was back in 2011. We've seen where it went, It resulted in the N036 Byelka radar system that's far superior and more advanced than any western radar, who have no equivalent.
Dr Kopp explains - This paper analyses the operational potential of this design, and performs a range of performance estimates based on manufacturer disclosures and known design features.
Performance modelling for a range of the feasible configurations indicates the radar will deliver a tactically credible advantage in the search range performance, able to cover vast areas, with air superiority control.
@@stevewing6851 Well, I think the argument on the other end is that positioning information is obtained through datalink from interconnected assets such as AWACS, satellite, ground and maritime radars and/or other legacy fighter jets (F-15, 16, 18, etc) that since they don't have the stealth capability, can just as well keep their radars on and send the data from far away to inform the stealthier jets operating far ahead and closer to the opponent. So in this regard, assuming everything works as intended, the stealthier aircraft would retain a big edge without needing to rely on their own means of detection, essentially becoming just weapon delivery platforms for other birds. THAT IS, again, if all works as intended. I wonder how hard it'd really be to jam those datalinks and leave the 5th gen jets blind. The F-35 has an IRST but it's presumably optimized for ground tracking, rather than air-to-air.
@@Airguardian Hilarious you clearly just don't understand what I've shown you, that leaves AWACS as obsolete today? How can AWACS get any electronic data to either the F-22 or the F-35 in real time, when the SU-57 creates its own air superiority?
I mean, really, this isn't difficult to understand! Stealth alone, defeats high-frequency (short wave), radar, by absorption and deflection, but it does not defeat low-frequency (long wave radar).
To detect, track, and target enemy stealth aircraft from BVR, can be done with long-wave radar, (but it must also be enhanced), to remove all background clutter for targeting purposes.
So regardless of the aircraft's RCS (they all believe means so much), when they're being detected, tracked and targetted by long wave radar, they're far from stealthy, and they just light up, and stand out, like a beacon in the night.
I mean, you must understand that, right?
Well, neither the APG-77 radar in the F-22, or the APG-81 radar in the F-35, have any kind of long wave radar, hence they're unable to detect any enemy stealth aircraft from BVR. If you think they can? Then that's easy, with what?
This is also a fact, the US air force must be fully aware of. Only it seems, the reality is, when the F-35 radars were being designed 14 years ago, there weren't any other stealth aircraft to think about as a potential threat!
Do you understand this? So, just what do the F-22 or the F-35, actually have available to them, to detect enemy stealth aircraft from BVR?
They have AWACS, (that can transfer all targetting data to the F-22 - F-35's in real time).
Only, that's not possible today. And this is why actually understanding any potential adversaries real abilities, becomes extremely important, critical in fact.
So what on earth are you talking about?
The SU-57 takes air superiority with High-powered active jamming of JTIDS-MIDS-Link-16 emitters.
High-powered active jamming of satellite navigation receivers over large areas.
High-powered active jamming of L-band AEWC-AWACS and surface based search radars at long ranges.
High-powered active jamming of guided munition command data links over large areas. [Effectively, and completely, neutralizing the USA's use of AWACS for their detection].
So again, what don't you understand? Everything I've shown you, are not anything other than the facts, yet bizarrely you start talking about AWACS like it would be some kind of help, (while It's unable to communicate to the US stealth aircraft, as it will be jammed.
Oh, unless you believe Russia fall down in the field of Electronic Warfare? While the obviously very well known truth is, we know the Russians are literally decades ahead in EW.
Russia have the GaN MMICs, the krasukha, the murmansk-BN, and Magrav technology (NATO: Khibiny) developed by Iranian-born nuclear engineer Mehran Keshe (called “a modern-day Nikola Tesla”).
And we know this EW hardware is super impressive, as we've no answer to it, and we've also seen this E/W in action on at least 4 occasions we know of...
Obviously claims denied by the USA, only if untrue? Then I'm just left asking why it was, that we saw the response, we saw, from the USA, basically confirming these events?
1) In 2013, we've seen a Russian SU-24 fly repeatedly around and directly over the USS Cook, leaving the Cook helpless to defend itself.
2) In 2014, we've seen a Russian SU-24 (flying at an altitude of only 10 feet), fly directly at, and straight over the USS Ross, eleven times, with the Ross completely unable to prevent It or respond to It.
3) As Russian forces arrived In Syria in 2015 we had many reports of US/NATO/Israeli Radar becoming scrambled, leaving them unable to communicate, or offer any response to the Russian forces. As one report said, the silence from the West was deafening!
4) In March 2015, a further related report notes. Federation submarine naval forces attacked with their advanced electronic defensive weapons the American aircraft carrier USS Theodore Roosevelt (CVN-71) causing it to turn and struggle to the coast of Britain to the amazement of the public.
Where she remained for 9 days undergoing Intensive major re-wiring. It's believed the Russian electronic warfare pods (NATO: Khibiny) were used in a Russian trial of this technology for its submarine fleets.
White House spokesman Josh Earnest, who said of the encounter with the Cook... "This incident is entirely inconsistent with the professional norms of militaries operating in close proximity with each other in international waters. E/C measures taken by the Russian Federation are unacceptable".
To which the Russian MoD replied... "Frankly speaking, [we] do not understand the reason for such a painful reaction of our American colleagues, as the principle of freedom of navigation for the US destroyer, (which is staying in close proximity to a Russian naval base in the Baltic Sea), does [not] at all cancel the principle of freedom of flight for Russian aircraft testing Russian defensive systems".
A further Ministry of Defence (MoD) report also stated that for the second time in two years, advanced Federation “electronic warfare defences” have crippled the Arleigh Burke-class guided-missile destroyer USS Donald Cook (DDG-75)- It was noted when Baltic Fleet “special forces elements” offered assistance to tow the destroyer back to their Polish port, the Americans refused to respond.
According to this report, in April 2014, the USS Donald Cook, while performing a mission in the Black Sea, substantially violated Federation “territorial integrity” causing President Putin to authorize an “electronic warfare defence” attack against it, that was so devastating this top-line warship was left adrift.
When towed back to its Romanian port, its American sailors were so demoralized, that 27 of them filed immediate letters of resignation from the US Navy.
One year later, in May 2015, this report continues, and again in the Black Sea, the Arleigh Burke-class guided-missile destroyer USS Ross (DDG-71) substantially violated Federation “territorial integrity” causing President Putin, to once again, authorize an “electronic warfare defence” attack against it.
But when confronted with the fate that befell the USS Donald Cook the year prior, it retreated-causing one Russian top-level Naval Officer to state: "It seems that the Americans did not forget the April 2014 USS Donald Cook incident - A Federation SU-24 equipped with EW pods shut down the new American destroyer".
This attack encounter of Federation forces with the USS Donald Cook, this report details, began when this American warship began an “aggressive combat manoeuvre” against the Baltic Sea Fleet port in Kaliningrad, to which President Putin authorized an immediate “electronic warfare defence” against it.
So you just have nothing to answer any of this? Well, other than some fantasy of AWACS being the answer?
A Russian SU-57 flying well behind the front lines in Russian airspace, detected a Ukrainian SU-27, deep in Ukrainian airspace heading toward Kiev, about 300 km's away, the SU-57 tracked then fired a Russian very long range Vympel R-37 (NATO "Axehead") hypersonic air-to-air BVR missile at the Ukrainian SU-27, from a range of well over 250 km's, blowing it out of the sky, and smashing the previous BVR missile kill range world record, to utter smithereens!
The USA has had the F-22 in service for 19 years, and it finally made its first air-to-air kill in 2023, when it shot down a Chinese weather balloon. LMFAO.
Source?
That claim has remained unconfirmed since the start of the war.
@@codenamecrusade1083 What? It's not only been verified, but we also have footage of the Vympel R-37 on its way to strike the Aircraft near Kiev, filmed by a member of the public in a high rise building as it flew straight past.
@@codenamecrusade1083 Why do you all talk such unnecessary crap endlessly, what is it all about? ?
What could the F-16 achieve in Ukrainian airspace today?, or in fact, how long could an F-16 survive in Ukrainian airspace? I'd have to estimate the F-16, would have a combat life expectancy of less than 30 minutes over Ukraine, (and that's extremely generous). You only need to understand what it would be facing?
Regardless, that we already know it can't survive against the S-300 anti-air defences, it would then need to survive against, for example, a Russian SU-35E? So, how could it survive, is the only real question that counts? The SU-35E is classified a "4++ Generation Fighter" - though its true capabilities go well beyond the original/current crop of 4 & 4+ Generation mounts like the F-15, 16, 18, Eurofighter Typhoon, French Dassault Rafael etc.
The SU-35E has a forward and rear-facing Phazotron radar system capable of simultaneous tracking of 34 targets up to 92 miles, (even over extremely uneven terrain).
Its cockpit design contains a colour CRT display unit, as well as HUD (Head-Up Display unit) along with digital fly-by-wire (FBW) capability equipped with quadruple redundancy - the onboard computers will always find four different ways to achieve the desired results of its combat mission. Its avionics also include an Irbis-E passive phased array radar system.
The SU-35E only falls short of the standard adopted for true 5th Generation, by its lack of stealth, however, as we've seen, the SU-35's tactical value has increased massively, and its overall combat ability has broadened considerably.
The F-16 is, in effect, an obsolete, unusable aircraft in Ukraine, and in every way imaginable, and they all must know this, really. And that shows us all the real level of desperation we really are seeing from the USA.
I see it differently. The greatest challenge for the F-16 may not be the russian air force or air defense but rather the strategic missile forces. Since the Viper isn't comfortable operating from unprepared fields, it will only be able to operate from a limited number of airports, which should make their elimination easy enough while still on the ground. Though I wonder if the russians will let them operate in order to have the chance to fight against them.
@@Airguardian Oh please, you see it differently? Yet you can't even tell us how any US stealth jet can detect, track or target any stealth aircraft from BVR? But you want an opinion on the obsolete F-16? Hilarious idiocy… You put up a video of the SU-35E while having no idea about its true capabilities today?
Backwardness!
@@stevewing6851 I don't know about 35E (is that an export version of 35S or something?), but I'm pretty sure quite a good number of the 35 airframes was lost in this conflict already - just like the newest T-90Ms. These machines are just that, they are not anything RADICALLY new, so it's normal for them to get killed in the process. And while I'm hardly a huge fan of the keeper of this channel, for a rare time he's actually being very much reasonable in his predictions here, while you seem to be overly religious over a not exactly new aircraft.
@@stevewing6851 I did reply to that just now, in the corresponding post. You seem to be a touch sensitive. By Su-35 E I guess you mean Flanker E (NATO designation) which actually corresponds to the Su-35S, not E, unless I'm missing something. One way or another, I don't feel I need a PhD in radar engineering to post a beautiful video of a fighter jet performing at an airshow, you see. But I welcome debates about these topics as long as they are carried in a respectful manner.