Search results

Why was it externally mounted?

Having supercruise is useful for any fighter.

If the engine proves it's claims then it can be used in Super 30 upgrade.

The US might be able to afford to pull $20 million worth of missiles out of storage but once you do that their operational life is reduced by a factor of 10. Keeping a fully stocked inventory requires careful management of stores during peacetime or you won't be able to afford to keep it at the...

It was reported here that Su-57 is now similar in price to Su-35 so that can't be it.

It says that it doesn't have AESA radar nor Project 30 engines so it cannot be called 5th generation.

There is no radar with AFAR ... Okay, H036, which is Belka, was shown at the MAKS in 2009. Solemnly and with all the relying cries of “Urya!” In 2019, “Army 2019” was shown again. They said it was about to be. Is it really so hard to wait until 2029? In fact, the fifth generation of the Su-57...

Clearly you don't know anything, the NO36 radar was designed from the NO35 and have similar dimensions. They intend to put that radar in the Su-35 once development is complete.

The current production model of the Su-57 is just a Su-35 with internal bays. It doesn't have the next gen engines or AESA radar.

They are refusing to commit because Russia has not proven themselves in meeting time schedules for developing technologies. Su-35 is ready now and much cheaper than a Su-57 with Su-35 guts.

Once it is fully developed it is justified. It will super cruise, have a working AESA and internal weapons storage. It might not be stealth but it is far better than a Su-35.

Everyone shows interest until they learn it is just an overpriced Su-35... then they buy Su-35. Until the engines and radar are ready it is not a serious contender.

It still isn't ready for prime time. The engine and radar developments are nowhere near complete. It will probably achieve FOC the same year as SCAF.

There is no road-map for the IAF. They ditched it years ago.

That statement just shows your bias... of course it matters.

Of course changing the direction of thrust increases stress on the wings. As you can see during afterburner take-off the TVC is not engaged.

10 sorties vs 1000s... not the same.

You do realise that they only sent them there for a few days and they only conducted 10 flights between two aircraft. It was a photo-op to say they are combat proven.

To avoid added stress on the wings it is not activated until a high AoA or g limit is reached beyond the normal range of its control surfaces. To do so would greatly reduce the life of the airframe over time.

The F-22 does not use thrust vectoring except in a dog fight so your point is moot. Anyone making that argument is a fool.