New coating & look for F-35s coming later this year

Design and construction
  • Author
  • Message
Offline
User avatar

steve2267

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2532
  • Joined: 12 Jun 2016, 17:36

Unread post29 Nov 2019, 23:21

mixelflick wrote:I'm not sure why, but the Russians seem to have better/more diverse paint schemes than their US counterparts. Take for example these camo patterns on the SU-57. I find them very unique, even if I'm not sure they're effective.


So first you say "seem to have better..." then you add "not sure they're effective."

Which is it?
Take an F-16, stir in A-7, dollop of F-117, gob of F-22, dash of F/A-18, sprinkle with AV-8B, stir well + bake. Whaddya get? F-35.
Offline

mixelflick

Elite 4K

Elite 4K

  • Posts: 4004
  • Joined: 20 Mar 2010, 10:26
  • Location: Parts Unknown

Unread post31 Dec 2019, 14:07

steve2267 wrote:
mixelflick wrote:I'm not sure why, but the Russians seem to have better/more diverse paint schemes than their US counterparts. Take for example these camo patterns on the SU-57. I find them very unique, even if I'm not sure they're effective.


So first you say "seem to have better..." then you add "not sure they're effective."

Which is it?


Both.

To my eye, they seem to be better/more effective. But I'm just a civilian/casual observer, so unsure as to the actual effectivness of said camo schemes...
Offline
User avatar

steve2267

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2532
  • Joined: 12 Jun 2016, 17:36

Unread post31 Dec 2019, 16:11

mixelflick wrote:
steve2267 wrote:
mixelflick wrote:I'm not sure why, but the Russians seem to have better/more diverse paint schemes than their US counterparts. Take for example these camo patterns on the SU-57. I find them very unique, even if I'm not sure they're effective.


So first you say "seem to have better..." then you add "not sure they're effective."

Which is it?


Both.

To my eye, they seem to be better/more effective. But I'm just a civilian/casual observer, so unsure as to the actual effectivness of said camo schemes...


Oh, ok. It read to me as if you were saying "they are better" and "they are not effective".
Take an F-16, stir in A-7, dollop of F-117, gob of F-22, dash of F/A-18, sprinkle with AV-8B, stir well + bake. Whaddya get? F-35.
Offline
User avatar

ricnunes

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2714
  • Joined: 02 Mar 2017, 14:29

Unread post31 Dec 2019, 17:52

mixelflick wrote:
steve2267 wrote:
mixelflick wrote:I'm not sure why, but the Russians seem to have better/more diverse paint schemes than their US counterparts. Take for example these camo patterns on the SU-57. I find them very unique, even if I'm not sure they're effective.


So first you say "seem to have better..." then you add "not sure they're effective."

Which is it?


Both.

To my eye, they seem to be better/more effective.


I'm curious about why do you think that the Su-57 camo schemes are or should be more effective than for example the camo scheme of the F-35 (or other US aircraft like the F-22)?
I'm asking this because by looking at the pictures that you previously shared it seems to me that the Su-57 camo schemes offer a much bigger contrast against the background (or most backgrounds) this when compared to for example the F-35 camo/paint schemes and as such being "less effective" for the intended purpose (which is to provide "camouflage").

IMO, I can only see one kind of background where those Su-57 camo schemes could offer some advantages which would over Arctic regions (and therefore a minority among Earth's surfaces/terrains).
“Active stealth” is what the ignorant nay sayers call ECM and pretend like it’s new.
Offline

squirrelshoes

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 121
  • Joined: 08 Nov 2016, 23:53

Unread post31 Dec 2019, 23:45

Given SU-57s will mainly be performing in air shows I'm sure the fancier camo is suitable.
Offline
User avatar

XanderCrews

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 6413
  • Joined: 16 Oct 2012, 19:42

Unread post01 Jan 2020, 15:51

squirrelshoes wrote:Given SU-57s will mainly be performing in air shows I'm sure the fancier camo is suitable.



yup.

isnt it odd, that the F-35, F-22, and SH all have big orders and everyone said especially F-35 that they're built for war, but Russian aircraft are built to do good at airshows, look pretty and try attract attention and orders? isn't that weird?
Choose Crews
Offline

mixelflick

Elite 4K

Elite 4K

  • Posts: 4004
  • Joined: 20 Mar 2010, 10:26
  • Location: Parts Unknown

Unread post02 Jan 2020, 15:37

I'm curious about why do you think that the Su-57 camo schemes are or should be more effective than for example the camo scheme of the F-35 (or other US aircraft like the F-22)?
I'm asking this because by looking at the pictures that you previously shared it seems to me that the Su-57 camo schemes offer a much bigger contrast against the background (or most backgrounds) this when compared to for example the F-35 camo/paint schemes and as such being "less effective" for the intended purpose (which is to provide "camouflage").

IMO, I can only see one kind of background where those Su-57 camo schemes could offer some advantages which would over Arctic regions (and therefore a minority among Earth's surfaces/terrains).[/quote]

In several photos I've seen, they appear to blend into the background better. In a few others, not so much so I suppose it's where you're flying...

As to the "built for war" point that was brought up... a lot more goes into it. I think civilian and even some military leadership are always going to be impressed by airshow stunts. One would hope any civilian leader would leave the final recommendation to his pilots, but that's probably not always the case.

I think the world looks at US combat aircraft as the Rolls Royce of what they can buy. We certainly aren't the lowest cost option though (in most cases), that's for sure. That, coupled with real world results in various conflicts probably drives most of the buys. Also, Russia doesn't seem to have 1.) as many relationships and 2.) as tightly knit relationships with various countries the US does.

They will emphasize a cheaper pricetag, but the old adage usually rings true: You get what you pay for..
Offline
User avatar

ricnunes

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2714
  • Joined: 02 Mar 2017, 14:29

Unread post02 Jan 2020, 19:01

mixelflick wrote:In several photos I've seen, they appear to blend into the background better. In a few others, not so much so I suppose it's where you're flying...


Well in most of the photos/paint schemes that I've seen I don't see the aircraft (Su-57) blending better against the background being it a ground or air backgrounds. There's could be exceptions (like the Arctic that I previously mentioned) but then again those would be exceptions and not the rule.
But then again, I guess that this could be one of those things like the "beauty is in the eye of the beholder".


mixelflick wrote:I think the world looks at US combat aircraft as the Rolls Royce of what they can buy. We certainly aren't the lowest cost option though (in most cases), that's for sure. That, coupled with real world results in various conflicts probably drives most of the buys. Also, Russia doesn't seem to have 1.) as many relationships and 2.) as tightly knit relationships with various countries the US does.

They will emphasize a cheaper pricetag, but the old adage usually rings true: You get what you pay for..


Actually I disagree a bit with that assessment above (US combat aircraft being the "Rolls Royce" of combat aircraft).
IMO, combat aircraft must first be looked into a Western and Eastern perspective, this even before looking at the aircraft being from X or Y country individually.

So if you want to buy Western, this due to several reasons such as the following:
1- Due to geopolitical alliances/politics.
2- And, due to Western Aircraft almost always having more advanced avionics and sensors.

Then you'll have 2 "sub-options":
1- Buy from the USA
2- Or, buy European

From the 2 (two) sub-options above the cheaper option is usually (not always granted but usually nonetheless) buying from the USA.
So buying from the USA is in this perspective and again IMO, hardly a "Rolls Royce choice".

Of course that buying Russian is usually (I would even say: but perhaps not always) cheaper than buying Western, including from the USA and of course from any European country. But then again, this "cheaper option" comes with the following costs:
1- These combat aircraft usually (if not almost always) come with inferior avionics and sensors.
2- Usually requires a more complex and expensive maintenance.
3- It puts somehow the purchasing country farther away in political terms from the US and West.
“Active stealth” is what the ignorant nay sayers call ECM and pretend like it’s new.
Offline

mixelflick

Elite 4K

Elite 4K

  • Posts: 4004
  • Joined: 20 Mar 2010, 10:26
  • Location: Parts Unknown

Unread post03 Jan 2020, 18:11

Yes, I would agree with most of that. I guess when I said "rolls royce" I was thinking more along the lines of avionics and well, craftsmanship. The avionics are pretty self explanatory, we seem to be a generaton ahead of the Russian birds (I didn't consider European aircraft, which was a mistake). On the craftsmanship, western aircraft seem to be more uniformally built. Meaning once you get past the first 3rd of Russian aircraft (going nose to tail), the last 2/3rds show sloppy welding etc.. lOn Western aircraft, the rivets etc. are consistent, nose to tail.

The F-35 has the smoothest look, it's really beautiful (especially from the bottom, IMO). Sets it apart as something new something different...
Offline

sprstdlyscottsmn

Elite 4K

Elite 4K

  • Posts: 4825
  • Joined: 10 Mar 2006, 01:24
  • Location: Phoenix, Az, USA

Unread post03 Jan 2020, 18:48

mixelflick wrote:
The F-35 has the smoothest look, it's really beautiful (especially from the bottom, IMO). Sets it apart as something new something different...


Shots of them flying belly up look like the flow of water over rocks. Beautifully shrink wrapped curves around the inlets and munitions.
"Spurts"

-Pilot
-Aerospace Engineer
-Army Medic
-FMS Systems Engineer
Offline
User avatar

ricnunes

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2714
  • Joined: 02 Mar 2017, 14:29

Unread post03 Jan 2020, 19:06

mixelflick wrote:Yes, I would agree with most of that. I guess when I said "rolls royce" I was thinking more along the lines of avionics and well, craftsmanship. The avionics are pretty self explanatory, we seem to be a generaton ahead of the Russian birds (I didn't consider European aircraft, which was a mistake). On the craftsmanship, western aircraft seem to be more uniformally built. Meaning once you get past the first 3rd of Russian aircraft (going nose to tail), the last 2/3rds show sloppy welding etc.. lOn Western aircraft, the rivets etc. are consistent, nose to tail.

The F-35 has the smoothest look, it's really beautiful (especially from the bottom, IMO). Sets it apart as something new something different...


Oh, I see.
With "Rolls Royce" I was thinking more into the lines of being a 'luxury' (costly/very expensive/for the very rich only) and not about craftsmanship. As such I definitely misunderstood your post, sorry.

So, yes in that regard I certainly agree with you.
“Active stealth” is what the ignorant nay sayers call ECM and pretend like it’s new.
Previous

Return to F-35 Design & Construction

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests