>

I saw somewhere else they claimed it’s a stealth fighter but if they aren’t flying it over Ukraine that probably means it isn’t, right? If it’s a stealth design it shouldn’t be picked up on Ukraine AA systems.
Fighter jets have been supersonic for at least 60 years, why would they put that in the title? >

Makes it sound cooler and scarier. >

Like when they put semiautomatic in the title >

Semi automatic is scary, though.
Automatic and semi automatic guns didn’t exist until the 1880s. Like a century after the second amendment was written. 
You can still hunt and all that kinda shit with a bolt action rifle. But it’s a lot harder to get off enough shots to kill a classroom filled with kids. 
You know it’s true. >

The second amendment wasn't about hunting. >

I bet it wasn’t about killing schoolkids either >

As some other countries showed last year, you don't need a gun to do that. >

It’s certainly a lot harder, and less effective, without a gun. >

I would argue the opposite actually.. if a lunatics' goal is to harm as many people as possible then a gun even a fully automatic or full-on belt-fed is not the most effective tool for that. It Is simply the first tool people think of to use.  
The train of thought is not a reassuring one but I'm fairly sure those people who wish to harm will find a way to do so even if you remove all obvious tools and when they do.. I have a bad feeling it will be way worse.
I think we should shift towards a more secure school setup and maybe focus on mental health in this country. 
Deny access to those who would do harm at all.   Spend Time looking for issues that can become threats instead of worrying about what weapon they may chose. >

I sincerely disagree. Guns are easy violence, that’s the simple truth, and the point being made.
I live in a country that brought in reasonable gun control laws after a horrid shooting massacre, decades ago, without a single mass shooting event since. It’s been fantastic. We’ve had some people try using cars, or knives, and those events have been horrible, but relatively minor to any gun events that occur so frequently in the US.
Why? Because guns are easy. And most people in an unsettled frame of mind who seek violence as a means of expression will go with easy violence.
I’m not American. And trust me, looking in from the outside, I think your country’s obsession with guns is madness.
We have gun control, but it’s reasonable; I have a few friends who own guns, go hunting on weekends, visit shooting ranges, etc and they don’t complain, they enjoy their hobby. 
Americans like yourself are kinda weird. Sorry to say, and I’m sure you’re a great person otherwise. But yeah, it’s weird. >

Fighter jets have been supersonic for at least 60 years, why would they put that in the title? >

Makes it sound cooler and scarier. >

Like when they put semiautomatic in the title >

Semi automatic is scary, though.
Automatic and semi automatic guns didn’t exist until the 1880s. Like a century after the second amendment was written. 
You can still hunt and all that kinda shit with a bolt action rifle. But it’s a lot harder to get off enough shots to kill a classroom filled with kids. 
You know it’s true. >

The second amendment wasn't about hunting. >

I bet it wasn’t about killing schoolkids either >

As some other countries showed last year, you don't need a gun to do that. >

It’s certainly a lot harder, and less effective, without a gun. >

This moron thinks there’s no difference between someone even bringing a handgun to school vs an AR. >

No they get it, they’re just an asshole who’ll never admit there’s flaws in their “but it’s my second amendment right” stance. >

The article says that they are being flown in Russian airspace and being used to launch missiles into Ukraine.
They are afraid of flying these aircraft over Ukraine because they don’t want to risk them being shot down. >

Would be HORRIBLE for sales and Putin's ego. >

Its more because they have like, 4-5 operational ones. >

and two of them got killed in some fluke shootout with a stolen Tomcat >

Alexa, play Kenny Loggins. >

Playing Footloose, by Kenny Loggins. >

*playing Relax with Sax, by Kenny G >

Playing Danger Zone by Kenny Loggins >

Did you say, play “strangers moan” by Wendy Hopkins? >

Playing "strangers moan" by Wendick Foreskins >


Supersonic Combat Jet  

As opposed to what, a blimp?  How many subsonic combat jets exist? >

Su-25, A-10, Harrier if they’re still around. That’s about it. >

And those all fulfill an attack/CAS role... >

my Reformist Thunderbolt III “Sprey and Pray” has 4 air to air kills and only one was friendly fire >

"Sprey and pray" 💀💀💀💀 >

Somewhere out there Lazerpig just chuckled and can't explain why. >


Against fifth generation fighters?! >

… that have very narrow selection of modern smart munitions. 
And there’s like an entire dozen of them that are not test prototypes. >

*Half a dozen >

Maverick shot down two of these using a 50 year-old F-14 he stole moments before so I’m not that impressed. >

So, I don’t feel like that would be unrealistic in this battle space.
That cultist would fuck up the Russians for the right shot. >

The Tomcat/Pheonix concept is how air battles are fought now.  It was an exceptional weapons platform and is still brilliant in concept and execution. >

I'm a huge Tomcat fan, but I don't think anyone would say equipping the A models with TF30 engines was 'brilliant execution.' >

What’s wrong with equipping those engines on the A model? Genuine question. >

They were very underpowered and had a very slow spool up time (how fast the actual thrust increases after pilot input on the throttle).  Caused a lot of issues (deaths) on carrier landings where throttle responsiveness is critical.  For comparison F-14A with Tf-30s could not even get up in the air in a carrier launch without full afterburner, but the F-14Bs with the newer F-110 engines had so much thrust they were actually banned from using afterburner on the carrier as it was too powerful to be safely used on the deck.   The F-110s had enough thrust for the F-14B to actually accelerate when completely vertical. 
Additionally the Tf-30s were also extremely fuel inefficient, the F-14B engine upgrade actually massively increased range and loiter time.  Tf-30s also were incapable of providing true asymmetrical thrust which meant that flat spins were unrecoverable in the A model (which is how goose dies in top gun).  The B package included a asymmetric thrust limiter override that allowed the F-110 engines to be operated independently in order to recover from a flat spin. >

I honestly cannot imagine a plane as massive as the tomcat (in comparison to the F16 for example that is smaller and iirc able to accelerate while vertical) being able to accelerate while vertical… that’s insanely impressive. 
Haven’t seen either top gun (I know right? Im missing out and just haven’t made time for either yet), which model is used in both top guns, the A model? >

In top gun one they used actual F-14As with the coorporation of the navy, with the exception of shots where a tomcat is blown up in which case they used scale models.  For top gun 2 the in cockpit shots were done with an F-14A from a museum, but the exterior shots were a cgi model of an iranian export f14 which were essentially early A models with the tv pod and arresting hook removed. >


"...these missions have likely been limited to flying over Russian territory, launching long range air-to-surface or air-to-air missiles into Ukraine."

So they're using air superiority fighters as static launch platforms now?
What happened to the Tupolevs? >

Someone bombed their bases. >

Ewps. >

It’s a dog fight then >

Against 5th generation fighters? >

It’s not the plane, it’s the pilot >

You wouldn't think twice if I wasn't here. >

But you are >

Come on Mav, don’t think……..just do >

If their pilots and maintainers are anything like the rest of their military.... >

… they would have already sold the spare parts for vodka by now. >

flying them exclusively inside Russian airspace also keeps NATO or Ukranian radar from finding out that they are in fact not very stealthy. >

I wonder if they run Liebig reflectors like American stealth aircraft to allow them to operate in a non-stealth configuration for exactly that purpose. Then again, it's Russia...
I'm sure those fancy SAR satellites have had a peek at the SU-57. If they venture into Ukrainian airspace, I have every confidence it will be handed off to NATO in pieces. >


I wonder if they run Liebig reflectors like American stealth aircraft to allow them to operate in a non-stealth configuration for exactly that purpose. Then again, it's Russia...

Why would they do this? >

The aircraft's exact radar signature is kept secret, so that enemies don't know what to look for on their radar if they suspect they're up against US stealth jets. If a nation wanted to know what to look for, all they'd have to do is to show up to somewhere the jets are flying while not at war, and point a radar at them - or even just steal that data from someone else, possibly a US ally, who already did that, even incidentally. Running a reflector to purposely alter the aircraft's signature means you're not giving away that classified information every time you fly anywhere.
Without the reflector, in peacetime the jets would be limited only to flying places that you have complete control of every radar they might be in range of, so you can be sure that data doesn't get out. That's not a lot of places. >


Without the reflector, in peacetime the jets would be limited only to flying places that you have complete control of every radar they might be in range of, so you can be sure that data doesn't get out. That's not a lot of places.

Precisely why Turkey got booted from the F-35 program, couldn't have the F-35 whilst also operating Russian S-400 AD systems. >

Putin is like that annoying player in Age of Empires 2 that deploys trebuchets out of range and uses them to target villagers and monks. Then when you send a single cavalier to destroy it you hear the horn of doom.. >

I wish I could understand the reference. >

Great analogy! And great game >

Damn imagine one of these getting shot down and recovered by Ukraine, Putin would literally shit himself…again… >

It would be mig25 foxbat 2.0. >

At least the mig25 was produced in large quantities. >

Which was funny because the supersonic bomber they were designed to counter literally never made production as the US decided stealth was a more promising avenue than increasing the speed of their bombers >

I would be surprised if Russia had even 10 of these flying. After a very checkered development and flight test program that took over a decade (if not two), they were on the cusp of starting to build these in larger quantities when a test pilot either ejected or was killed in a crash of an early production jet. (Source: AviationWeek, which I’ve subscribed to for 30 years).
The whole program was delayed again for a year or two, then COVID hit. Maybe they squeaked out a dozen or so of these between then and when sanctions started to bite, but they don’t have squadrons of these things zooming around. 
Also, as an aircraft designed to be stealthy, and therefore have most of its armament carried internally, I’d be surprised if this jet could carry more than two long-range cruise missiles on its external hard points. Would love to see a picture of one these armed up before takeoff to see. 
tl;dr  Meh. Minimal impact on the war in Ukraine. >

It's minimal impact because it's by absolutely no means worth the expense to Russia.
But it's also virtually no risk other than expense to them.
They can carry 4 KH-59s externally.
Get in the air, shoot from outside Ukranian Air-to-Air response range within Russian territory, land, repeat.
At $2-3m per takeoff?  Probably not worth it. >

Interesting. I find it a bit comical that the KH-59 is listed as a “cruise missile” when it’s range is barely 150 miles. But I guess they can fly the Su-57 up near the Ukrainian border and release them.
It might be interesting to see what happens once the Patriot batteries are deployed. Is the Su-57 stealthy enough to evade it? Would the Russians be willing to test this out operationally? Even if the Felon can evade detection and tracking the presence of the Patriots close enough to the border might dissuade the RF from “f*cking around” lest they “find out.” >

These the ones they were too scared to use for the longest time in fear of getting them shot down? >

Junk article. The title is horrid, and the article is about the Su-57. Attacks from the Su-57 have been happening (rarely, but still every now and then), and at no point in time did they leave Russian airspace or enter contested airspace. Russia is still too afraid to use the Su-57 in actual combat. >

Clickbait. 
There have been supersonic jet fighters for decades.
The russian fighters are like toys compared to the F-35. >

Yeah but at least the Russians have numbers on their side! 
Hah, just kidding:
F-35 - 890+ built
Su-57 - 21 built, 10 of those test aircraft >

Everyone forgetting the F22 Raptor? Not hindered by space and function taken up by VTOL system.
Also, F22 is not exported to any other country. Watched the raptors at JBER air show. Parked raptors are roped off, you can't get within 6 feet; still can take pictures though which is awesome.
Oh yeah, forgot about thrust vectoring. Loved seeing them go wild at the air show. >


Also, F22 is not exported to any other country

Which means it gets exactly 0 press coverage hence people not really mentioning it. I love the look of it, no chance I will see it, due to me not being in the US. >

There are raptors in Japan and Poland. Hopefully one day you get to see them! >

"Advanced" lmao
The damn thing is built with woodscrews. >

But they are… SUPERSONIC!!! 🤣🤣 >

And they’re FIFTH-GENERATION FIGHTERS!!! >

AND THEY'VE GOT PILOTS IN THEM. THEY'RE ARMED WITH MISSILES! >

TWO WINGS. COUNT 'EM, BUD. >

Send Tom Cruise with a Tomcat