Russian Su-35 entered the top five most beautiful modern fighters according to the readers of the US media

The Russian Su-35 is recognized as one of the most beautiful modern fighters in the world according to readers of the American Defense Blog. The 4 ++ generation multipurpose fighter is on the second line of the rating.

According to a poll conducted by the US Defense Blog, the five most beautiful modern fighters included two American aircraft, two European and one Russian.

Readers placed the European fighter Eurofighter Typhoon on the fifth place in the rating, it got 5% of the votes. The American F-12E Strike Eagle fighter is in fourth place with 15%. The French Dassault Rafale climbed to the third line with 13% of the votes. The Russian Su-35 with 14% took the second line.

An unconditional victory by a large margin in the rating of the American magazine was taken by the American fifth-generation fighter F-22 Raptor. Voters gave this aircraft 40% of their votes. The aircraft was named "the best fighter in the world" capable of providing air superiority of the US Air Force.

A total of nine aircraft participated in the survey. The top five were not included: the American F / A-18E / F Super Hornet, the Chinese Chengdu J-20, the Russian Su-57 and the American F-35 Lightning II.

Earlier, another American publication, The National Interest, called the Russian Su-35 the main aircraft for gaining air superiority, but inferior to the F-22 and F-35.

Comments

[Destiny]

And I would give him the first place. Really handsome ...

[Orange bigg]

I would argue. In my opinion, the Su-57 is prettier, and the MiG-31 is nothing like that.

[volodimer]

And I would be for the MiG-25. The F-15 was licked off. The MiG-31 is more effective, but the 25th is still beautiful.

[ironic]

You just do not believe in fairy tales, you are an adult already. And so the Mig is aesthetic and the F-15 too.

[Bad_gr]

Quote: OrangeBigg

In my opinion, the Su-57 is prettier

[ironic]

Oh my god.

[ironic]

Yeah, frog for French paws dish with sauce. Here is this moment, yes.

[URAL72]

Tastes could not be discussed. But the Raptor is definitely not more beautiful than the Su-27, rather the opposite. Why did you forget Grippen and the MiG-29/35? Prettier than Eagle. In general, the rating is more patriotic than artistic.

[Orange bigg]

Here is another photo of the MiG-31.

[ironic]

This plane is aesthetic, arrowhead aesthetics.

[Artyom Karagodin]

And I like the Su-57 better.

[Rurikovich]

Well, poor, what to take from them
"inferior to the F-35". I don't know what kind of imbeciles you have to be to consider this caricature the most ...
Although ... what can you take from them ... God, when he wants to punish someone, deprives him of reason. Judging by what is happening in the American Ishteblishmint, all America has been punished
Personally, my opinion

[Kamchatsky]

"The cuckoo praises the rooster for praising the cuckoo ..."
An unconditional victory by a large margin in the rating of the American magazine was taken by the American fifth-generation fighter F-22 Raptor. Voters gave this aircraft 40% of their votes. The aircraft is named "the best in the world"

[volodimer]

The result was immediately clear. And the customer in this list has nothing special to offer from the modern. Although for me their F-16 is also harmonious. By the way, being on the list of Raphael and Eurofighter does not raise any questions for me. They are really pretty. How effective they are, this is not the subject of the "beautiful" rating. But the F-22 well from the word NO... Prettier than the F-117, but not much.

[ironic]

The F-16 is also hunchbacked.

[Incvizitor]

Well, the raptor is pretty handsome in the top ten, of course, he would have shoved it, of course, until su 27 and moment 31 (this one should be seen in reality, hefty) they didn't put a pregnant penguin far away, and that's okay

[Incvizitor]

In general, Su 34 always liked only not a fighter

[ironic]

Humpbacked nightmare.

[Bad_gr]

Quote: ironic

Humpbacked nightmare.

Do humpback birds hurt your eyes?

[ironic]

Some cut and now we compare warm with soft?

[oxymoron]

Beauty, apparently, is both an objective and a subjective concept. There are canons or laws of beauty that most people like and there are which some do not like.
Having looked at our, and especially foreign, comments on YouTube, you can see that the Su-27,30,35, etc. like a lot of people. Commentators point out the elegance of the glider, downright artistic value of the Su-35. In my opinion, the Su-35 is the most beautiful aircraft in the world.
This fact is also noted in the memoirs and books of pilots and designers: pilot Gennady Chergizov and academician Yevgeny Alexandrovich Fedosov.
And a few photos

[ironic]

Yeah, elegant hunchback. And then what is not a photo is more tin. Well, the penguin did not claim it. And geese are especially tough.

[Zug]

These "poor" avionics and computer systems have gone ten generations ahead

[asua164]

For 10 years? Yes, it is unlikely ... The electronic "filling" of the Su-35S should not be so much inferior to the avionics of potential competitors.
In addition, electronics is a capricious thing: electronic warfare means, the influence of atmospheric phenomena, solar activity, etc. very badly affect the performance of any electronic equipment.
Despite all the "bells and whistles".

[ironic]

It shouldn't, yes, but here ... and everything is so capricious, it is better on springs. They are eternal.

[Raven 95]

Comrade Zug did not mean 10 years, but 10 generations.
One generation - 25 years
25x10 = 250
We're 250 years behind!
About how!

[asua164]

Oh-oh-ay, everything is gone, everything is gone !!!

[3danimal]

For generations 10 in comparison with what? F-22? Eurofighter?
And
The same AFAR radar - no ..

[ironic]

It is purely functional, not particularly pretty and not particularly ugly. A sort of middle line in the aesthetics of forms.

[Pavel73]

I don’t know what is beautiful about the F-22 ... When the requirements for stealth came into conflict with aerodynamics, the aircraft began to lose their beauty. Soon they will turn into tailed pancakes. I would put the Su-35 in first place, and the F-1 in second!

[volodimer]

I agree, that's why I myself would not add the SU-57 to this list. I wrote above that I am more impressed by the MiG-25, because the F-15 is somewhat secondary for me.
It would be interesting to vote for the fighters of previous generations on the basis of the "most beautiful fighter" criterion. Usually, the rating is strongly influenced by the criterion of effectiveness. Maybe Roman will.

[2 Level Advisor]

but in general, if by beauty - there is no point in arguing, as they say - in taste and color, all markers are different ..

[volodimer]

Yes, I agree, but if the rating is voiced precisely according to this criterion, then let it be so, and not according to the principle: compare "small to soft". Otherwise, it turns out that we are comparing the effectiveness of one with the beauty of others.
Well, why not compare our "markers". Simply without regard to our estimates of the characteristics of the compared objects, but simply: who likes what more.

[2 Level Advisor]

Of our three for me: 1.SU-27 and heirs, 2.MiG-25, 3.MiG-31 ..

[2 Level Advisor]

I agree .. he, too .. if purely fighters, then the 2nd place is for him .. and the 3rd MiG-21 no longer know why, but he always liked the triangularity

[volodimer]

But what about the MiG-29, our youngest ... They are just handsome in the Cuban Diamond

[ironic]

Yeah, from below it looks like these, well, which are parachute suits ...

[ironic]

A friend of mine, when he was a professor in São Paulo, used to say to students - no argue about tastes, because you have no taste. For which he was known as the most "tactful" professor of the department.

[ironic]

With what, with what did they come into conflict?

[3danimal]

The 22nd is not particularly aerodynamic, no more than the Su-57.

[rocket757]

Earlier, another American publication, The National Interest, called the Russian Su-35 the main aircraft for gaining air superiority, but inferior to the F-22 and F-35.

Truth as always, somewhere, somewhere ...
So to say that time and events will put everything in their place, BUT, for the military sphere, it is better to confirm, extreme, do not look at all ... and so it will come down

[Aerodrome]

our planes, everything is pleasant to the eye.

[rocket757]

So that beauty, a matter of perception ... formidable beauty, somehow closer to the topic.

[volodimer]

Remember the classic: "Ugly planes don't fly." Maybe Tupolev did not say this, and the flying irons from Lockheed Martin even refute ... But we know how to do it right

[Bad_gr]

[Center]

[Center]

Well, which one is more beautiful?

[credo]

Quote: Bad_gr

Well, which one is more beautiful?

There is even nothing to argue about, the SU-35 is not in competition - a beautiful "bird".

[volodimer]

Seriously??!!!
The question asked
Axiom

[ironic]

Not a single aesthetic aircraft.

[3danimal]

This plane?

[Victorio]

) su-34 to the top!

[Fitter65]

Russian Su-35 is recognized as one of the most beautiful modern fighters in the world

Well. here the sin will not agree. although the Su-27, the "dad" of this handsome man, is also handsome.

[Andrew3000]

I used to be young and handsome, but now I am only handsome! .....

[ironic]

The same humpback with a raskoryak.

[Bad_gr]

Quote: ironic

The same humpback with a raskoryak.

The Su-27 hull has one and a half times more lift than the F-15 hull. In addition, the Su-27 has an aerodynamic quality of 11,6, and the F-15 has an aerodynamic quality of 10. In other words, the Su-27 is aerodynamically more perfect than the F-15, which seems to be not humpbacked, albeit with humpbacked ( like everyone else) with wings.

[ironic]

Will we also take into account the difference in size and weight? And was it really about lifting power? And at the expense of humpback, everything is more than transparent here.

[Bad_gr]

Quote: ironic

Will we also take into account the difference in size and weight?

McDonnell Douglas F-15E Strike Eagle
Crew: 2 person
Length: ----------------------------------- 19,4 m
Wingspan: ------------------------ 13,05 m
Height: ----------------------------------- 5,63 m
Wing area: ----------------------- 56,5 m²
Empty weight: -------------------------- 14 300 kg
Curb weight: ---------------- 28 440 kg
Maximum takeoff weight: - 36 700 kg
Fuel weight: -------------------------- 5 952 kg (in internal tanks)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Su-35C
Crew: 1 people
Length: ----------------------------------------- 21,9 m
Wingspan: ------------------------------ 14,75 m
Height: ----------------------------------------- 5,9 m
Wing area: ---------------------------- 62,04 m²
Weight:
empty: ----------------------------------- 19 kg [000]
normal takeoff weight (2 × R77 + 2 × R-73E): 25 300 kg
maximum takeoff weight: ---- 34 kg
fuel weight: -------------------------- 11 500 kg (in internal tanks)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Su-30
Crew: 2 person
Length: ----------------------------- 21,9 m
Height: ----------------------------- 6,36 m
Wingspan: ------------------- 14,7 m
Wing area: ---------------- 62m²
Weight:
empty: ----------------------- 18 800 kg
normal takeoff: --- 24 900 kg
maximum takeoff: - 34 kg
maximum takeoff: ---- 38 800 kg
fuel: ------------------------ 9 640 kg (in internal tanks)

[ironic]

Well, as I actually hinted.

[Bad_gr]

Quote: ironic

Well, as I actually hinted.

That is, your phrase

Quote: ironic

Will we also take into account the difference in size and weight?

it should be understood that they are practically the same in size and weight?

[ironic]

No, exactly the opposite.

[Freedim]

It would be strange if US readers put Russian planes first and not their own ... Besides, beauty is a subjective concept. Moreover, if the "raptor" is out of production, then it is no longer modern. Yes, and all of the above can be called fighters with a stretch ... all multipurpose.

[didra]

If without stereotypes, then beauty is an objective concept.

[ironic]

But looking at it is subjective.

[didra]

Not the view is subjective, but the attitude of the interpreter. The concept of beauty is based on the concept of measure - relationship or the principle of the golden section, in other words.

[ironic]

The look is personal, therefore it is subjective by definition. The golden ratio is only one of many principles for constructing an aesthetic form.

[didra]

You can substantiate your <2> statements. Define, so to speak?

[ironic]

A person possesses only a subjective form of differentiation of anything and does not possess objective abilities in anything, even in fixing the fact of his own existence.

Would you like more examples of patterns in aesthetics?

[didra]

Yes. this also needs to be justified.

[ironic]

Here are ten basic algorithms for composition in photography:

Symmetry
Golden ratio and rule of thirds
Fibonacci spiral
Golden triangles
Patterns and textures
Negative space
Tight cropping
Framing
Diagonals
Triangle rule

[didra]

First, if you stop and think about it, you will see that you have given ten examples of correlation problems.

[didra]

Secondly, in addition to postclassical theories of scientific knowledge, there are others. In philosophy (since antiquity), two aesthetic questions have always been worked out - what is the nature of beauty and what is the mechanism and nature of its perception. Most of the thinkers involved in the development of theories of beauty just insist on its universal nature. ...

[didra]

Thirdly, differentiation is a logical operation, and any teacher of logic or epistemology will tell you that the very process of human grasping of the continuous and unified reality of the world lies outside of logic (outside) and therefore cannot be deferred.

[ironic]

Why did it happen? The comprehension of continuity is integral logic. The process is asymptotic and endless. We realize it recursively, in a stack, and by means of self-fulfilling predictions. And again, the reality is different for everyone, even though the degree of correlation between its perception is quite high.

[didra]

As for integral logic and “self-fulfilling prophecy”. Do not you think that it is a little impolite to use in a conversation about one of the key questions of philosophy and this is the main question of scientific epistemology, also a philosophical discipline - the terminology of an unconditionally correct sociological theory and terminology of the PCB designer.

However, we have deviated from the topic a little. Initially, in our conversation, it was about the perception of beauty, and not about knowledge as such. These are related questions though.
This topic, in my opinion, can also be closed :). Here is a link to an article on aesthetics from the IP RAS encyclopedia
-https://iphlib.ru/library/collection/newphilenc/document/HASHc26f3a9b6526f7ca3ca4c2 Просвещайтесь.

[ironic]

But the creators of AI do not disdain and do the right thing. Politeness is not at all to repeat in an insinuating voice "sorry but" and to build sentences in the subjunctive mood. After the first obzat, in which people mixed in a heap of horses and volleys of thousands of guns, I decided that such enlightenment was not good for me. The black sun shines. By the way, there is such a term, the meaning of which is that under the most plausible pretexts and under the shadow of the most famous and respected paradigm, the construction is replaced by destruction.

[didra]

Sir, during our entire conversation, you have never fully and distinctly answered any question asked. This characterizes both the person and his thinking. Slide like a wet bar of soap across the table.

[ironic]

What is the question, this is the answer. Start by asking yourself why my questions are slippery, like a bar of soap on the table? You started for impoliteness, I pointed out to you directly who considers your appeals illegitimate. So what's wrong? It's like that. Are you looking for someone who is trying to cheat you on the market for a kilo of fruit? Well, so you see it. As one philosopher used to say, say well and it will be fine.

[didra]

Here is your thesis: "1) The look is personal, therefore it is subjective by definition. 2) The golden ratio is only one of many principles
building an aesthetic form. "
Here is my question: “Can you substantiate your TWO statements. Define, so to speak? "
Only two).
Here is your answer: "Personality has only a subjective form of differentiation of anything else ..."
According to the normal, further it should have been: because or because, because. Well, and some kind of argument, not a conclusion of the statement from itself, vague generalizations and a link to a manual for Photoshop. This is aerobatics, of course. Some other AI, subjective morality, everyday relitivism - thought poured down the tree. Thank you for the comedy.
PS
They would say right away - I believe so and that's it. There would be no questions. And I have no complaints against you.

[ironic]

If you are about the role of religious paradigms, then even in those I, as a representative of the corresponding people, were not commanded to believe, commanded to know. Based on what you have written, it follows that you do not know such a rather trivial factor as the fact that a person does not have any sensory abilities that are not based on the principle of comparison with a certain standard, does not have a person and thinking abilities that allow him to conduct an analysis different from one or another comparison method ... What a person cannot compare (or not with anything), he is not able to grasp at the level of feelings, nor comprehend at the level of thinking. This unambiguously characterizes the impossibility of an objective assessment of anything. Or more simply, reality is completely incomprehensible to a person, both physical and philosophical.

Let's take you as an example. You have nothing to compare my previous answer to you in your own thinking system, so all that you understood from it is something familiar about a Photoshop manual and some kind of AI (it even amused, a person talks about a subject / object and ... some kind of AI ). Any subjective argument is a conclusion from oneself because a person does not have a system of argumentation built without a recursive principle. Therefore, the Photoshop manual is not from me, this is from you, this is your argument, not mine, you invented it from yourself.

[didra]

I say - a bar of soap. For a change, you take a dictionary (preferably a philosophical one) and look (carefully only) what the terms you use mean. How they are defined.
system:
principle:
argument:
subject:
object:
etc.
And if you are lucky, then you will truncate, rummage, cut through, understand, experience insight (like Paul the Apostle), grab what is already in front of your nose. And if not, keep collecting the cons.

[ironic]

Well that is we just switched to trolling, we will not check it for you ... Actually, I have been interested in this for several years, so I have taken it several times and far from only dictionaries. Everything is fine with the definition of terms. I do not rely on luck, I am a strict practitioner by profession and education. Brothers truncate, and I take note. Of course, I myself am constantly learning to understand, but I am already teaching others, according to the service life. And since I am also a chief by position, I also use what I have gained in the leadership. The insights of the most successful herbalife specialist in modern history, Saul, are, of course, both theoretically and practically cool, but I have other goals in life. Judging by your reaction, this does not lie in front of your nose. You can try to troll me some more ...

PS As for the minuses, given the personal level of many bearers of gold shoulder straps here on the forum, the minuses are perceived exactly the opposite.

[didra]

The Apostle Paul, unlike you, was not engaged in self-presentation. And the disadvantages are given to you just because you slide. You do not listen to the arguments and do not argue yourself, but present yourself.

[didra]

And here's another. Not everything is in order with the terminology (on which you are supposedly interested). If you are a practitioner, stay out of theory.

[ironic]

And if you are only a theoretician, then do not complain that your legs are parting, the professorship of sour cabbage soup is not held in high esteem today.

[didra]

Well, you are a comedian. It's YOU that slide, I stand firmly and calmly.

[ironic]

So this is your reflection of sliding, I don’t think about it, and I don’t have such reflection. And yes, you are not a comedian, you are boring and dreary.

[ironic]

Da Saul was talented enough as a distributor to offer the product in the third person. All these graters are for slippery from their own sickness. And the minuses here are massively distributed from inferiority complexes. It would even be a shame if people with such a level of thinking gave me pluses.

[didra]

But essentially?

[ironic]

Those. you also the meaning of the word "creature" to interpret?
Specifically, they even failed to discuss one pretense.

[ironic]

With the same success one can speak of the universality of morality, but its introduction is just as subjective.

[didra]

We were not going to talk about morality. It is all the more obvious that we generally speak different languages.

[ironic]

We talked about versatility, I gave an example. In the same language, but with different intentions, you even get confused in this.

[ironic]

And what does it hinder / help?

[didra]

So all the best.
PS
One of the planes that you called beautiful, it still seems to have a small hump.

[ironic]

And you miss it. You have a habit of scolding, hence they seem to hunch over.

[didra]

I am sorry, could not answer earlier. Here are links to two sites dedicated to the rule of the golden ratio.
http://314159.ru/bel/bel1.htm
https://fb.ru/article/323642/chisla-fibonachchi-i-zolotoe-sechenie-vzaimosvyaz
An image of the Vitruvian man with a snail and triangles, you can find it yourself if you want.
I consider this question closed to myself.

[3danimal]

Raptors were produced as needed.
With the Su-57 will also be approximately. An expensive but efficient car.

[Guru]

An unconditional victory by a large margin in the rating of the American magazine was taken by the American fifth-generation fighter F-22 Raptor.

Well, the Americans, yes, according to the American edition of the Defense Blog, put the Su-35 in first place.

[volodimer]

Here I thought, in which poll would I myself give first place to a sample of foreign technology?
For example, beauty. This is the least "politicized" criterion and there is less influence of "friend or foe"
I defined "Tanks" for myself. The leopard really looks really cool.
And short-barreled. Here, domestic samples, as if they will not fall into 10k.
Perhaps also the category "surface ships",

[Bad_gr]

Quote: volodimer

Here I thought, in which poll would I give first place myself?

Probably, you wanted to say "a sample of foreign MILITARY equipment". Since, in the civilian sphere, ours here do not shine at all (although there are exceptions).

[volodimer]

Of course, namesake, you understood correctly

[volodimer]

Recently, we have lost almost all other areas where we can be proud of anything.
And space and sports as well. The ballet is still going on.

[Ros 56]

In taste and color, as they say, the law is not written for fools. I apologize for being rude.

[Skay]

And I like the Su-30 ...

And like MIG-31! But it attracts not so much with its beauty as with its power.

[ironic]

Here is the 31st, yes, and this is the parade of scaliosis.

[Grits]

Quote: ironic

From the 31st yes, and this is the Scalio parade

For me, the MiG-25 is more beautiful than the MiG-31. More graceful and fast-paced

[ironic]

Is accepted.

[Archivist Vasya]

From the point of view of aesthetics / beauty, the Su-35 is certainly an order of magnitude more beautiful than the Su-57, but the Su-47 "Berkut" looks even better and more extravagant:

[Sergey_G_M]

Strange for the Americans, I like their F-16s more than Eurofighter and Rafale.

[Andrew3000]

I used to be young and handsome, but now I’m only handsome! ...

[Andrei Nikolaevich]

The plane, as a wife is chosen. Beauty alone is not enough.

[Thompson]

F-15 I don't like it at all! There is no harmony in it.
The F-16 is much nicer.
But in beauty there is no equal to our SU fighters !!!

[ironic]

Well, yes, the humpbacked 16th is more beautiful, and the humpbacked and crooked Sushki are even more beautiful ... And Baba Yaga is generally a model!

[ironic]

I already wrote that if we speak for aesthetics, then I can understand when the F-15 and / or the Mig-31 are called beautiful, but when a hunchbacked Drying or a chisel is knocked out, when viewed from the side, Raptor ..., well then the question immediately arises where did these people first hear the word aesthetics? And from whom?

[ironic]

Here's the aesthetic plane:

And so:

[Raven 95]

Is there an American rating where the American is not in the first place?

[kytx]

IMHO Mig23 - just handsome

from the memoirs of a Dutch mercenary who fought in Angola (not literally)
the best plane is a moment23
from 10000 meters we dived at a target with engines at idle - in this mode, the plane is not audible
then reset and handle
you lose consciousness from overload and come to your senses again at an altitude of about 10000
unforgettable feeling
once we learned that an enemy detachment entered the village
the village was bombed in one moment23 at night
dropped cluster bombs
then reconnaissance entered the village and reported that they found more than 200 people killed, the rest were either wounded or severely shell-shocked and completely incapable of combat

[Konnick]

As Tupolev said: "Only beautiful airplanes can fly well"

[zenion]

At one time I really liked the Yak-28 plane. A real handsome man.