*PLEASE READ BEFORE ASKING* For those that are confused: There is only one OPERATIONAL (non-prototype) SU-57. Two were built. One crashed. Operational means production and serialized and in a squadron. Everything else is a prototype. theaviationist.com/2020/12/30/first-serial-production-su-57-felon-delivered-to-the-russian-aerospace-forces/
Not sure if that's anywhere close to true. ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-N4-RwreHRRg.html plenty of video of multiple in formation. Love your video's btw
@@notabolchevik how old were the videos you saw? Those very well could have been prototypes that were doing the formation flying, as Mover has already said repeatedly, there were only 2 production models made and one has already crashed. It also is a DEFINITE possibility that the videos you have seen were CGI. The Russians love to try and fake people out by making them think they have more forces/capability than what they really do. It's a carry over from the old Soviet days.
@@CWLemoine touché, they did build 10 prototypes for flight testing which very possibly could be the aircraft in the video's. And I know the first operational wasn't delivered until last December. My comment was made without comprehending your all cap statement "OPERATIONAL (non-prototype)". I should think things through before opening my mouth...
Russian planes are really good. Ukraine is using Russian anti Air. It says more about how good Russian SA systems are than how bad Russian planes are. Iraq didn't have anything like what Soviet Union put in Ukraine.
Jets, probably, do not look bad at all, whatever they are American, Russian, French, Swedish, chines... Especially, at airshow or in a museum. It's good when it's only the test, training, or a display flight, but their main purpose differs from that and that's the point. My grandfather was a test pilot invetor and developer for most of the military flying machines delivered in fifty's trough the seventy's in the USSR. I spoke to some US military pilots at Moscow International airshows. 100 Russian airforce anniversary was a great event. It seemed that only the Australians had not participated that show. Good times there were...
@@usereisnunelf6092 Pretty good chance someone out of the 360,000 people watching a video about fighters cares about how fighters look lol - and apparently Mover himself does as well. So real question is why do you care so much that you bothered to comment not once but TWICE?
I think the high alpha flat turn and falling leaf are supposed to demonstrate the plane is immune to an uncontrollable flat spin. It can point its nose quickly at a target even in manoeuvres that tactically don't make much sense. Similarly, the Cobra demonstrates high controllability in a straight stall, even if the plane is sliding backwards. Or can hang with zero airspeed on pure thrust nearly vertically. It's all really impressive stuff.
@@VladRadu-tq1pg Well clearly it does work. It's a non-tactical demonstration of the extreme flight envelope of the aircraft. I made efforts (not detected by you) to say they are a demonstration, not a tactic.
Yeah, these airshows actually show the performance envelope. The Cobra demonstrations in the 1990s really gave the West a wakeup call, and the Russian jets have shown extreme manoeuvrability well beyond that now. What actual tactical utility it has is debatable, but it shows they are very capable in...something..power/weight?
Su-57 has 6 radars. No one else in the world can boast of this. No "stealth" will get away from him. Su-57 broke the world record for the range of hitting an air target at a distance of 217 kilometers with an R-37M missile (combat, not training), while not revealing itself. No one in the world has even come close to it.
@@jonnieboyization И один в поле воин, коли он по-русски скроен. One in the field is a warrior, if he is Russian. In general, as far as I know, 87 units are planned to be released in the next few years. Which is not so little, especially considering its tandem with the S-70 UAV. In addition, the development of the 6th generation aircraft is in full swing. Has the F-22 shot down at least one aerial target in the last 20 years, with the exception of a Chinese balloon?
Greetings from Russia, guys. Some comments. 1. There are 10 flight test airplanes and one production plane. 76 production planes should be delivered to airforce till 2028. 2. Current flight test airplanes now are flying with temporary engine of first stage. Engine will be replaced at later version. 3. One piece canopy will be at later versions. Double curvature transparent surface - not so easy to produce, to comply visual distortions requirements 4. Su-57 is slightly smaller than Su-27. It's approximately equal to F-15 by size and mass. 5. Second video - from MAKS-2021 airshow at Zhukovsky. Flight aerobatic performed by Sukhoi chief pilot - Sergey Bogdan. He always opening the canopy at the end of show to greet the public. 6. Access to airshow MAKS-2021 was only for vaccinated/negative PCR test attendants. So there are no any facemasks spotted. :)
@@mikek9297 5th generation fighters takes way to long to develop. No exceptoin - USA or Russia. YF-22 first fligh - 1990, F-22 first flight - 1997, full operational capability - 2008. If we will assume that furst ten Felons are same at as YF-22 - there are no any excessive time spent to Su-57 development.
Something to note about Russian doctrine, is they consider stealth as a secondary factor. The US builds a stealthy plane and makes it fight as good as it can. Russia builds a plane that fights and then makes it as stealthy as they can. The idea being you may see it coming, but you can't do anything about it.
@@robert-h2xand what was it the Ukraine said,oops,sorry can we go back and export our grain,so sorry Putin for listening to Brandon,and the Indian in England about bombing the bridge,😅
@@КостюмчёрныйНиочень Yeah he's just jealous to see that. As always this guy is arrogant like a lot of Americans cause they think they're the best in all domains. Actually, Russia in weapon domain is WAYYY ahead any country. Thanks to their knowledge into MHD. (Who came first from France by Jean-Pierre PETIT but my country is so stupid that they stopped him into this science and Russia continued to develop it since 50 years...) Nuclear engine for unlimited missile range + MHD for unlimited speed and maneuverability. Russia nailed it. And it works into air and under sea...... My only doubt about America into this MHD knowledge is that the B-2 bomber got the MHD technology... so maybe USA can also master this but why they didn't officially announce it... Like Putin did...
@@1980VINZ america,,,is and will stay leader in technology,,, this plane is a joke of a stealth plane , and un proven in combat,,,until then , its just another dog and pony show by the commies
No matter how many times people like to talk about the skinnier girls, most guys at the end of the day will bring home the thicker girls. Just saying...
The blue-green is just to reduce eye-strain looking back and forth between inside and outside. Not clear how much it helps but it looks kinda cool and it's what they're used to so they keep it.
Thank you. I had wondered about that for a while. Seems like they've been using that ugly color for decades, and I figured there had to be a reason for it
I thought it was just the colour of the primer and they just didn't bother painting over it. Sky colour cockpit does make sense though to stop your eyes having to adjust as much between looking inside and outside
@@bodeaciprian78 Really? He made objective remarks. The aircraft has always been criticized for its lack of stealth features, which was one of the reasons why India backed out of the partnership, and its clearly visible that the aircraft has poor visibility. The fact that it has no exports, not even orders, says a lot about it. It’s just that you’re a Russian troll who can’t handle that its not such a great aircraft that Russian propaganda portrays it to be.
12:52 that's the Kvochur' Bell maneuver. Notably, the first jet aircraft to ever being able to execute it was Russian MiG-29, piloted by Anatoliy Kvochur (hence the name), followed by the Su-27. Before that, the maneuver was considered impossible to do in a jet aircraft, because jet engines were inoperable at extreme aoa's.
That is not a Kvochur Bell....internet has already done rounds on this after Top Gun: Maverick came out. That appeared to be a standard vertical climb in to J-Turn for target re-acquisition. Kvochur Bell defensive maneuver is this: ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-bwhjerfaAy0.html&ab_channel=Azyaz
@@ZarviroffSerge aaahhh....then I indeed stand corrected. I was watching this on my phone when I commented, so I didn't pick up the announcer in the background. I assume then that both instances (this and the one that I found way back when I first saw the maneuver) are of the same maneuver, just executed in different manners and for different objectives.
@@EddieMitz I have no Idea why my response didn't post yesterday. Anyway, there is a misconception exists in English-speaking world, and a lot of people do seem to think that Kvochur's Bell is the maneuver that's executed in the vid you've posted. People in comments there even discuss it and agree that that's Kvohur's Bell. It's 100% not. It's easy to find what Kvochur's Bell is, if you search for it in Russian. Russian search query for it would be колокол квочур or колокол квочура. You'll easily find other vids of it and the scheme of the maneuver. I don't know where this confusion comes from. And now it seems to be inflated even, after the Top Gun? Weird.
A very pretty plane, probably very good at what it is intended to do. The only way to see what it is truly capable of is to see it in combat and that is the last option anyone wants.
@@maximus7809 Russian-Chinese relationship is like US-Saudi Arabia, the Soviets split away from Chinese alliance in the 60s-70s and still Russia and China aren't officially allies to this day
@@angrybirder9983 Exactamundo, it looks like the Flankers uglier , fatter cousin, good thing it's stealthy, so it can hide how truly gruesomely ugly it is . I think I'll take the Checkmate instead.
@@spritezeroxxx66 yeah like the ones we have in the United States specially Boeing and Lockheed Martin or you going to act like you don't know anything? 😅
@@spritezeroxxx66 долбоеб комнатный рассуждает о технологиях и вооружениях, в которых нихуя не понимает от словам совсем, дроча на порнхабе и проживая свою никчемную жизнь.. бестолочь ебаная
Interesting that he said the F-15 was easy to gun. My F-16 squadron back in the day used to regularly own F-15's and F-14's in training if it was guns only, but with all weapons fully engaged it was a different matter. Their missile packages and better radar would get us almost every time.
Do you agree with him ( as a pilot) about the usefulness of some of those maneuvers as being "for airshow purposes", or is there close range and/or long range purpose?
@@jaysmith3259 In a vaccuum supermaneuverability and moves like self induced flat spins or cobras could, in theory break pesa locks or find openings to scan the enemy from behind in a one-on-one dogfight. However, along with doctrines involving multiple jets and heavy emphasis of BVR, as technology marches better radars make sudden massive energy bleeds less useful than regular energy fighting techniques.
Ah, so that's what our F35's are going to dance with. Here in Norway our pilots say hello to russians all the time up north. There's a camraderie of sorts, some cat and mouse play and the occasional peekaboo. If the new russian platforms are any good, we'll know soon enough. You'll notice when we start asking for upgrades to the F35 platforms we bought off of you. :D
Yeah all 12 of the posing the threat! It's dump all the longs and go back, i don't think the pilots would have a look at each other. The only difference is that one platform has MADL and monstrous electronics and the other doesn't.
Yeah in 5 years it won’t just be an F-35 fight. It’ll be an F-35 commanding a swarm of drones, supported by F18s as missile trucks and an Aegis cruiser or two. The Felon’s won’t stand a chance.
"There are known knowns; there are things we know we know. We also know there are known unknowns; that is to say we know there are some things we do not know."
@@Drangeorg No it's not, it's an advertisement aircraft trying to con gullible arab countries into buying shit for far too much money. Just like how the S-300 and S-400s have turned out to be beyond garbage.
Haven´t read all comments but I can say that the oxygen mask has two positions, one "relaxed" wich allows use of the microphone, and one tight fitting position when you need oxygen. It´s also very quick and easy to switch between the positions.
@@reboundrides8132 Да знаю. Но в том и дело что ты платишь за наш самолет меньше, получаешь больше. Ф22 до сих пор не как не может вылечится от детских болячек, а он выпускается уже давно и стоит пипец как дорого. Всё дело в деньгах, любое оружие по большим деньгам и это вов сём. Сравните Российское и американское . А качество ниже.
One thing I've come to realise after going to an airshow and the armed and aerospace expo here in South Africa, is the sheer size of all these things, we only have gripens as the newer planes, but even the mirages and lynx helicopters . . . They really big .. . The tanks as vehicles are huge! I knew they were big, but wow. ..
It’s no wonder that with the sheer size of the SU-57 in particular, it’s RCS is equivalent to that of the smaller F-18. So it isn’t all that stealthy but the RCS is still a little reduced
Here in the Netherlands, close to where I live is a joint US/Dutch airbase (where they "hide" the nukes) called Volkel. In the middle of the roundabout, they actually have a real f16 that's out of commission. These 1 engine jets are small af. Some dual engine jets are small as well, f18, for instance. Others like the f15 are huge af, though.
@@alexyudin2128 И взлетела от Киджала прям в центре Киева, даже пиво не успела передать😆 ты же видел эти кадры в телеге, которые сняли украинцы как пэтриот на куски разлетелся😁
@@alexyudin2128 А у вас украинцев есть что-то своё чем можно гордиться, чего-то я сомневаюсь у россиян хоть ракеты есть, а вот что есть у вас, не чего .
I really like how the plane looks personally, pretty flat and wide with a nice silhouette from the front and sides. Excited to see them with the new engines when those finally get ready
Russia has started developing hypersonic missiles for the Su-57. This became known in Russia 2 weeks ago.Apparently they have been developing for a long time. In Russia, they talk about the "beginning of development" only when the time comes for testing (when this rocket should be seen by those who will operate it). The engines that are currently installed on this aircraft are not the final version. Greetings from Komsomolsk-on-Amur, the birthplace of this aircraft. They fly here every day.
@@bryanx590 You obviously haven't learned enough Russian history to understand that Russia is the World's largest lake of quicksand.Stalingrad is the classic example.
@@johnfairchild1769 Comical. If the yf23 had being built you would be been saying BS against it and claiming it would have been great if yf22 was built. Dishonest creeps
@Jack Stucki The problem with Lada isn't the design, it's that the cars are cheaply made. And that's intentional. In Russia there's a large market for cheap, low-quality cars, people buying their first car or who can't afford a more expensive foreign car. Lada has a big share of that market. Lada could build better cars, but it would be risky and expensive. First because they'd be changing a working strategy, and second because even if they were able to build cars that match Japanese in quality, they still wouldn't be able to charge Japanese prices for a while, because with established brands you pay a premium for reputation.
Hey mover as a military aircraft enthusiast I love hearing a real military pilot committing on foreign aircraft. I’m not a pilot or AE. I have loved Russian aircraft since I was a kid. I would love more reviews from you like this with SU-30, MiG-29, ect. I’d even like some reviews on classic Russian and French stuff like mig-21, 25, 31, Dassault mirage series, f-1 ect. Just like this vid. Even if it’s just you watching airshow videos like this giving your opinion from your experience. I really enjoyed this vid.
Nice to see that you can appreciate the Russians tech. Very different philosophy, but hard to argue "its wrong" or "better"! Enjoyed the commentary a lot!
Cant argue it’s “wrong or better”. Because it isn’t. It’s just a different design. If it were objectively inferior from a performance/design it wouldn’t have been green lit for production in the first place
With games like DCS and IL-2 on the market, I wonder what keeps people coming back to Ace Combat. I was an Ace Combat junkie until I found the real sims.
The jet looks superb, I love the front aspect! all aspect stealth is a compromise, how much are you prepared to pay for it? A few things that need mentioning. Firstly the dry weight of this jet is actually lighter than the F22, it's range is also far greater than f35 & F22. The rivets that got mentioned aren't rivets at all, but bolts. The F22 has these also, but they're hidden by putty & tape and coatings to enable it to have a smooth surface, it's a costly time consuming exercise covering these fixings, please look online and you'll see f22s without its coatings, looks ropey as hell, but we know the jet is awesome. The Su57 can apply the same principles to cover the bolt surface gaps. As the guy says narrating this video these are prototypes in the video. There's an excellent piece by the drive warzone where they have good footage/pictures of production su57s and the jet is massively cleaner on panel alignment than what you see here. Also on the production model the air intake has been modified & now incorporates an inlet radar blocker. As with anything with russian jets it'll be developed and improved over time. The f35 is still work in progress with restrictions on its performance due to issues that need sorting out (on all variants). The Su57 also has side mounted & allegedly rear facing radar soon, it enables the jet to beam & shoot & shoot & scoot with the ability to still initially guide missiles to their targets whilst disengaging. It's a fascinating jet.
Kind of stuff kills my love for the franchise. It's like they can't make a good Ace Combat game with real dogfights, so they gave them pulse lasers ffs lol.
@@oatlord A lot of planes in Ace Combat 7 have the Tactical Laser System that fires a solid beam for several seconds, but unfortunately it was hugely nerfed compared to the TLS carried by the Falken in Ace Combat 5. The pulse lasers carried by the Su-57, F-15C, and MiG-31 are much more powerful.
The SU-57 has 360-degree radars, and there is no one like that, it makes it possible to launch missiles from any angle, since the radar and infrared sensors as well as optical surveillance constantly keep the target in the grip, it can shoot with a rear projection, you don't need to see it and a smaller view of the cabin it's just completely unimportant here. Recently, the aircraft received new engines and can now fly at supersonic speed without afterburner, and this is the world's first 5th generation aircraft that participated in an air battle and shot down at least several Nazi Zelensky machines.
Mover can be Doug De Muro for military aircraft: "THIS is Sukhoi Su-57 Felon and I'm going to show all its quirks and features and show you how it flies".
Bigtruckseriesreview Motorsports Oh how I'd love to see that! I think Mover would jump at it. If we could just get past the current crop of idiot politicians who have chosen to return us to cold war status ( _THANKS for that, ya freaken flatliners_ !), it might even be possible. And Mover would deliver a fair review too, count on it. Unfortunately, our 'leaders' in Washington have made such things impossible. And even if we had maintained our previous post-cold-war relationship with Russia, it probably wouldn't happen. But man, if it did? Shit. Mover would become even more of a legend than he already is.
At 10:30 CW said " ummm the blonde looks nice!" I thought he meant the lady at the front with the white t shirt, I thought wow CW has a thing for the fuller woman. Then I watched it again and understand why he is a fighter pilot with eagle vision. He had target acquisition and radar lock on a girl on the left shoulder of the woman at the foreground, she is with skin tight grey pants and black shirt. Next time I go out for a night on the town I am taking a fighter pilot with me, they can get much faster radar lock on higher value targets than the average person!!
Yes cause the flanker, frog foot and foxbat were all designed with slide rules and brains while the US used computers. Given equal systems guarantee Russian win.
@@graemepennell umm no foxbat and flankers used computers for design not so sure about frogfoot though. Foxbat was the first ever combat fighter to use passed array radars.
What I see is that the f22 flagship is not capable of such a thing, it does the same cobra at low speed extremely clumsily. F35 totally sucks .And the uncle is just jealous .
@@Jazz-i4h There is no video that proves that the f 22 famous in Western propaganda has had a real combat against another fighter plane, it only exists in movies and video games. The F 22 is fantastic at shooting down drones, balloons and stationary targets, so what will it be like when it encounters a manned fighter jet? Well, this is nothing, while the F22 uses a missile worth several thousand dollars just to shoot down a 100 euro Chinese balloon. Well, the Russians, by just releasing a little fuel from an SU-27, shot down an MQ-9 Reaper drone worth millions of dollars.🤭
@@Jazz-i4h Where have I seen this before? HA, in Yankee movies and on the PlayStation.🤭 When the United States tries to build superhero stories linked to its identity, it is almost always fictional characters such as Captain America, Rambo, Spider-Man, The Incredible Hulk, etc. Let's take an example: we have Maverick with his F-14 Tomcat, a two-seat heavy fighter from the 80s, he easily shot down not one but two Su-57s, one of the most modern in the Russian arsenal. And what about Rambo, who took out an entire battalion of Spetsnaz soldiers with just a bow and arrow? However, in the end Russia decided to do the same by telling stories of triumphs. of feats. linked to your identity. Unlike Washington, however, the Russians do not need to resort to fiction.😎 Russia's adversaries dreamed of seeing NATO's war machine arrive in Moscow. Well, his dream came true. The NATO war machine did reach Moscow or, rather, was brought to Moscow after being TURNED INTO SCRAP on the battlefield by Russian forces a great humiliation for nato HAHAHA. It is incredible how they try to deceive people, the big problem is that millions of Europeans and North Americans read or have access ONLY to the propaganda of the toxic Western media of mass manipulation, these bastards are perverts, they intertwine everything for their own benefit.😡🥱🤧😴
I think it will be harder to do a video on J20 because almost nothing is known for its capabilities and even at airshows the pilots are not pushing the jet at all to give us some idea on its maneuverability
@@jack99889988 It took the Chinese just a year to hack the F35 blueprints. Why design something yourself? Let the Americans pay for the design and if it is any good, steal it. Then they'll build twice as many, after all America owes over $28 trillion, it is effectively bankrupt and if it was a company it would be in court trying to get protection. But I'd be more worried about all those Chinese computer chips in your aircraft and arms systems. Just imagine if the Chinese could turn them off
@@YT-xf1cy it's probably not directly ripped from a current platform. It's likely they got the data and blueprint on technical demonstrator or prototypes. Then develop it to suit their needs in the finished product. That's what they did with the J15.
Also cause minimal load out ie pilot and fuel, nothing else. One can question was anything else taken out to lighten the plane further. Still nice looking plane and nice performance.
@@mikek9297 As a non-Russian, Russia is a great country, though far from a perfect one, similar to countries like China, Germany, America, etc. Your disdain for the country is sad and frankly exposes you as someone who uncritically swallows propaganda.
The beefy gear and STOL capability is because there is a Naval version likely, they allude to it in the documentary in the SU-57. Also don't forget the Stinger on the tail gives potentially 360 radar coverage, though documentation varies on what its actual function is
its also not like the russian goverment is gonna tell the americans how many they have built and that works both ways ain't no way the american goverment isn't hiding how many raptors are actually in service.
@@wingless747 This is nothing more than your fantasy. There were 2-3 non-flying aircraft out of 11 prototypes. All that comes next are serial machines and now their production has been increased many times. An order for 150 aircraft is currently planned. And you don't need a lot of them - in real combat, you don't need a wunderwaffe, but functional and large-scale machines such as the Su-35, which are already among the best in the world. Any real war is about industry and logistics.
It’s a very interesting aircraft because you often see people compare it to the Raptor or Lighting and point out to its shortcomings and deficiencies. But the thing is the Felon was never designed to be an analogue to either the Raptor or the Lightning, rather it was design to meet the specific operational requirements of the Russian Air Force and surprisingly most of the design features and even limitations were intentional from the very beginning to make the plane both affordable and feasible to build given the gaps in the Russian defense industry vis a vis the US defense sector. Is also important to point out that Russia doesn't see stealth technology in the same way that the US and NATO does. While the west sees stealth as the pillar around which an aircraft has to be build, Russia sees it as merely another feature that is there to enable the usage of combat aircraft at the operational level, hence why you don't see the Russians tthrowing all their eggs in the stealth basket the same way the US does. At the same time there's real skepticism in the Russian military regarding how well stealth will perform against an oponnet possesing hi tech capabilities specially given how prevalent advance detection technologies are becoming. As such the Felon is more like a counter-stealth frontline tactical defense fighter meant to operate inside its own airspace while been supported by both ground and airborne radars along with the air defenses.
Yes, but for this kind of experts the good plane is plane who wins against third-country air-forces where the victory is flawless. Russia don't want to take part in any offensive operations against NATO-countries, just because it's uselles for Russia's national intersests. But NATO countries always can test their "God-like" F-35 vs SU-57 acting in couple with S-400/S-500 divisions. But I'm not sure that they want to test their "wunderwaffe" in real combat. So, whoever wins in the airshow breaks the bank.
@@avetl I would say it depends on who the opponent is and what are it’s capabilities. A good example is the MiG-29, it got a bad rep in Iraq and Serbia but with India it has a stellar performance even against western aircraft like the F-16 used by Pakistan. In 1999 during the Kargil War Indian MiGs flew fighter escort missions for Mirage-2000 bombers delivering laser guided PGMs on Pakistani positions. During those missions the MiGs which by that point had already been upgraded with new radars and R-77-1 BVR Missiles were able to achieve lock-on on Pakistani F-16s flying on the other side of the border forcing them to stay on their side of the line of contact and allowing the Mirages to deliver their payloads. Had the Pakistani F-16s attempted to intervene they would have likely been shot down given how at that time the PAF falcons didn’t had BVR capability. The experience of Kargil was once of the reasons why Pakistan upgraded its Falcons to carry AIM-120 AMRAAM and got more Falcons of the Block 52 standard.
Скажу так,все ваши аналитики и эксперты могут только гадать.Выпиваем свежесваренный кофе и на его остатках гадаем!!!Это все что вы эксперты можете знать о российских истребителях.Ничего!и уж особенно о новейших истребителях России.Зря вообще затеяли гонку вооружений.Думали что России это медведи, наркоманы и алкоголики?ну и отлично!!!Вот вам пример!С 500,Гиперзвуковые ракеты не имеющие аналогов в мире!В ближайшее время поступят на постоянное дежурство ракеты с ядерным двигателем.А это считай,пару десятков таких ракет запустил в стратосферу и пускай они там вместе с космическим мусором летают годами!Годами!!!а в нужный момент,по приказу прилетают с гиперскоростью,да ещё и с ядерными головками!!!Таких вооружений нет ни у кого.И в ближайшие десятки лет не будет!и это только то что на слуху,а сколько ещё разработано и будет сюрпризом?Самое главное,что б вы вот такие патриоты верили,что вы круче всех!!!Россия никогда не начинала войны,она их заканчивала!!!учите историю!!!Россия уже далеко не та страна,о которую вытирали ноги!!!не лезьте к нам,а мы в свою очередь просто о вас забудем!!!Тем более что Европа и США,это избыток прошлого.В може нынче Азия и восток!!!
AMERICANS forget one thing and that is the position of operatability. To them flight of cost doesn't matter, the runway should be neat and tidy and in optimal condition and that generally isn't the case during war.and more complex the machine is the less reliable it is in war.RUSSIAN PLANES are built to work under harsh condition. American plane can out perform RUSSIAN planes povided with suitable condition of functioning and that is a luxury during war as logistics are a headache .
Its unfortunate that those beauties are for war only. They are magnificent pieces of engineering... all of them. EDIT: I love the sound of their engines. Reminds the stukas from ww2.
I resonate with this comment so much. Why is it that a collective of humans and past knowledge came to these INSANELY engineered aircraft, and they are for war purposes? It's sad.
Зачем удивляться падающему листу? Это всего лишь демонстрация уровня контроля, уверенности в самолете. Важны высоты, на которых самолёт позволяет это все выполнять. Когда летчик уверен в своем аппарате, он увереннее действует в бою. Никто не собирается падать листом при виде противника - это очевидно, но если тебе надо будет слить скорость и довернуть для последнего удара, надо не бояться и быть учеренным, что ты это сможешь сделать, что твой самолёт это сможет сделать.
@@Ewan_Gaming. За историю России (начиная от княжеств и по сей день) ""малоприменимых аспектов"" принесших победы было столько, что о них толстенные книги писать можно. Генерал Мороз помог Александру Невскому в битве на Чудском озере, в войне с Наполеоном и в Великой отечественной Войне. Реактивная система залпового огня "Катюша" не была скопирована фашисткой Германией из-за огромного разброса снарядов. Советские же войска добивались от неё эффекта за счет массового применения. Танк Т-34 имел слабую броню, слабое орудие без дульного тормоза. Имел успех за счет дешевого массового производства, не требовавшего высококлассных сварщиков (на воспитание которых требуются годы). А отсутствие дульного тормоза позволяло вести, относительно, скрытный огонь. Автомат Калашникова не смотря на свои недостатки автомат № 1 в мире. Со сверх маневренностью Су-57, подозреваю, такая же история. Возможности этого самолёта лежат за пределами тактики ведения боя принятой в америке, что говорит о принципиальном отличии российской тактике, но не о её эффективности. Ну и сам характер подачи информации, с акцентом на мелочи и игнорированием принципиального, говорит о предвзятости специалиста.
The SU-57 isn't an answer to the F-22 because the SU-57 isn't a true 5th generation stealth fighter jet. It is at best a 4.5 generation platform. Meanwhile, the USAF revealed well over a year ago that it had already flown a 6th generation fighter jet.
@@classicgalactica5879 Good point. And in any case, we've known for a while now that the Russians were at least a generation behind in terms of air assets. And the war in Ukraine tends to demonstrate that their supposedly decent aircraft like the Mig-35 can be shot down by old Russian SAMs because Russia doesn't even know how to operate their own fighters correctly. So yeah, they're no match anymore. They must long for the good old days of the mid-70's when the USA still view the Soviet air force as a menace. LOL
American only want practical jet that can shoot enemy. That's why they create their own close quarter combat because for them, asian martial arts has too many pointless movement. They didn't understand why it called arts in the first place
Why answer to F22? Is AK12 an answer to... M16? No! Armies requesting jets according to war doctrine, same with guns, tanks etc. We need to ask ourselves if that jet fits in to doctrine and if doctrine is good with all the elements in it. There is russian saying: don't try to compare orange with round
Excellent analysis. I have to clarify about the woman bringing the umbrella. The act of bringing an umbrella won't guarantee good weather, but NOT bringing one will guarantee bad weather. Love your channel! All good wishes.
This jet is huge, didn't expect that, you said it too, it reminds me kinda, of an F15, that's also a big jet. I've seen one up close and I was mesmerized about the size. On a screen they look smaller, that's why, when I have the chance, I look them in real life. Thanks Mover.
Respect to all the great aircraft out there. I can see some really good innovations on this plane. Nice moving LERX, all moving tails, axisymmetric TV. All great ideas that should gain traction generally. Modern warplanes- love to see these designs from everyone.
None of what that country builds is innovative. Everything they have ever developed is a rip-off of other peoples work. Be it the USA or Nazi Germany. See: RDS-1 vs Fat Man. VK-1 vs RR Nene. Tu-4 vs B-29. Mig-15 vs F-86 Saber. SU-27,35,37 vs F-14, F-16, Gripen, and the F-15 STOL/MTD (Which was tested and retired before the later Sukhois copied the identical 3D thrust vectoring for their aircraft, as airshow technological demonstrators, demonstrating to the west what we developed and discarded three decades ago). They copy, but always miss the little details. E.g. they didn't know about the all-flying tail of the F-86. They are unable to develop engine nozzles such as the F-22 and F-117. And they didn't even grasp the concern that their own college professor published the math behind stealth technology and even he didnt seem to know it could be used for stealth aircraft. And they sold literal tons of Titanium to the CIA for their Oxcart program, A-12, M-21, SR-71... Then they designed, built, and operated while ignoring the warnings about Chernobyl. Failure at ever step.
@ranger So no one really knows anything about it, but it's definitely better than the Raptor....😂 You are high, son and I guarantee you that the 22's avionics suite is 30 years ahead of whatever is in the Sukhoi.
They do slightly vector the thrust to take off so the computer uses the engines instead of as much rear flap. I watched a 360 explanation in Russian with subtitles, very detailed.
These vehicles were tested in a combat situation in Syria. Now they can be seen in Ukraine. How do these machines fight? Well, when meeting with this machine, the enemy does not remain alive.
@@CWLemoine I didn’t say you said it on this clip. But I remember you talking about the F22’s thrust vectoring in one of your vids. I don’t know, I just find it weird that US fighter pilots have always said how extreme manoeuvrability is useless in actual combat and how air combat is slowly moving away from dogfights in pursuit of BVR. But why was the F22 designed to be such? The F22 was designed in the 90’s, but I assume that when these birds where developed, they were expected to be used for at least the next 20-30 years.
@@brd4869 Well the F-22 was developed in the 1980's and air to air missile technology was not as advanced as it is today. The AIM-9X has a lock on code of 180 degrees in front of the missile. When used with the F-35 or the Joint Helmet Mounted Cueing system it is capable of lock on after launch capability. The same thing goes for the latest AMRAAM missiles, a pilot can target an aircraft on his six and fire a missile. Add in data links and a F-35 can guide missiles fired from other platforms. So the days of turn and burn and getting on the enemies six are over. Modern air combat is all about situational awareness and targeting your enemy first and firing first. Thrust vectoring is great for airshows but for modern air combat not so much.
@@CWLemoine Pretty thin skinned. A lot of assumptions about an aircraft that very few people have even seen. But it is true to say that every American always thinks that they make the best aircraft, the best guns, the best tanks etc etc etc. They never talk about how their country actually cannot afford to pay for any of this and is now in hock to the tume of over $26 trillion. The lifetime cost of the F35 is $1.6 trillion! You are all mad as a box of frogs. The Chinese are just upping the anti to bankrupt you, then they will own all the gold in Fort Knox, not just half of it.
One of the reasons it has beefy gear is because there is a naval version for carrier operations and also for rough terrain like you said. 15:39 not if you want to 360⁰ no scope someone
no naval version, also there is really no place to put the arresting gear because there is a weapons bay there, and on top of that their carrier needs lots of repairs.
@@andresgarcia7757 And on top of THAT, they only had one drydock big enough to work on their carrier. _Had,_ because it sank about 3 years ago (with the aircraft carrier in it, and they were lucky not to lose it, too). Currently they're trying to build a replacement, but the project is already way behind schedule and way overbudget, and at least one project manager has been arrested for massive embezzlement.
@@andresgarcia7757 Actually there will be naval version, but it will be long time before production, cause there are plans for new carriers too. Certainly not for old Carrier-Cruiser (cause Kuznetsov is not really dedicated carrier platform and that is the problem with it, along with it's age).
I’m actually a fan of the Russian airplanes, it just looks like it is going to have to loose the rear weapon bay to accommodate the arresting gear. But in the other hand has loads of wing are so it might be really good at landing on carriers. The visibility issue is valid but for some reason most of the latest aircraft have really bad rear visibility.
The latest modification of the Su-57 does not have an afterburner; extra sound is available to it during standard engine operation. And even more efficient fuel combustion reduces the heat signature, while maintaining superior maneuverability. Six radars allow you to attack targets at extreme angles, and fine tuning of the two main radars allows you to see low-visibility targets at a greater distance. But the most important thing is that the Su-57 is a powerful weapon that allows you to destroy targets at record distances.
He never needed afterburner mode to develop supersonic sound. The Su-35 could develop supersonic sound without afterburner, and the Su-57 is lighter than the Su-35
In my opinion, the sound of the Hawker Hunter flying past is the best sound of any fighter. Hear it here: ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-vzZwHLb5lII.html
It’s the underpowered engine. And the fact it took as long as it did to come to operational level you’d think the underpowered engine would be noticed much earlier than they did. It is currently about to get new engines but geez…. Slow Russian is slow
@@Aphxphotog Underpowered? Did you see how short that take off was? With standard loadout it's thrust to weight is still above 1, even with AL-41 engines. When Izdeliye 30 finally arrives, this thing will be a powerhouse. Body finish on the other hand leaves so much to be desired. Those rivets everywhere just doesn't look right on a 5th gen plane.
@@bojned So, why the change in power plant if it has plenty of power? It was unloaded and likely had minimum fuel on board when it did the air show. They are changing power plants because they said it is under powered. So there’s that. And yes, it will not be very stealthy due to design imperfections.
@@Aphxphotog They change it to get better fuel economy and higher super cruise speeds, but AL41 is far from underpowered. Even C.W. noted short takeoff and high thrust to weight, and I guess he would not complement lightly.
@Ninja72 The idea of ripping off the F22 is a complete joke. If your goal is stealth there are certain shapes you're forced to use. Just like if someone asked you to add something to their vehicle that allows it to move quickly on the ground. The designs will all be some form of tire. For the time being round will be a major feature.
Thanks for the commentary! It's great to see the progression of the sukhoi design style from flankers to this. I used to think this was just a russian raptor clone but the commentary helped with noticing key su design style like the favoring of radar systems and maneuverability, the stinger and the large square intakes
6:10 I always thought the Russians had 2 Su 57's, but here I see 3 of them ? Nothing against skinny girls, but frankly, would I still have been a teenager, I would have prefered making a Su 57 than the odd looking F 22 as a scale model. And that cubistic paint job too is very nice. I think it is quite a sexy looking plane, even beats the YF 23 I think. So, if it was a beauty contest in stead of one about militairy effectiveness of 21st century fighter jets, my highest points would go to this bird. It would look "cool" next to an SR 71 in a design museum !
It does have an amazing paint job. I imagine it shows this "unnecessary" maneuverability just to show how maneuverable it is. Imagine if these things had no pilots, it'd be moving in the sky like some anime (named macross).
Undeniably MANEUREVABLE than all types of US fifth generation fighter jets. They should show it to the world proudly! NO NEED TO MURMUR, THAT IF ONE CAN DO AND SHOW THE WORLD!
The YF-19 is still by far the baddest looking jet ever made. And that's without even mentioning the half jet/bot and full bot mode. Possibly the greatest mechanical design ever, I love it.
I noticed the same thing and thought about the canopies painted on the bottom of aircraft like the A-10 and F-18. Those schemes can really add to directional que confusion, like whether they are turning toward or turning away. Painting an entire aircraft silhouette though seems more like a artful decision than a tactical one though.
@@Дмитрийшик-в3м охотник в разы больше , ты о чём и у него совсем другой силуэт! Охотник в 1,5 раза больше СУ 57 и пока что не вышел в серию!., но уверен что и су 57 тоже будут ставить плоское сопло как и у охотника!
The reason for the low energy on the J-turn, or any of the super-maneuverable actions, is because you can’t make those turns at anything close to typical combat speeds, or you’d black out on the High-G maneuvers.
@@aussiescotsman4145 You can do that but some bright boy is going to ram a sidewinder up your exhaust. It's a move that is rarely if ever needed outside of air shows.
@@patrickweaver1105 Talking like it would be used as a defensive maneuver, when it's offensive to get weapons on target. If you had paid attention to the video you'd know this.
The worst one is the "RussianStalinist" guy, each comment he makes gets over 500 likes when there's barely any engagement. This is what Russia spends it's money on, instead of buying optics for their infantrymen. They're still heading into battle with iron-sights in 2024
The greenish blue making people calm down is the reason behind the colors you’ll find in the operating room. Lots of green. Lots of blue. If not, then gray or white (lack of color). I believe the whole thing was first discovered by surgeons and then adapted into aviation.
Actually, the most calming color is a Pepto Bismol pink. It will take the fight out of even the most violent drunk or drug addict. Just being in a room painted in that color. It was proven in experiments with that color.
Regarding trailing edge flaps not used for take-offs: far as i can tell, any aircraft / configuration safe to take off without using those - should take off without using those. Saves a tiny bit of fuel for less frontal air resistance, and improves acceleration for the same reason. In this case, the bird has thrust to spare and then some - so "why bother". No? =)
In theory any aircraft that can fly without flaps, should also take off without flaps. It just needs to be going fast enough before it can take off. However, there can be limiting factors such as maximum allowed speed for having landing gear down, maximum rolling speed for the tyres, or angle of attack limitations on the take-off roll due to obvious issues with tail strikes, and of course the length of runway required for safety margins. If you could accelerate to no-flaps take-off speed on the runway but it would leave you absolutely no margin of error, you wouldn't do it, you'd dial in a required amount of flaps to bring your take-off speed down so you can reach it quicker and leave more of the runway "unused" (i.e. safety margin in case something goes wrong). The point of high lift devices is to increase lift at low airspeeds. This allows aircraft to take off and land at slower airspeeds and/or reduced angle of attack. Lower airspeed on take-off and landing is already a huge safety increase because it reduces the energy involved in case something should go wrong (rejected take-off margins, runway excursions, etc.) Reduced amount of runway required allows aircraft to take off and land from smaller airfields, and on larger airfields it increases the safety margins. Of course, increasing the aircraft weight always also increases take-off and landing speeds, decreases the acceleration and climb performance, and increases braking distance on landing. So the correct use of flaps becomes particularly important with heavily loaded aircraft - or when operating at high density altitude. As a result, the correct flaps setting for take-off or landing depends on the parametres for that particular take-off or landing. That includes (at least) runway length, altitude and temperature, weather, aircraft weight, engine performance, etc. etc. If the take-off or landing configuration is determined to require no flaps or just partial flaps then that's the configuration you would use. In some situations, even airliners sometimes take off with very small amount of flaps - short distance travel allows them to take off with partial fuel load, which makes the plane lighter than if it was doing a flight at full range. At reduced fuel load, and if the runway is long enough, it's even possible to take off without going to full engine power. This extends the engine life time (less wear) and the reduced fuel load also allows the aircraft to use less fuel on climb and cruise. So there are a number of benefits to not using "full performance" of the aircraft, if the situation allows for it.
@@HerraTohtori Gerally, yes. In case of Su-57, however, the craft have two major features overriding usual considerations: massive excessive (in terms of take-off capabilities) thrust, and state of the art fly by wire system. This plane can simply do much higher AoA and take off at very low speed merely because its engines will provide the thust to stay in the air and its fly-by-wire will ensure no loss of control. I.e., instead of using mechanization, those guys can just pull earlier and harder and get airborne at very low speeds, "riding the rocket" in a sense. IIRC, Su-57 is STOL capability, for those reasons. Landing, however, is where that engine power is no help; to reduce landing speed, flaperons remain desirable, and thus exist and used when landing this plane. Also, for gear / tire endurance, those planes are made to operate on any paved road if need be, and thus also have massive excess reliability.
@@finsfinst4274 Oh, definitely. Just expanding a bit on the topic, and saying that planes use as much flaps as they need. If that amount is zero, then it is zero. Also regarding specific designs - a lot of delta wing aircraft don't even have trailing edge flaps, since without canards or elevator to offset the pitch down moment they would achieve the opposite of increased lift. The Felon has elevons behind the main wing, but since the trailing edge of the wing is quite far back, it might well be that using ailerons as flaperons might reduce elevator authority a lot. Leading edge flaps or slats may be sufficient. But I haven't seen pictures nor footage of the aircraft landing.
So the F-22 and this aircraft fly with basically what is an aerodynamic AI. The F-22 when turning at high alpha doesn't even use Ailerons. It extends the leading edge and shifts the centre of pressure in relation to the centre of mass and induces a pitch that way. Nothing of how traditional aircraft work represents what is happening here. Also did you know you said "saves a tiny bit of fuel.." then said it compensates with huge thrust... do you know that thrust comes from huge fuel consumption? It is more fuel efficient to use the airflow for lift and take the induced drag than just blast your way up.
@@gusbisbal9803 About thrust, i said it assuming they are using huge thrust "anyway" - there are reasons to; military jets are often required to take off and intercept as fast as technically possible, for obvious reasons. As for efficiency and "using airflow for lift" - it's all about _how_ exactly you use airflow for lift. If you just extend some surfaces angled ~45 degrees to airflow - you get lots of lift and lots of drag in the same time, because your surfaces maximize lift this way but at the cost of also maximizing air resistance of the aircraft. This is exactly desirable when you are landing - flaps increase lift and slow you down in the same time; but when you take off, it's exactly counter-productive thing to do. Instead, during take off, you ideally want to use very different kind of "using airflow for lift": instead of deflecting large mass of air down (which flaps do) and get lift that way, you want to instead use your wings' ability to create lower pressure over upper surface of the wing, thus "sucking up" the plane into the air - without creating any slowing-down forces flaps inevitably do. The problem with _that_ approach, however - it works perfect for gliders, most prop planes, many jet airliners, but it does very little for _fighter_ jets, because wings of those planes are _not_ made to create lift that way. Because doing so - would make fighter jet's wings very, very bad for supersonic speeds and for some types of dogfight moves. Fighter jets use almost non-lifting wings if we talk take off speeds (far subsonic). So instead, fighters take off using pretty much whole body and both wings as a one giant "flap" which deflects enough air down for their powerful engines to just throw whole thing into the air. So why, then, using "proper" flaps on take off for fighters - is still not efficient? Because normal, "proper" flaps on fighters are themselves less efficient a flap than whole body of the jet, - which body and wings are extremely very slick, designed to produce least air resistance (much for supersonic reasons) - and thus again, for the same amount of lift, whole body of the jet generates less slowing-down force than if its own "proper" flaps would be giving that same amount of lift. Aerodynamics is kind of complex thing, too; the above is only the tip of the iceberg, too. It _is_ possible, for example, to introduce mechanization which would dynamically shape fighter plane's wings to change from one kind to another in terms of take off lift, in particular - and historically, this was done in different ways, because it allows to fly away with much higher payloads and/or from much more readily available / shorter runways. Adding leading edge flaps and similar pieces; using variable wing angle; using mechanically _varying_ wing angle - much swept for high speeds, but almost straight wing for landing / take off; canards; etc. But each and every "solution" comes with serious cost and/or undesirable side effects, thus there is no universally good way to do it. It really is not as simple as just "using airflow for lift", see.
@fuckyoutubepolicy staff why you gotta act as if time doesnt exist lmao. russia is developing many things. again, developing, which means that it takes time. izdeliye 30, will soon be installed on the felon, making it a true 5th gen. su57 will also be getting twin DIRCM to blind off incoming heat seeking missiles. russia is also developing mig41, anti satellite missiles to be carried by jets, AI to be installed in fighter jets, and many more
@fuckyoutubepolicy staff)) There is no need in expensive 5th gen aircraft with ai and a pilot on board to deliver a missiles. The cheapest and safe way is to make missiles with ai ;)
@fuckyoutubepolicy staff This economy thing gets brought up often... but I never understand the thought process there because it never takes cost into account. everything is far cheaper in Russia, and in the U.S for instance, a shit ton of the budget gets spent on absurdly inflated costs. Similar to that of Australia, yes... But Australia has the 13th largest economy, which is pretty big, while Russia has the 11th largest economy, meanwhile Russia has the 2nd strongest military in the world(with China coming up to take that spot), while Australia has the 19th strongest. economy size ignores so much it's just nonsensical, like how much of the money is being spent on military, how much can that money buy you in different countries, how well is it being spent etc... 10 Countries in the world have an economy larger than Russia, but out of all 10, only the U.S has a stronger military. out of the 10 countries with larger economies, only China and India are cheaper for weapons manufacturing, But they both buy expensive toys from abroad(well, China started producing quality equipment of their own) While Russia designs and produces most of it domestically on the cheap(comparatively), only importing some components here and there. Your : "A country with an economy similar to that of Australia cannot afford to produce this or that" Is in my opinion, a really poor comfort to me when I look at the facts.
The way Americans think is so linear. "Russia shows this therefore what Russia has is as seen." Americans like to show off what they have to show their military power for reasons of intimidation. But honestly It's quite foolish because you're telling the enemy what you have and giving them more opportunity to protect against you. Russia seems to be more lateral in thinking. And they don't have a track record of just showing off everything thing they have in the arsenal. This would be to their advantage to surprise the enemy with any technological advances they might have. Yes, the US has their classified technology. But who's to say Russia doesn't have more classified technology and on top of that showing one thing but having something else to throw the enemy off.. If this is the case, which would be wise, then America seems to fall for it hook line and sinker.
Well, y'all might wanna bring that shit out cause, your 10 day "special military operation" is blowing into a, *lemme check my calendar* almost 3 year long war that Russia has been consistently losing and is now the one being invaded which makes the Russian military the 3rd strongest in Russia after Wagner (June of 2023 lmao) and Ukraine.
