Can we please not let this become a Su-57 thread
Anyways, Meteor go brrr.
1 Like
Consider this for a second.
Whenever you mention woodscrews (RCS and Hornet are also keywords that work well) - it drives the die-hard Felon-Fanboys absolutely nutty. You are of course correct that production models are likely refined.
Does it remove the unfettered joy I get from winding up certain people who take themselves and a jet fighter too seriously? No.
The only serious thing I will say is that the F-35 has been proven as a stealthy platform going up against some incredibly dense IADS over the past two years.
The SU-57 has been kept WELL AWAY from contested areas - which you’d think wouldn’t be a problem if the stealth was as good as the manufacturers claim.
Topic is British weapons systems. Please stay on topic folk.
5 Likes
My frustration is simply that folk resorting to sledging preproduction opens up boring discussions of look how substandard preproduction thingos are across the board. Plenty to critique stuff over without looking at preproduction, for most anything really.
Seen evidence leaning both ways. It’s just hard to find information on it given the current circumstances in certain areas. Doesn’t overly help that certain economic issues are going to limit the deployment of it, compared to other platforms.
Aye, just peeved at the preproduction sledging. Goes for nigh anything, Ruski or Pommie, or even yank abominations. Was going to disappear back to making dinner after the comment.
Oky doke.
You started it showing the F-35!
Unfortunately, it is a weapon system in British use.
1 Like
No argument there. I’m still mourning the loss of the Tonkas - it’s a sore subject.
It only make you look bad and ignorant on the matter. Goes for every subject and not only the su57.
Tsk. Tsk. Stay on topic…
Goes for any topic
It’s a tragedy the British weren’t stubborn enough to give us a supersonic harrier. Do not care if f35 has thrust vectoring, it is ugly and unharrier-like.
I’m not super-sure on that front. They kept realistic in not even trying to push the Kestrel/Harrier supersonic or super-long-ranged. Even with bombload they weren’t trying to make it do too much with the tech they had at the time. Quite a sensible approach IMO.
They may well have gone and got one production ready - but it would have cost more, taken longer to produce and probably would suffer the same fate as TSR2. One of the things that saved Harrier as we know it was it squeaked in before a lot of the vicious defence cuts.
If you don’t like what I say then feel free to ignore me.
I didnt say i didnt like it. It just make you look bad.
Idc how you react or if you only believe only what fit you opinion.
Is there a reason you’ve swung into the thread?
Or was any mention of anything other than glowing praise for a certain Russian fighter sort of a summoning spell?
Couldn’t find another thread to dig themselves a hole, I’d wager.
Well - back to Harrier then!
A supersonic Harrier would’ve been great - but I don’t know if the money would have been there. That’s the basic take.
There is a reason and thats i follow most morvan and gunjob news on the weapons.
Its bad now to be interested on other countrys weapons ?
Hard to invest defensively after strip mining the country to sell it to yanks. That’s about as much as I can say on the topic whilst not contravening certain forum rules.
So annoying that 80s era AA systems can target missiles and bombs.
They just should not be able to do this.
It has just made the implementation of anti-radiation missiles for PVE completely pointless, even more so when all the AA systems in air RB and air SB are either radarless or just iron dome capable.