>the Felon only has an RCS no smaller than a bare laden Hornet. it has minimal stealth capabilityok Anon, but what missions can a Hornet do with no external hardpoints other than using its gun?
>>65399467Su-57 don't need fuel, it run on vodka
>>65399467modern block III super hornets further reduce their rcs by half btw, it's really that bad forthe faglord>ok Anon, but what missions can a Hornet do with no external hardpoints other than using its gun?pic rel
>>65399475vaporware doesn't count. none of those stealth carriages are in service.
>>65399476>vaporware doesn't countDoes that mean Super Hornet wins by default?
>>65399501kek he walked straight into that
>>65399501the Felon is in active procurement and service, unlike the "Silent Hornet".
>>65399467no one says that to mean that the hornet is somehow equivalent to the su-57, but instead to give you the point of comparison that a clean F-18 isn't exactly the most stealthy thing out there
>>65399531If you call a handful of planes that their government is too scared to use “active service”, sure lmao.
>>65399531>unlike the "Silent Hornet".there are more block III superbugs in service than there were sukhois planned to be delivered by this year, several times over
>>65399467>the Felon only has an RCS no smaller than a bare laden Hornet.>*doubt*Felon doesn't have gold plated canopy and zigzag panels.
>>65399533>no one says that to mean that the hornet is somehow equivalent to the operational su-57don't forget this part, nobody's certain that the planes aren't entirely filled with su-35 electronics rather than just the engines.
>>65399599they mention the reflective area in the patent and various other semi-leaked documents. how much of the design follows reality and how much of that design survived russian craftsmanship is an open question.
>>65399467Why are you comparing Russia‘s top of the line fighter to a plane from the late 80s?Shouldn’t the Su-57 be compared to the F-22 or F-35?
>>65399501Careful, such brutalities may invoke rabit BBC spamming
>>65399467>genuinely believing information about classified data on the InternetAnon, radar signatures and detection capabilities are among the most heavily guarded information in the military. Very few people have access to precise data about the performance of stealth fighters or radars and the people who do wouldn't post it on the Internet. The "golf ball signature" of the F-35 is an Internet myth. Don't get me wrong, it may be true but there is no way for a random citizen to verify it. And even if it were true, it likely would depend on conditions like aspect angle, speed, meteorological conditions and so on.Also RCS is only part of what defines a 5th gen fighter. In order to operate without a radar on a fighter needs passive sensors to pick up IR or optical signatures, and incoming radio emissions from radars. Modern fighters also have passive targeting modules in order to be able to engage targets without using their radar. Because the moment you turn your inboard radar on, you basically turn into a giant electromagnetic Christmas tree in the sky and all your neat features like RAM coating or RCS optimization go out the window.
>>65399501Bodied that fucking freak.
>>65399501Have some mercy, man. >>65399606Panel gaps like a 90s Saturn S-series.
>>65399612It is so bad that comparing it to those two is kind of a bad joke.
>>65399467Be the mothership of a loyal wingman drone swarmhttps://x.com/RealAirPower1/status/2084976737817858124#m
