SU-57: On hold for a decade

Unread postPosted: 28 Nov 2017, 15:15
by mixelflick
Sounds like they finally acknowledged reality: Just prototypes until at least 2027. I can only imagine what this means for India. I'd think given this news, they're 100% out and now really hurting as China's J-31
/J-20 start to enter service...

http://warisboring.com/russia-is-haltin ... -a-decade/

Re: SU-57: On hold for a decade

Unread postPosted: 28 Nov 2017, 16:57
by neptune
deleted

Re: SU-57: On hold for a decade

Unread postPosted: 28 Nov 2017, 18:27
by zerion
There is a thread for this sort of thing.

Re: SU-57: On hold for a decade

Unread postPosted: 28 Nov 2017, 20:18
by juretrn
Isn't Izd. 30 starting flight testing sometime next year? Surely those engines will be ready before 2027 rolls around?
WiB talking out of their a-holes, as usual?

Re: SU-57: On hold for a decade

Unread postPosted: 28 Nov 2017, 23:02
by nn8734
If WiB is accurate, the SU 57 will enter service around the same time PCA is getting off the ground. Wonder if they are just waiting on I30 engines to mature or are looking to make design changes to the airframe and/or avionics?

Otherwise it will be hopelessly outclassed by the raptor, f35 and PCA but probably still be competitive with the J20.

Re: SU-57: On hold for a decade

Unread postPosted: 29 Nov 2017, 00:01
by zerion
juretrn wrote:Isn't Izd. 30 starting flight testing sometime next year? Surely those engines will be ready before 2027 rolls around?
WiB talking out of their a-holes, as usual?

They have a decent source.
http://www.ponarseurasia.org/memo/russi ... -2018-2027

Re: SU-57: On hold for a decade

Unread postPosted: 29 Nov 2017, 00:14
by popcorn
No worries. Russia will simply reclassify it as 6Gen.

Re: SU-57: On hold for a decade

Unread postPosted: 29 Nov 2017, 02:42
by skyward
Russia is just waiting for India to fund the project.

Re: SU-57: On hold for a decade

Unread postPosted: 29 Nov 2017, 17:02
by mixelflick
popcorn wrote:No worries. Russia will simply reclassify it as 6Gen.


Give that man a cigar!

Sounds like that's exactly what they have planned :)

https://thediplomat.com/2017/11/russia- ... ghter-jet/

"Russia’s first indigenously designed and built fifth-generation stealth fighter, the Su-57, could be turned into a sixth-generation fighter aircraft, the former head of the Russian Aerospace Force, Viktor Bondarev told TASS news agency on November.

“This is actually a splendid plane and it can embrace both fifth-and sixth-generation features. It has huge modernization potential,” Bondarev, now chairman of the Federation Council Defense and Security Committee, said. “Importantly, it is the best among the existing versions by its stealth characteristics. It incorporates all the best that is available in modern aviation science both in Russia and in the world,” he added."

I still remember when Putin claimed it be operational in 2013 :mrgreen:

Re: SU-57: On hold for a decade

Unread postPosted: 29 Nov 2017, 17:26
by XanderCrews
popcorn wrote:No worries. Russia will simply reclassify it as 6Gen.



Lol right on

Re: SU-57: On hold for a decade

Unread postPosted: 29 Nov 2017, 17:28
by XanderCrews
Remember folks, Pakfa was going to be Ivan showing the West how fifth gen is done

Lol.

Where is haavalra?

Re: SU-57: On hold for a decade

Unread postPosted: 29 Nov 2017, 18:02
by durahawk
XanderCrews wrote:
popcorn wrote:No worries. Russia will simply reclassify it as 6Gen.


Lol right on


6th gen huh? I guess the SU-57 will join the ranks of the Gripen of Sweetman lore. :mrgreen:

In all seriousness though, the prospects don't look great for Mother Russia developing a competent 5th gen fighter on a GDP less than that of Italy... at least anytime soon as oil prices remain low. Especially without India acting as the sugar daddy.

Re: SU-57: On hold for a decade

Unread postPosted: 29 Nov 2017, 18:23
by mixelflick
durahawk wrote:
XanderCrews wrote:
popcorn wrote:No worries. Russia will simply reclassify it as 6Gen.


Lol right on


6th gen huh? I guess the SU-57 will join the ranks of the Gripen of Sweetman lore. :mrgreen:

In all seriousness though, the prospects don't look great for Mother Russia developing a competent 5th gen fighter on a GDP less than that of Italy... at least anytime soon as oil prices remain low. Especially without India acting as the sugar daddy.


Wow! That point about Italy really puts things in perspective!! It seems ruble reality is now hitting the Russians...

1) No SU-57 for at least a decade
2.) The S-500 isn't coming anytime soon
3.) Building TU-160M2's vs PAK DA's
4.) No more super-carrier

Triaging this would be interesting. So they fly the PAK FA prototype in 2010. APA Kopp/Goon go ballistic and proclaim America's stealth monopoly has ended. F-35 is panned as "double inferior" to Russian/Chinese Flankers, nevermind this new Russian wonder bird. 7 years on we're told it'll be another decade before PAK FA/SU-57 enters service.

Shazam.

Meanwhile F-35's roll off the production lines in increasing numbers and are getting cheaper and cheaper. In 10 years they'll be what, 1,000's of F-35's proliferating around the globe? We have reached a defining moment in the new arms race: The Chinese are a far greater threat to our military superiority vs. the Russians.

No wonder the F-22 driver I spoke with at a recent airshow was far more concerned with them/the J-20 than the SU-57...

Re: SU-57: On hold for a decade

Unread postPosted: 29 Nov 2017, 23:20
by milosh
http://www.vladtime.ru/polit/621382

Su-57 is probable on ice while PAK-DA is on deicing, Tu-160M2 price is reason for PAK-DA. Price of modernisation of Tu-160 on M2 level is 50million dollars that is without making totally new airframe.

Re: SU-57: On hold for a decade

Unread postPosted: 30 Nov 2017, 01:27
by nutshell
RuAF giving up.

F35 so good it doesnt even need to fire a single missile to achieve air superiority :mrgreen:

Air dominance through superior... development roadmap.

P.s.: so, su57 ioc just in time to watch the bees shooting lasers. Lol.

Re: SU-57: On hold for a decade

Unread postPosted: 30 Nov 2017, 02:07
by nn8734
mixelflick wrote:
popcorn wrote:No worries. Russia will simply reclassify it as 6Gen.



https://thediplomat.com/2017/11/russia- ... ghter-jet/



“This is actually a splendid plane and it can embrace both fifth-and sixth-generation features. It has huge modernization potential,” Bondarev, now chairman of the Federation Council Defense and Security Committee, said. “Importantly, it is the best among the existing versions by its stealth characteristics. It incorporates all the best that is available in modern aviation science both in Russia and in the world,” he added." :mrgreen:


The Russians are proving themselves to be nothing short of delusional with those statements. It’s highly unlikely WE will field a true sixth generation fighter anytime before 2040 (PCA will likely be a 5.5 gen, at least at first when it comes on line in the next decade), let alone Russia.

Agree with an earlier post that China is much more of a concern than the Russians.

Re: SU-57: On hold for a decade

Unread postPosted: 30 Nov 2017, 04:06
by XanderCrews
nutshell wrote:RuAF giving up.

F35 so good it doesnt even need to fire a single missile to achieve air superiority :mrgreen:

Air dominance through superior... development roadmap.

P.s.: so, su57 ioc just in time to watch the bees shooting lasers. Lol.



Lol

Where was that Aussie who was telling us this thing was like a stealthy foxbat that could fly at 80000 ft? And we didn't have a chance.

Where is the Rafale fanboy who was talking us that 5th generation engines aren't special or different in any way?

Re: SU-57: On hold for a decade

Unread postPosted: 30 Nov 2017, 05:12
by popcorn
Hmmm... nothing on Keypubs?

Re: SU-57: On hold for a decade

Unread postPosted: 30 Nov 2017, 15:13
by milosh
mixelflick wrote:
popcorn wrote:No worries. Russia will simply reclassify it as 6Gen.


Give that man a cigar!

Sounds like that's exactly what they have planned :)

https://thediplomat.com/2017/11/russia- ... ghter-jet/

"Russia’s first indigenously designed and built fifth-generation stealth fighter, the Su-57, could be turned into a sixth-generation fighter aircraft, the former head of the Russian Aerospace Force, Viktor Bondarev told TASS news agency on November.


That explain a lot. New head of Russian AF isn't from AF but from army and he want what boots on ground need, those are UAV&UCAV and more fighter bombers (Su-30 and Su-34).

I think that is wrong because Su-57 could be base for other fighter types not just Russian F-22 equivalent (more less pure A-A machine).

Re: SU-57: On hold for a decade

Unread postPosted: 30 Nov 2017, 15:47
by XanderCrews
milosh wrote:I think that is wrong because Su-57 could be base for other fighter types not just Russian F-22 equivalent (more less pure A-A machine).



You mean "compromised" by "multi-role"??

:)

Re: SU-57: On hold for a decade

Unread postPosted: 30 Nov 2017, 17:52
by mixelflick
XanderCrews wrote:
milosh wrote:I think that is wrong because Su-57 could be base for other fighter types not just Russian F-22 equivalent (more less pure A-A machine).



You mean "compromised" by "multi-role"??

:)


The Russians have an uncanny ability to build (supposed) air to ground/air to sea capabilities into their air to air machines. Of course, you never see a Flanker with anything more than a rudimentary air to ground (usually dumb bombs) capability.

As for a decade on ice; Wonder where this leaves the navalised SU-57? They're going to be flying SU-33's or more likely Mig-29K's from their carriers for the next 20 years!

Re: SU-57: On hold for a decade

Unread postPosted: 30 Nov 2017, 18:52
by hythelday
mixelflick wrote:
XanderCrews wrote:
milosh wrote:I think that is wrong because Su-57 could be base for other fighter types not just Russian F-22 equivalent (more less pure A-A machine).



You mean "compromised" by "multi-role"??

:)


The Russians have an uncanny ability to build (supposed) air to ground/air to sea capabilities into their air to air machines. Of course, you never see a Flanker with anything more than a rudimentary air to ground (usually dumb bombs) capability.

As for a decade on ice; Wonder where this leaves the navalised SU-57? They're going to be flying SU-33's or more likely Mig-29K's from their carriers for the next 20 years!



Kuznetsov's refurbishment budget (supposedly) got slashed in half, so it doesn't really matter.

Man, Crimea was totally worth it. :doh:

Re: SU-57: On hold for a decade

Unread postPosted: 30 Nov 2017, 20:36
by XanderCrews
milosh wrote:That explain a lot. New head of Russian AF isn't from AF but from army and he want what boots on ground need, those are UAV&UCAV and more fighter bombers (Su-30 and Su-34).

).


As a Marine and a boot on the ground, I like to remind people that although CAS is wonderful, the ability to not be attacked by enemy airpower is pretty nice too.


But that's just me. No wait it's not, there are literally hundreds of examples and reports of what happens when enemy air can attack with impunity

You can't undertake offensive operations without control of the air.

Re: SU-57: On hold for a decade

Unread postPosted: 01 Dec 2017, 00:07
by nutshell
XanderCrews wrote:
nutshell wrote:RuAF giving up.

F35 so good it doesnt even need to fire a single missile to achieve air superiority :mrgreen:

Air dominance through superior... development roadmap.

P.s.: so, su57 ioc just in time to watch the bees shooting lasers. Lol.



Lol

Where was that Aussie who was telling us this thing was like a stealthy foxbat that could fly at 80000 ft? And we didn't have a chance.

Where is the Rafale fanboy who was talking us that 5th generation engines aren't special or different in any way?


They are all enjoying F35 death spiral ofc and cheering for the russian crafty engineering ( which is somewhat "mystical ").

Re: SU-57: On hold for a decade

Unread postPosted: 01 Dec 2017, 02:32
by rheonomic
XanderCrews wrote:As a Marine and a boot on the ground, I like to remind people that although CAS is wonderful, the ability to not be attacked by enemy airpower is pretty nice too.


There's also the question of CAS vs BAI.

Re: SU-57: On hold for a decade

Unread postPosted: 01 Dec 2017, 06:48
by zaltys
So far haven’t seen any similar news on russian forums. Knowing russians, I would expect a lot of noise on their forums with such stuff. It looks like unconfirmed information atm, but from their current situation I can totally expect it to be true.

Re: SU-57: On hold for a decade

Unread postPosted: 01 Dec 2017, 23:59
by juretrn
It seems someone triggered Russia Stronkists over at Keypub HARD. You can almost see the foaming at the mouths in some of the posts.

Re: SU-57: On hold for a decade

Unread postPosted: 04 Dec 2017, 20:14
by mixelflick
Anyone hear anything more about this?

"Russia is reportedly working on a second and much cheaper stealth fighter derived from the Mikoyan MiG 1.44, a design that was beaten in a competition for Russia's fifth generation fighter by the current stealth fighter, the Sukhoi PAK FA..."

I found this interesting as the Mig I.44 seems decidedly un-stealthy. Is it possible they forgo the SU-57 for another, cheaper design??

Read more: http://www.chinatopix.com/articles/1116 ... z50JyjkjWr

Re: SU-57: On hold for a decade

Unread postPosted: 05 Dec 2017, 00:19
by XanderCrews
mixelflick wrote:Anyone hear anything more about this?

"Russia is reportedly working on a second and much cheaper stealth fighter derived from the Mikoyan MiG 1.44, a design that was beaten in a competition for Russia's fifth generation fighter by the current stealth fighter, the Sukhoi PAK FA..."

I found this interesting as the Mig I.44 seems decidedly un-stealthy. Is it possible they forgo the SU-57 for another, cheaper design??

Read more: http://www.chinatopix.com/articles/1116 ... z50JyjkjWr


I hope it's true. I hope they create dozens of projects that result in No or few production aircraft.

Keep it up Russia, you're doing great.

Re: SU-57: On hold for a decade

Unread postPosted: 05 Dec 2017, 03:14
by rheonomic
MiG 1.44 was a POS and only a tech demonstrator IIRC.

Wasn't MiG supposedly working on a low end MiG-29 successor at some point? I forgot the project abbreviation.

Re: SU-57: On hold for a decade

Unread postPosted: 05 Dec 2017, 03:46
by southernphantom
rheonomic wrote:MiG 1.44 was a POS and only a tech demonstrator IIRC.

Wasn't MiG supposedly working on a low end MiG-29 successor at some point? I forgot the project abbreviation.


Yes, that would be the MiG LMFS.

We'll see if it delivers an operational aircraft in meaningful numbers, or is just more Russian Plasma Stealth® vaporware nonsense.

Re: SU-57: On hold for a decade

Unread postPosted: 05 Dec 2017, 05:50
by Corsair1963
southernphantom wrote:
rheonomic wrote:MiG 1.44 was a POS and only a tech demonstrator IIRC.

Wasn't MiG supposedly working on a low end MiG-29 successor at some point? I forgot the project abbreviation.


Yes, that would be the MiG LMFS.

We'll see if it delivers an operational aircraft in meaningful numbers, or is just more Russian Plasma Stealth® vaporware nonsense.



In my opinion Russia made a colossal mistake. When it decided to pursue the PAK-FA over the LMFS. As the former has virtually no export potential..... :doh:

Re: SU-57: On hold for a decade

Unread postPosted: 05 Dec 2017, 09:18
by hythelday
Corsair1963 wrote:
southernphantom wrote:
rheonomic wrote:MiG 1.44 was a POS and only a tech demonstrator IIRC.

Wasn't MiG supposedly working on a low end MiG-29 successor at some point? I forgot the project abbreviation.


Yes, that would be the MiG LMFS.

We'll see if it delivers an operational aircraft in meaningful numbers, or is just more Russian Plasma Stealth® vaporware nonsense.



In my opinion Russia made a colossal mistake. When it decided to pursue the PAK-FA over the LMFS. As the former has virtually no export potential..... :doh:



There were articles ~5 years ago by Russian "experts" saying demand for export PAK-FAs is roughly 600 globally. There are less advanced Flankers than that, lol.

Re: SU-57: On hold for a decade

Unread postPosted: 05 Dec 2017, 12:08
by madrat
MiG as a political machine has completely lost momentum. They could have pursued many avenues, but Russian leadership pushed policy that locked them out of competitions. MiG has had one brilliant design after another succumb to its weak marketing to its own government's incoherent support strategy. (The Chinese seem to have benefited from MiG, Tupovlev, and Yakovlev being eaten alive by Sukhoi dominance.) It's not bad for the West that Russia eats its own. It's a good thing that the world isn't full of single-engine Russian light fighters and attack planes.

Re: SU-57: On hold for a decade

Unread postPosted: 05 Dec 2017, 17:16
by XanderCrews
madrat wrote:MiG as a political machine has completely lost momentum. They could have pursued many avenues, but Russian leadership pushed policy that locked them out of competitions. MiG has had one brilliant design after another succumb to its weak marketing to its own government's incoherent support strategy. (The Chinese seem to have benefited from MiG, Tupovlev, and Yakovlev being eaten alive by Sukhoi dominance.) It's not bad for the West that Russia eats its own. It's a good thing that the world isn't full of single-engine Russian light fighters and attack planes.



It's all UAC

Re: SU-57: On hold for a decade

Unread postPosted: 05 Dec 2017, 17:47
by durahawk
madrat wrote:MiG as a political machine has completely lost momentum. They could have pursued many avenues, but Russian leadership pushed policy that locked them out of competitions. MiG has had one brilliant design after another succumb to its weak marketing to its own government's incoherent support strategy. (The Chinese seem to have benefited from MiG, Tupovlev, and Yakovlev being eaten alive by Sukhoi dominance.) It's not bad for the West that Russia eats its own. It's a good thing that the world isn't full of single-engine Russian light fighters and attack planes.


Without the $6.7B progress payment from India for the FGFA the SU-57 project will be on life support.

I wouldn't be the least bit surprised if the next 25 odd years we see a J-20 or J-31 with Russian Air Force or Navy liveries. They simply don't have the capital to develop a worthwhile fifth gen on there own before it becomes entirely irrelevant. There would be a lot of Russia Stronk pride to overcome, but Russia has looked to the export market before to fill urgent operational needs (see French Mistral class fiasco). At the very least, I would expect to see a Sino-Russian fighter collaboration in the future.

Of course, a spike in oil prices in the next few years could turn this whole thing around for the Russkies too.

Re: SU-57: On hold for a decade

Unread postPosted: 05 Dec 2017, 19:15
by XanderCrews
durahawk wrote:
madrat wrote:MiG as a political machine has completely lost momentum. They could have pursued many avenues, but Russian leadership pushed policy that locked them out of competitions. MiG has had one brilliant design after another succumb to its weak marketing to its own government's incoherent support strategy. (The Chinese seem to have benefited from MiG, Tupovlev, and Yakovlev being eaten alive by Sukhoi dominance.) It's not bad for the West that Russia eats its own. It's a good thing that the world isn't full of single-engine Russian light fighters and attack planes.


Without the $6.7B progress payment from India for the FGFA the SU-57 project will be on life support.

I wouldn't be the least bit surprised if the next 25 odd years we see a J-20 or J-31 with Russian Air Force or Navy liveries. They simply don't have the capital to develop a worthwhile fifth gen on there own before it becomes entirely irrelevant. There would be a lot of Russia Stronk pride to overcome, but Russia has looked to the export market before to fill urgent operational needs (see French Mistral class fiasco). At the very least, I would expect to see a Sino-Russian fighter collaboration in the future.

Of course, a spike in oil prices in the next few years could turn this whole thing around for the Russkies too.



According to the Komrades at key pubs they don't need India or their money

Re: SU-57: On hold for a decade

Unread postPosted: 05 Dec 2017, 22:15
by swiss
It seems the Su-57 has her first test flight with one Izdeliye 30. Or at least with a new nozzle. :wink:


Re: SU-57: On hold for a decade

Unread postPosted: 05 Dec 2017, 22:46
by project458
XanderCrews wrote:
durahawk wrote:
madrat wrote:MiG as a political machine has completely lost momentum. They could have pursued many avenues, but Russian leadership pushed policy that locked them out of competitions. MiG has had one brilliant design after another succumb to its weak marketing to its own government's incoherent support strategy. (The Chinese seem to have benefited from MiG, Tupovlev, and Yakovlev being eaten alive by Sukhoi dominance.) It's not bad for the West that Russia eats its own. It's a good thing that the world isn't full of single-engine Russian light fighters and attack planes.


Without the $6.7B progress payment from India for the FGFA the SU-57 project will be on life support.

I wouldn't be the least bit surprised if the next 25 odd years we see a J-20 or J-31 with Russian Air Force or Navy liveries. They simply don't have the capital to develop a worthwhile fifth gen on there own before it becomes entirely irrelevant. There would be a lot of Russia Stronk pride to overcome, but Russia has looked to the export market before to fill urgent operational needs (see French Mistral class fiasco). At the very least, I would expect to see a Sino-Russian fighter collaboration in the future.

Of course, a spike in oil prices in the next few years could turn this whole thing around for the Russkies too.



According to the Komrades at key pubs they don't need India or their money



Because we don't, for the last 14 years PAK FA has been funded entirely by Russian money, and this article is a joke, no hard sources , I take the word of Russian air force commander over an some analyst.

Re: SU-57: On hold for a decade

Unread postPosted: 05 Dec 2017, 22:51
by milosh
swiss wrote:It seems the Su-57 has her first test flight with one Izdeliye 30. Or at least with a new nozzle. :wink:



New engine and new nozzle, nozzle looks more as LOAL nozzle then Salyut one we saw earlier, and nozzle is quite shorter.

Re: SU-57: On hold for a decade

Unread postPosted: 05 Dec 2017, 23:12
by XanderCrews
project458 wrote:

Because we don't, for the last 14 years PAK FA has been funded entirely by Russian money, and this article is a joke, no hard sources , I take the word of Russian air force commander over an some analyst.


Hi KGB

Re: SU-57: On hold for a decade

Unread postPosted: 05 Dec 2017, 23:31
by project458
XanderCrews wrote:
project458 wrote:

Because we don't, for the last 14 years PAK FA has been funded entirely by Russian money, and this article is a joke, no hard sources , I take the word of Russian air force commander over an some analyst.


Hi KGB


Hey, uninformed :)

Re: SU-57: On hold for a decade

Unread postPosted: 05 Dec 2017, 23:56
by XanderCrews
project458 wrote:
XanderCrews wrote:
project458 wrote:

Because we don't, for the last 14 years PAK FA has been funded entirely by Russian money, and this article is a joke, no hard sources , I take the word of Russian air force commander over an some analyst.


Hi KGB


Hey, uninformed :)


Inform us

Re: SU-57: On hold for a decade

Unread postPosted: 06 Dec 2017, 01:01
by project458
XanderCrews wrote: Inform us




About what exactly? How this entire thread is based on a opinion of some analyst who has zero inside knowledge ? I remember how people on this forum said Su-57 is fiction and it will never fly, then when it flew they said it would be canceled, now 7 years and 9th prototypes later and with 10th and 11th a few months away, Su-57 is still here, and sometime in 2018 Su-57 will enter LRIP, and if people think there is a shortage of money, consider the fact that within the last decade alone Ruaf inducted 500+ Fixed wing platforms, thats second only to US, a broke country's doesn't have that kind of money to spend.

Re: SU-57: On hold for a decade

Unread postPosted: 06 Dec 2017, 02:45
by XanderCrews
project458 wrote:
XanderCrews wrote: Inform us


I remember how people on this forum said Su-57 is fiction and it will never fly, then when it flew they said it would be canceled.


Really? Who said that?

I know I didn't. You are new but not everyone here is an individual. Some were saying that?

Some were saying it would take years and years before they churned out even 10 prototypes as well...

now 7 years and 9th prototypes later and with 10th and 11th a few months away,


Image

7 years?

FAKE NEWS ALERT:

if going just by the first flight its been nearly 8 years, seeing as the first prototype flew in January of 2010... And of course the PAK-FA program itself goes back further than just 2010.


Image

I guess I was wrong when I asked you to inform us seeing as you don't know what youre talking about. In your defense you were probably too young to remember 2009? or maybe you just got caught lying? or maybe just completely ignorant?

Re: SU-57: On hold for a decade

Unread postPosted: 06 Dec 2017, 05:18
by Corsair1963
project458 wrote:
XanderCrews wrote: Inform us




About what exactly? How this entire thread is based on a opinion of some analyst who has zero inside knowledge ? I remember how people on this forum said Su-57 is fiction and it will never fly, then when it flew they said it would be canceled, now 7 years and 9th prototypes later and with 10th and 11th a few months away, Su-57 is still here, and sometime in 2018 Su-57 will enter LRIP, and if people think there is a shortage of money, consider the fact that within the last decade alone Ruaf inducted 500+ Fixed wing platforms, thats second only to US, a broke country's doesn't have that kind of money to spend.


Yet, the future hardly looks promising for either the Su-57 or Russian Air Force...... :doh:

Re: SU-57: On hold for a decade

Unread postPosted: 06 Dec 2017, 05:21
by Corsair1963
hythelday wrote:

There were articles ~5 years ago by Russian "experts" saying demand for export PAK-FAs is roughly 600 globally. There are less advanced Flankers than that, lol.



If, India leaves the PAK-FA/FGFA Program with Russia and the odds are looking good that it will. Then the prospects for future export orders for the type look grim indeed! :shock:

Re: SU-57: On hold for a decade

Unread postPosted: 06 Dec 2017, 05:24
by Corsair1963
milosh wrote:
swiss wrote:It seems the Su-57 has her first test flight with one Izdeliye 30. Or at least with a new nozzle. :wink:



New engine and new nozzle, nozzle looks more as LOAL nozzle then Salyut one we saw earlier, and nozzle is quite shorter.



Maybe the production version of the izdeliye 30 won't have TVC? Which, would explain why it's shorter.... :|

Re: SU-57: On hold for a decade

Unread postPosted: 06 Dec 2017, 05:36
by charlielima223
I remember when the PAKFA came out, it was on everyone's radar (no pun intended). It every interwebs commentator and "analyst" propped it up as the next deadliest thing to the F-22. Now as time has passed, (to me) it looks like a tiger with no fangs or claws... especially when you compare how much more advanced the F-22 and F-35 are now and how much more they will be in the foreseeable future.

Re: SU-57: On hold for a decade

Unread postPosted: 06 Dec 2017, 05:43
by Corsair1963
durahawk wrote:
I wouldn't be the least bit surprised if the next 25 odd years we see a J-20 or J-31 with Russian Air Force or Navy liveries. They simply don't have the capital to develop a worthwhile fifth gen on there own before it becomes entirely irrelevant. There would be a lot of Russia Stronk pride to overcome, but Russia has looked to the export market before to fill urgent operational needs (see French Mistral class fiasco). At the very least, I would expect to see a Sino-Russian fighter collaboration in the future.

Of course, a spike in oil prices in the next few years could turn this whole thing around for the Russkies too.


That is what I've been saying for sometime now. That Russia will be forced to partner with China. Especially, in such segments as fighters. With the J-31 being the most obvious choice.........

Re: SU-57: On hold for a decade

Unread postPosted: 06 Dec 2017, 05:45
by Corsair1963
charlielima223 wrote:I remember when the PAKFA came out, it was on everyone's radar (no pun intended). It every interwebs commentator and "analyst" propped it up as the next deadliest thing to the F-22. Now as time has passed, (to me) it looks like a tiger with no fangs or claws... especially when you compare how much more advanced the F-22 and F-35 are now and how much more they will be in the foreseeable future.



I agree as time goes by fewer and fewer seem concern about the Su-57???

Re: SU-57: On hold for a decade

Unread postPosted: 06 Dec 2017, 05:47
by Corsair1963
XanderCrews wrote:
According to the Komrades at key pubs they don't need India or their money



:lmao:

Re: SU-57: On hold for a decade

Unread postPosted: 06 Dec 2017, 13:48
by milosh
Corsair1963 wrote:Maybe the production version of the izdeliye 30 won't have TVC? Which, would explain why it's shorter.... :|


Very unlikely.

Re: SU-57: On hold for a decade

Unread postPosted: 06 Dec 2017, 14:39
by XanderCrews
Corsair1963 wrote:
charlielima223 wrote:I remember when the PAKFA came out, it was on everyone's radar (no pun intended). It every interwebs commentator and "analyst" propped it up as the next deadliest thing to the F-22. Now as time has passed, (to me) it looks like a tiger with no fangs or claws... especially when you compare how much more advanced the F-22 and F-35 are now and how much more they will be in the foreseeable future.



I agree as time goes by fewer and fewer seem concern about the Su-57???



Engine is still years away. When you build only 9 prototypes and still lose one to a fire. India which is the biggest partner says things about it that make F-35 critics blush

Re: SU-57: On hold for a decade

Unread postPosted: 06 Dec 2017, 15:43
by hythelday
XanderCrews wrote:
Corsair1963 wrote:
charlielima223 wrote:I remember when the PAKFA came out, it was on everyone's radar (no pun intended). It every interwebs commentator and "analyst" propped it up as the next deadliest thing to the F-22. Now as time has passed, (to me) it looks like a tiger with no fangs or claws... especially when you compare how much more advanced the F-22 and F-35 are now and how much more they will be in the foreseeable future.



I agree as time goes by fewer and fewer seem concern about the Su-57???



Engine is still years away. When you build only 9 prototypes and still lose one to a fire. India which is the biggest partner says things about it that make F-35 critics blush


They did repair the burnt plane though.

Putting one Izd 30 to test it out is... interesting decision. Then again Russians do things differently.

Maybe it's not all doomy and gloomy for Su-57 after all, but it still seems to be following Flanker development pattern.

Re: SU-57: On hold for a decade

Unread postPosted: 06 Dec 2017, 16:52
by XanderCrews
hythelday wrote:
They did repair the burnt plane though.

Putting one Izd 30 to test it out is... interesting decision. Then again Russians do things differently.

Maybe it's not all doomy and gloomy for Su-57 after all, but it still seems to be following Flanker development pattern.



It was more a reference about why people don't seem worried. If we go but what our "informed" new guy says and only count development from the first flight on we have 9 prototypes the last 8 years.

Where was the F-22, F-35, and super hornet 8 years after first flight? And they all had new engines as well.

First flights month and year:

SH November 1995
F-22 September 1997
F-35 December 2006


And we all know how ambitious the F-35 is.

Re: SU-57: On hold for a decade

Unread postPosted: 07 Dec 2017, 01:37
by nutshell
9 protoypes in 7 years...

AMAZING I SWEAR.

Re: SU-57: On hold for a decade

Unread postPosted: 07 Dec 2017, 05:15
by Corsair1963
The Su-57 is just not a viable option for the Indian Air Force! :doh:


So, better to cut ties with the PAK-FA Program and move oooon! :wink:

Re: SU-57: On hold for a decade

Unread postPosted: 07 Dec 2017, 21:56
by XanderCrews
nutshell wrote:9 protoypes in 7 years...

AMAZING I SWEAR.



It's more like 9 in 10 years too :doh:

It keeps me up at night too. Imagine where this program will be in 10 more years or 15? Maybe 50 of these things in vastly different lots and configs

Re: SU-57: On hold for a decade

Unread postPosted: 08 Dec 2017, 01:25
by project458
XanderCrews wrote:
project458 wrote:
XanderCrews wrote: Inform us


I remember how people on this forum said Su-57 is fiction and it will never fly, then when it flew they said it would be canceled.


Really? Who said that?

I know I didn't. You are new but not everyone here is an individual. Some were saying that?

Some were saying it would take years and years before they churned out even 10 prototypes as well...

now 7 years and 9th prototypes later and with 10th and 11th a few months away,



if going just by the first flight its been nearly 8 years, seeing as the first prototype flew in January of 2010... And of course the PAK-FA program itself goes back further than just 2010.
I guess I was wrong when I asked you to inform us seeing as you don't know what youre talking about. In your defense you were probably too young to remember 2009? or maybe you just got caught lying? or maybe just completely ignorant?


Yes that would be 2002 thats when the PAK FA program began.


Corsair1963 wrote:

Yet, the future hardly looks promising for either the Su-57 or Russian Air Force...... :doh:


Care to elaborate ? [/quote]


I wouldn't be the least bit surprised if the next 25 odd years we see a J-20 or J-31 with Russian Air Force or Navy liveries


Ridiculous, Su-57 hits IOC next year, but please keep thinking about fantasy scenarios.

Re: SU-57: On hold for a decade

Unread postPosted: 08 Dec 2017, 01:35
by project458
nutshell wrote:9 protoypes in 7 years...

AMAZING I SWEAR.



Sorry, we don't do concurrency, where we build hundreds of aircraft before the Aircraft hits IOC, then those said aircraft turn out to be useless.

http://www.popularmechanics.com/militar ... or-combat/

XanderCrews wrote:
Corsair1963 wrote:
charlielima223 wrote:I remember when the PAKFA came out, it was on everyone's radar (no pun intended). It every interwebs commentator and "analyst" propped it up as the next deadliest thing to the F-22. Now as time has passed, (to me) it looks like a tiger with no fangs or claws... especially when you compare how much more advanced the F-22 and F-35 are now and how much more they will be in the foreseeable future.



I agree as time goes by fewer and fewer seem concern about the Su-57???



Engine is still years away. When you build only 9 prototypes and still lose one to a fire. India which is the biggest partner says things about it that make F-35 critics blush



Engine is already in flight testing, and speaking about fires

https://theaviationist.com/2015/06/06/f ... re-images/

Re: SU-57: On hold for a decade

Unread postPosted: 08 Dec 2017, 01:45
by white_lightning35
How I imagine this discussion going.

Re: SU-57: On hold for a decade

Unread postPosted: 08 Dec 2017, 02:32
by white_lightning35
Hmmm...So you edited out the part of your post where you said Russia planes hit IOC after hundreds have been built, and then replaced that statement with "the PAK fa is going IOC next year". With ten whole planes!

The pak fa seems to me to be an effort to make a dying country seem relevant. They make incremental changes out to be game-changers, and that the whole world will tremble before their "fifth-gen air plane". Putin, being a very bold leader, seems to have made some Russians think that they are now back in the old days, taking on the evil Yankees. The world, however, changes. The russians come out with a new mighty engine for the pak fa, the US is bringing up the ADVENT engine. They claim their airplane flies higher and faster, which it very much could, but that does not mean as much as it did. A paradigm shift is what is needed, and that is what the f-35 brings. Battles are not fought like they once were, and you either adapt or die. The russians aren't seeming to get that with respect to their air force.

The Cold War proved that you need to have not only a well-funded military, which Rossiya doesn't really have, but also a reasonably wealthy populace, which Rossiya certainly doesn't have. It is no longer the top "bad guy" on the world stage. That would be China. Some people think the US occupies that spot, but I don't give a s##t what they think, because they're morons if they really can't see the difference in ideals between the US and China/Rossiya.

This post was reasonably off-topic, which I apologize for, but it was mainly directed at the russia stronkists out there.

Re: SU-57: On hold for a decade

Unread postPosted: 08 Dec 2017, 03:00
by XanderCrews
project458 wrote:
Yes that would be 2002 thats when the PAK FA program began.


So you were dead Wrong? That Didn't take long.

Thought you were going to tell us the real deal. All these silly F-16.net folks are already catching you on your lies

Re: SU-57: On hold for a decade

Unread postPosted: 08 Dec 2017, 03:20
by XanderCrews
white_lightning35 wrote:Hmmm...So you edited out the part of your post where you said Russia planes hit IOC after hundreds have been built, and then replaced that statement with "the PAK fa is going IOC next year". With ten whole planes!



I'm curious about that too. Wouldn't fit any western definition of IOC

Re: SU-57: On hold for a decade

Unread postPosted: 08 Dec 2017, 09:32
by project458
XanderCrews wrote:
project458 wrote:
Yes that would be 2002 thats when the PAK FA program began.


So you were dead Wrong? That Didn't take long.



The first flight was 7 Years 10 Months 9 Days, ago is that exact enough LOL ? and speaking about being " dead wrong " how about I mention every dead wrong post that you made in this thread and then debunk them with sources instead of responding with childish memes ?

Accept the challenge ?


Thought you were going to tell us the real deal. All these silly F-16.net folks are already catching you on your lies



Well considering how some guy in this thread said that Russia will be flying with Chinese Stealth fighters in a few years, " the word "Silly " would be dead on.

Re: SU-57: On hold for a decade

Unread postPosted: 08 Dec 2017, 12:20
by milosh
@white_lightning35

Top bad country in world doesn't have nothing with ideals but with what that country do to other countries.

Re: SU-57: On hold for a decade

Unread postPosted: 08 Dec 2017, 15:14
by mk82
Project 458/Commissar of the Glorious People’s Republic of Bullpucky: SU 57 is going to IOC in 2018

SU 57 going to IOC in 2018!!?? Hahahahaha......hohohohho......hahahahahaha......with just 10 prototypes.........hohohohoho......pull the other one! Funny how the SU 57’s IOC is getting later and later......Lay off that homemade Vodka Tovarisch and drink some Stolichnaya. Join the winning team.....and stop posting propaganda b*llshit.

Or just keep doing that Hapok dancing Tovarisch......

Re: SU-57: On hold for a decade

Unread postPosted: 08 Dec 2017, 15:40
by mixelflick
SU-57 IOC next year? That's rich..

So in a year's time or less, they're going to have that engine perfected, crews trained to fly and maintain it, a logistical support network, all kinds of weapons tested, tactics developed, integrated with "4++" gen Flankers, AWACS, certify it for aerial refueling, fund it and all the front line units to support it?

Um, did you miss the part about only building 12 and pushing things back to 2027?


http://warisboring.com/russia-is-haltin ... -a-decade/

I suppose the carrier based variant will be flying off decks in 2018 too??

Re: SU-57: On hold for a decade

Unread postPosted: 08 Dec 2017, 18:02
by zaltys
There is information from "insiders" that 6 operational pilots are trained on Su-57 and first 2 serial production aircraft will be transferred to RuAF in May 2018. Sure, they won't be in advertised configuration, IMO.

Re: SU-57: On hold for a decade

Unread postPosted: 08 Dec 2017, 18:02
by durahawk
project458 wrote:Well considering how some guy in this thread said that Russia will be flying with Chinese Stealth fighters in a few years, " the word "Silly " would be dead on.


I said "25 odd years" to be exact, and "wouldn't be surprised" which is distinct from a forgone conclusion. But continue spreading your misinformation.

Re: SU-57: On hold for a decade

Unread postPosted: 08 Dec 2017, 18:40
by milosh
mixelflick wrote:Um, did you miss the part about only building 12 and pushing things back to 2027?

http://warisboring.com/russia-is-haltin ... -a-decade/


That text used this memo:
http://www.ponarseurasia.org/memo/russi ... -2018-2027

which used this text for that 2027 estimate:
http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-bu ... aste-21736

and if you read that original text you will not see nothing about 2027 :doh:

all there is what is already known, smaller number of serial Su-57 will be made, they will have 117 engines to start IOC procedure. And of course IOC is expected to end in early 2020 when new engine is also fully developed.

Re: SU-57: On hold for a decade

Unread postPosted: 08 Dec 2017, 23:40
by XanderCrews
project458 wrote:

The first flight was 7 Years 10 Months 9 Days, ago is that exact enough LOL ?


No. Because you are failing to take into account the construction time for the first prototype when doing the math on how many prototypes have been constructed So again you are wrong and inaccurate. You are then using that inaccurate remark as "proof" when it's not true in the first place.

7 years and 9th prototypes later and with 10th and 11th a few months away



Thus you are dead wrong in your assertion and measurement of the programs progress by your own parameters.

It's closet to about 11 years producing 9 prototypes and not one with production representative engines yet, which is odd as you are also telling us the test fleet will be IOC?




and speaking about being " dead wrong " how about I mention every dead wrong post that you made in this thread and then debunk them with sources instead of responding with childish memes ?

Accept the challenge ?


By all means, bur Fact check yourself first, your credibility is next to nothing so far.

Well considering how some guy in this thread said that Russia will be flying with Chinese Stealth fighters in a few years, " the word "Silly " would be dead on.


Silly like forgetting basic timelines?

Protip: if you're going to be the authority on factual information you may want to use facts and be informed.

So far I see nothing but a nationalist fanboy with zero background in avaition but a mastery of propoganda and personal attacks.

You won't last long here

Re: SU-57: On hold for a decade

Unread postPosted: 11 Dec 2017, 04:30
by Corsair1963
project458 wrote:

Well considering how some guy in this thread said that Russia will be flying with Chinese Stealth fighters in a few years, " the word "Silly " would be dead on.


How many Su-57's at well over $100 Million do you think Russia can afford by 2030??? :shock:

Also, Fighter-Bombers (i.e. Strike Fighters) have been at the core of Tactical Military Aviation since WWII. So, you think Russia can live without such a type???

Re: SU-57: On hold for a decade

Unread postPosted: 11 Dec 2017, 04:36
by Corsair1963
zaltys wrote:There is information from "insiders" that 6 operational pilots are trained on Su-57 and first 2 serial production aircraft will be transferred to RuAF in May 2018. Sure, they won't be in advertised configuration, IMO.



Russia is just doing the usual "spin". :shock: Those pilots are "Test Pilots" and those aircraft are "Preproduction".....

Re: SU-57: On hold for a decade

Unread postPosted: 11 Dec 2017, 13:53
by mixelflick
At over 100 million, I doubt we'll see a production run of much over 100.

That 2nd stage engine (by their own estimates) could take up to 10 years to develop. What of the AESA radar, weapons tests (including brand new air to air missiles), stealth improvements etc?? Look, if they really are going IOC in 2018 or 2019, they'll be flying one immature, underpowered and suspect jet into battle.

More likely is the fact they've figured out the SU-57 is no great improvement over the SU-35. It's pretty clear the air force is stoked with the SU-35, not so much with the SU-57. Just today, another article was posted concerning the SU-57 (http://warisboring.com/russias-su-57-st ... d-to-fail/).

So it seems if the lack of stealth, appropriate engines and other design flaws don't doom it, the politics behind it will...

Re: SU-57: On hold for a decade

Unread postPosted: 11 Dec 2017, 15:09
by milosh
New engine isn't here because of power but because of stealth and cheaper maintenance:

Изд 30. - турбореактивный двухконтурный двигатель поколения 5 с форсажной камерой сгорания.
Двигатель позволит обеспечить специальные характеристики по радиолокационной незаметности в ППС.
Основные преимущества - увеличение тяги на 5%, снижение удельного веса на 25%, сокращение общего числа ступеней.
Достижение специальных характеристик по РЛ незаметности обеспечивает интегральный ВНА из разработанного композитного материала.

Re: SU-57: On hold for a decade

Unread postPosted: 11 Dec 2017, 17:56
by juretrn
mixelflick wrote:http://warisboring.com/russias-su-57-stealth-fighter-is-doomed-to-fail

Just more BS from the usual suspects at WiB. You (we) rage at F-35 related BS, but we're willing to believe anything WiB comes up with in regard with Su-57? Meh.
The whole "not ready until 2027" claim is nothing but another D. Majumdar cock-and-bull story.

Re: SU-57: On hold for a decade

Unread postPosted: 12 Dec 2017, 06:30
by Corsair1963
juretrn wrote:
mixelflick wrote:http://warisboring.com/russias-su-57-stealth-fighter-is-doomed-to-fail

Just more BS from the usual suspects at WiB. You (we) rage at F-35 related BS, but we're willing to believe anything WiB comes up with in regard with Su-57? Meh.
The whole "not ready until 2027" claim is nothing but another D. Majumdar cock-and-bull story.


Really, the izdeliye 30 just recently had it's first test flight in a prototype Su-57. So, what part of 2027 don't you get??? :doh:

Re: SU-57: On hold for a decade

Unread postPosted: 12 Dec 2017, 16:23
by XanderCrews
juretrn wrote:
mixelflick wrote:http://warisboring.com/russias-su-57-stealth-fighter-is-doomed-to-fail

Just more BS from the usual suspects at WiB. You (we) rage at F-35 related BS, but we're willing to believe anything WiB comes up with in regard with Su-57? Meh.
The whole "not ready until 2027" claim is nothing but another D. Majumdar cock-and-bull story.


Define "ready"

Re: SU-57: On hold for a decade

Unread postPosted: 12 Dec 2017, 16:33
by garrya
juretrn wrote:
mixelflick wrote:http://warisboring.com/russias-su-57-stealth-fighter-is-doomed-to-fail

Just more BS from the usual suspects at WiB. You (we) rage at F-35 related BS, but we're willing to believe anything WiB comes up with in regard with Su-57? Meh.
The whole "not ready until 2027" claim is nothing but another D. Majumdar cock-and-bull story.

Agree, he only wrote that because it is catchy and he knew it will bring more traffic.

Re: SU-57: On hold for a decade

Unread postPosted: 14 Dec 2017, 22:30
by arian
I said this a year ago: Russian air force in the foreseeable future will be about 100-150 of each Su-35, Su-30 and Su-34. Not enough production or operational capability or money or need for much more.

They can't sacrifice replacing their antiquated fleet of Su-27s, Su-24s and MiG-29s by redirecting resources towards projects like PAK-FA which are already unlikely to match their competitors. They desperately need to replace the junk heap they inherited and haven't upgraded in decades. Priorities.

And they learned their lesson in Syria too: priority is sensors, air-ground weapons, multi-role airplanes, UAVs etc. The alternative is having no real air force for the next 10 years until PAK-FA gets around and then even longer till it rolls out in sufficient numbers.

So I have to give credit to the Russians for actually focusing on realistic goals. They're not going to invade Europe anytime soon, and they will likley be involved in more local conflicts like Syria where such capabilities are needed and appear to be lacking, especially in numerical terms. Continuing to rely on junk Su-24s with Garmin fishing boat GPS, while pretending to be developing 9th generation aircraft, is not realistic.

And yes, I'll echo whoever said it before me: Crimea was totally worth it you guys :roll:

Re: SU-57: On hold for a decade

Unread postPosted: 14 Dec 2017, 22:37
by juretrn
arian wrote:And yes, I'll echo whoever said it before me: Crimea was totally worth it you guys :roll:

Political points for Putin, my friend, that's all. THen just shift the blame for sanctions on EU and US "imperialism" and voila! support for Putin keeps on rising.

Re: SU-57: On hold for a decade

Unread postPosted: 14 Dec 2017, 22:55
by arian
juretrn wrote:
arian wrote:And yes, I'll echo whoever said it before me: Crimea was totally worth it you guys :roll:

Political points for Putin, my friend, that's all. THen just shift the blame for sanctions on EU and US "imperialism" and voila! support for Putin keeps on rising.


Putin had all the support he needed, the economy was doing fine, his foes were nobodys, Russia was emerging on the world scene again as a respectable actor (albeit with all the Olympics toilet jokes), money was flowing in like crazy. They could even buy all the western equipment they wanted for their armed forces. And yet, the crazy dictator just couldn't be happy with that. Couldn't even maintain the appearance of a reasonable government. Had to go full-CNN "Nazis in the streets" at the first sign that a neighbor might want to liberalize.

Why shift the blame on anybody when everything was going great? Nothing to blame anyone for. Now, economy is shrunk by half. Sometimes I think the only people who manage to do dictatorship well are the Chinese. Everyone else stumbles at some point.

Re: SU-57: On hold for a decade

Unread postPosted: 15 Dec 2017, 14:54
by mixelflick
arian wrote:I said this a year ago: Russian air force in the foreseeable future will be about 100-150 of each Su-35, Su-30 and Su-34. Not enough production or operational capability or money or need for much more.

They can't sacrifice replacing their antiquated fleet of Su-27s, Su-24s and MiG-29s by redirecting resources towards projects like PAK-FA which are already unlikely to match their competitors. They desperately need to replace the junk heap they inherited and haven't upgraded in decades. Priorities.

And they learned their lesson in Syria too: priority is sensors, air-ground weapons, multi-role airplanes, UAVs etc. The alternative is having no real air force for the next 10 years until PAK-FA gets around and then even longer till it rolls out in sufficient numbers.

So I have to give credit to the Russians for actually focusing on realistic goals. They're not going to invade Europe anytime soon, and they will likley be involved in more local conflicts like Syria where such capabilities are needed and appear to be lacking, especially in numerical terms. Continuing to rely on junk Su-24s with Garmin fishing boat GPS, while pretending to be developing 9th generation aircraft, is not realistic.

And yes, I'll echo whoever said it before me: Crimea was totally worth it you guys :roll:


100-150 SU-30's, 34's and 35's is a pretty respectable force though, no? I'm not as well versed in the SU-34 vs its western contemporaries but the SU-30SM's and SU-35 can put up a respectable battle vs. anyone, save perhaps US fifth gen birds the F-22 and F-35.

The SU-35 in particular is a fearsome machine. I'd hate to be an F-15C or 18E/F driver facing that thing. Yes, yes I suppose we still have the edge in radar/avionics/bvr stuff, but nobody takes the Flanker lightly and rightfully so. Apparently, the Russian military and its pilots are stoked with it..

Re: SU-57: On hold for a decade

Unread postPosted: 15 Dec 2017, 22:03
by arian
mixelflick wrote:
100-150 SU-30's, 34's and 35's is a pretty respectable force though, no? I'm not as well versed in the SU-34 vs its western contemporaries but the SU-30SM's and SU-35 can put up a respectable battle vs. anyone, save perhaps US fifth gen birds the F-22 and F-35.

The SU-35 in particular is a fearsome machine. I'd hate to be an F-15C or 18E/F driver facing that thing. Yes, yes I suppose we still have the edge in radar/avionics/bvr stuff, but nobody takes the Flanker lightly and rightfully so. Apparently, the Russian military and its pilots are stoked with it..


Of course it's a pretty respectable force of 300-400 modern 4th gen planes. And it's realistic and reasonable.

They are fine planes for what they are, I'm not doubting it. The propaganda surrounding them, however, is bit much. Avionics and weapons matter a lot and they are quite behind in those areas. We've discussed this quite a lot here already. When we're talking Su-34, for example, it's radar is still quite far behind what comparable Western 4th gen planes can do in terms of ground capability (SAR etc.), to the point that is is not even comparable to early 80s F-15s. Optical targeting systems are still lacking compared to Western systems (other than that french pod they were able to import, which brings me back to my earlier point that they would have been able to import Western tech had they not screwed that option). Ground-attack weapons too. Although the Russians have introduced "comparable" (on paper) weapons, their numbers and use is obviously not comparable to the US which is why we still see mostly dumb-bomb attacks with Su-34s.

Same for Su-30, which in my opinion is a waste of an airframe. The idea of Su-30 is a multi-role plane to go between dedicated ground attack Su-34 and dedicated air superiority Su-35. But it's worst at both jobs than either. It's radar is substantially below the capabilities of comparable Western planes. Even according to its manufacturer we're talking a radar with a SAR ground resolution of about 10m, which is something US planes were doing in the late 70s early 80s. Same for the weapons it carries: mostly AA-10s still.

Su-35 is the most capable, but again still not at the same level when it comes to avionics (weapons are harder to evaluate, if they have enough R-77s and if the R-77 is in fact a comparable weapon to modern AIM-120s, which it likely isn't). It's radar is still inferior compared to latest AESA radars going into F-15C and Es, but certainly a big step forward for Russians. But that really only leaves Su-35 as a plane that can realistically be compared with Western 4th gen planes. Basically an early 90s level of capability. Not bad, but not stellar.

I think Su-34 and Su-30 should both be abandoned and just focus on multi-role Su-35. 300-400 modern planes is still not a lot, and it reduces even more when you then split the difference among three relatively specialized versions, two of which at least offer no real advantage compared to the 3rd and both are considerably behind Western counterparts.

It's good, and it's realistic. But it's comparable to what the Indians and Chinese have done more than 10 years ago in numerical and technological terms. Not the "we're going to take on F-35s" sort of stuff one sees on the internet.

Re: SU-57: On hold for a decade

Unread postPosted: 16 Dec 2017, 15:47
by XanderCrews
mixelflick wrote:The SU-35 in particular is a fearsome machine. I'd hate to be an F-15C or 18E/F driver facing that thing. Yes, yes I suppose we still have the edge in radar/avionics/bvr stuff, but nobody takes the Flanker lightly and rightfully so. Apparently, the Russian military and its pilots are stoked with it..


We've trained against flankers. We even have a few civvie ones in the states. It's not some new terror it's yet another improved version of the same old Flanker

Re: SU-57: On hold for a decade

Unread postPosted: 17 Dec 2017, 05:11
by icemaverick
Yup, the Flanker series has always been a tough opponent and certainly the Su-35 is the best of the bunch but it’s not a revolutionary design. It’s an improvement over an old design. The F teens have been getting equally good or better upgrades.

Re: SU-57: On hold for a decade

Unread postPosted: 18 Dec 2017, 05:35
by Corsair1963
The US has already built over 260 F-35's and that number is on the verge of exploding! So, hard to be impressed by a small number of 4/4.5 Generation Flankers.

Re: SU-57: On hold for a decade

Unread postPosted: 18 Dec 2017, 12:04
by tincansailor
Putin had all the support he needed, the economy was doing fine, his foes were nobodys, Russia was emerging on the world scene again as a respectable actor (albeit with all the Olympics toilet jokes), money was flowing in like crazy. They could even buy all the western equipment they wanted for their armed forces. And yet, the crazy dictator just couldn't be happy with that. Couldn't even maintain the appearance of a reasonable government. Had to go full-CNN "Nazis in the streets" at the first sign that a neighbor might want to liberalize.

Why shift the blame on anybody when everything was going great? Nothing to blame anyone for. Now, economy is shrunk by half. Sometimes I think the only people who manage to do dictatorship well are the Chinese. Everyone else stumbles at some point.


I agree it was a mistake to launch an overt invasion of Ukraine, but Russia was hardly in good shape at that time. Russia is dependent on oil revenue, and when the price collapsed their economy was flushed down the toilet. Russia has less then half the population of the old Soviet Union, and it's population is declining. their economic potential is far less then the USSR. The only way Russia can be a Superpower again is to reconstitute a union of ex Soviet Republics under Moscow's leadership.

Next to Russia Ukraine was the largest, richest, and most important republic. Crimea provided the only major ice free naval, and maritime base for Russia. When the corrupt pro Russian regime was overthrown in a popular revolution Putin was bound to have a strong reaction. Not only was it a national humiliation, and a long term economic defeat, for Ukraine to shift it's economic orientation to the West, but it was a personal nightmare for Putin who fears the same type of revolt in Moscow.

Unable to take the whole Ukraine back, Putin settled for the most he could get. Crimea was of great value, and could be taken bloodlessly. The Russian Nationalist regions in Eastern Ukraine had to be taken for domestic political reasons, even though they represented an economic negative. Putin reasoned the resulting damage to relations with the West was worth it, rather then face a backlash from domestic Russian Nationalist forces. He figured the West would get over it, and accept the Russian conquests as a Fait Accompli. He may well be correct in his assumptions. Trump seems perfectly willing to accept them, and remove sanctions.

Dictatorships often appear to be strong, but they stand on weak foundations. Lacking popular support, or legitimate institutions they rely on force, and the fear of force. Lenin spoke for all tyrants when he said that a revolutionary state couldn't survive without terror. The whole structure of Soviet Power in Eastern Europe, and the Soviet Union it's self collapsed because the people lost their fear. A dictatorship leaves no option for change but though revolution, and if the people's fear is less then their desire for change they will take the risk of revolt.

Putin was personally traumatized by the events of the early 1990s. His world view is summed up by his statement that the fall of the Soviet Union was the greatest geo-strategic tragedy of the 20th Century. His greatest fear is that it could happen again, and throw Russia into more turmoil, and could even lead to the fragmentation of the Russian State.

In the early 17th Century the Russian State almost dissolved. The Romanov Dynasty led a nationalist revival that sustained Russia for 300 years. Putin is trying to do the same thing, and he's using the imperial model has his guide. Pageantry, the revival of the Orthodox Church as a State Religion, the use of imperial palaces, and symbols are all attempts to endow the state with a cloak of imperial dignity, and legitimacy.

Imperial pretentions are a powerful psychological force. It's no wonder that Chairman Mao ruled from the Forbidden City. IMHO our British friends would be foolish to abolish the monarchy, they'd lose more then they'd gain. (God save the Queen.) We'll have to see how successful Putin's imperial project is in the long run. History is always a work in progress. Wow I'm so surprised, he's running for reelection next year, for another 6 year term as Imperial President. I wonder if he'll win?

Re: SU-57: On hold for a decade

Unread postPosted: 19 Dec 2017, 00:49
by arian
^^^ Long post by tincan and not a single mention of Trump, Nazis, our impending death at the hands of North Korea, or the beautiful cultural contributions of Puerto Rico?

Surely, it is a holiday miracle.

Re: SU-57: On hold for a decade

Unread postPosted: 19 Dec 2017, 08:37
by tincansailor
arian wrote:^^^ Long post by tincan and not a single mention of Trump, Nazis, our impending death at the hands of North Korea, or the beautiful cultural contributions of Puerto Rico?

Surely, it is a holiday miracle.



Sorry to burst your bubble, I did mention Trump. I said he seems to be willing to lift sanctions, on Russia. In fact he's failed to implement new Russian sanctions passed by Congress this summer. So your with with Trump that some of the Nazis marching in Charlottesville were fine people. You and Trump are only worry about the bad Nazis, I worry about all of them. Do you still stick with your theory that a war with NK would be a piece of cake, (Name your flavor)?

Great news, I heard tonight that 2/3 of Puerto Ricans have their lights on. It's only been three months, what do they expect? Those Spanish speaking Americans, (Are they really American if they can't speak English?) Can't they just thank Trump for the paper towels he throw them? Muchas Gracias El Presidente Trump. You hear it from all the people. The Puerto Ricans love him so much their flooding into Florida just so they can vote for him in 2020, that is if he's still in office by them.

Re: SU-57: On hold for a decade

Unread postPosted: 19 Dec 2017, 10:10
by mas
tincansailor wrote:Imperial pretentions are a powerful psychological force. It's no wonder that Chairman Mao ruled from the Forbidden City. IMHO our British friends would be foolish to abolish the monarchy, they'd lose more then they'd gain. (God save the Queen.) We'll have to see how successful Putin's imperial project is in the long run. History is always a work in progress. Wow I'm so surprised, he's running for reelection next year, for another 6 year term as Imperial President. I wonder if he'll win?


Colonel Igor Strelkov aka Igor Girkin (ex-fsb Russian fighter for Ukrainian rebels) was remarkably loose tongued in his social media posts and public statements. Cued by sources like kievpost and rferl I read his posts casually remarking to people who he argued with online on Russian nationalist forums that an fsb computer spat out the election results every time whereby United Russia party always gets 60%+ and that the Crimean referendum was equally fixed. He also in his time admitted to the downing of a supposed Ukrainian transport that was later identified as MH17.

Putin is part of the fsb deep state that have always run Russia. Elections are just for show to placate the people's desire for debate. Genuine opponents are always barred/killed/imprisoned. I don't think Russians really care either as long as the deep state strongman satisfies either their economic or nationalist interests and to be fair to Putin he does try to on either score.

Putin basically has to stay in power until the day he dies otherwise all the protection money and assets the Oligarchs have paid him will be exposed and he eventually prosecuted/exiled.

The UK will never get rid of the monarchy unless another really arrogant one arises like King Charles I. The reason being that it is a check and balance on a possible tyranny of an elected parliament like what occurred under Oliver Cromwell. That is why it is referred to as Her Majesty's Government even though they solely exercise the power according to their mandate and wishes. The army also technically belongs to her too so again another check so that no elected official ever feels like going Mussolini/Hitler style rogue.

Commoners have recently married into the royal family like Catherine, wife of Prince William as well as soon a biracial American actress, Meghan Markle who is going to marry Prince Harry. Both have proved quite popular with the general public who like this upmarket version of reality TV soap unfolding before them ;). As a rule the monarchy is always more popular and trusted than any government in the UK because the people know they are not after any power as they already technically have it in perpetuity ;).

Re: SU-57: On hold for a decade

Unread postPosted: 19 Dec 2017, 15:36
by wrightwing
tincansailor wrote:

Sorry to burst your bubble, I did mention Trump. I said he seems to be willing to lift sanctions, on Russia. In fact he's failed to implement new Russian sanctions passed by Congress this summer. So your with with Trump that some of the Nazis marching in Charlottesville were fine people. You and Trump are only worry about the bad Nazis, I worry about all of them. Do you still stick with your theory that a war with NK would be a piece of cake, (Name your flavor)?


Trump never said Nazis, KKK, etc.... are fine people. White supremacists weren't the only people in Charlottesville. The media, and left wing pundits lumped everyone together, as that's the standard narrative.

Re: SU-57: On hold for a decade

Unread postPosted: 19 Dec 2017, 17:53
by mixelflick
I agree with the poster who stated they should just focus on SU-34's/35's. I didn't understand the tech lag in avionics though, so I appreciate the information.

The SU-35 is an incredible machine, but no doubt out classed by the F-22 which it's butting heads with in Syria. What concerns me are the ROE wherein both are within visual range. If things get heated then the SU-35 is in its wheelhouse and the F-22 will have to deal with that. Sure the Raptor can out fly it, but I thought the doctrine was kill them well BVR? It seems foolish for Raptors to be WVR of anything, including Frogfoots.

Russia would like nothing better than to leave Syria with bragging rights by taking a cheap shot and killing a Raptor. Just imagine what that would do for foreign sales of the SU-35. I wouldn't put it past them!

Re: SU-57: On hold for a decade

Unread postPosted: 19 Dec 2017, 18:18
by icemaverick
In an actual war, the F-22s would fire on the enemy jets from BVR. The United States is not at war with Russia and presumably the F-22 got into visual range with the Russian jets in order to warn them. For all we know, there was another F-22 (or multiple F-22s) in the area tracking and prepared to engage the Flankers. It is indeed a scary situation in Syria and a misunderstanding/miscommunication could lead to a major international event. Let’s hope that both sides will be extremely cautious.

Re: SU-57: On hold for a decade

Unread postPosted: 19 Dec 2017, 20:56
by mas
I suppose the Russians now know exactly how close the Su-35 have to get to detect the F-22 on their radar/irst.

Re: SU-57: On hold for a decade

Unread postPosted: 20 Dec 2017, 01:26
by arian
mas wrote:Cued by sources like kievpost and rferl I read his posts casually remarking to people who he argued with online on Russian nationalist forums that an fsb computer spat out the election results every time whereby United Russia party always gets 60%+


You're underestimating the probability that the Russian people actually like Putin. He hardly needs to cheat to win elections. He was doing a fine job prior to 2015 in growing the economy and improving their lot in life, and in bringing Russia into a more reasonable position on the world stage.

I have little doubt he could get 60% of the vote in any free and fair election at the federal level. At the local level there are more problems, and that's usually where the cheating happens in Russia.

The problem with dictators like Putin (or Erdogan and that sort of type) isn't that they can't get popular support to win elections, at least not the first 5 or 6 times :wink: . It's that over time everything erodes and you can't keep growing the economy and satisfying most of the people, most of the time. Not if they fail to turn the economy into a modern diversified economy that isn't reliant on a single commodity market and on a monopolistic position. If they fail to do that, then long-term prospects of them remaining in power are diminished. But Putin wasn't there yet. He miscalculated. He actually caused an economic collapse that would not have happened on its own.

Re: SU-57: On hold for a decade

Unread postPosted: 20 Dec 2017, 07:08
by Corsair1963
arian wrote:
mas wrote:Cued by sources like kievpost and rferl I read his posts casually remarking to people who he argued with online on Russian nationalist forums that an fsb computer spat out the election results every time whereby United Russia party always gets 60%+


You're underestimating the probability that the Russian people actually like Putin. He hardly needs to cheat to win elections. He was doing a fine job prior to 2015 in growing the economy and improving their lot in life, and in bringing Russia into a more reasonable position on the world stage.

I have little doubt he could get 60% of the vote in any free and fair election at the federal level. At the local level there are more problems, and that's usually where the cheating happens in Russia.

The problem with dictators like Putin (or Erdogan and that sort of type) isn't that they can't get popular support to win elections, at least not the first 5 or 6 times :wink: . It's that over time everything erodes and you can't keep growing the economy and satisfying most of the people, most of the time. Not if they fail to turn the economy into a modern diversified economy that isn't reliant on a single commodity market and on a monopolistic position. If they fail to do that, then long-term prospects of them remaining in power are diminished. But Putin wasn't there yet. He miscalculated. He actually caused an economic collapse that would not have happened on its own.


If, the Russian People saw the real numbers for Putin. Then his support would very likely drop to a point that he would loose! Which, is why he won't even bend a little.....

Re: SU-57: On hold for a decade

Unread postPosted: 20 Dec 2017, 07:36
by arian
Corsair1963 wrote:If, the Russian People saw the real numbers for Putin. Then his support would very likely drop to a point that he would loose! Which, is why he won't even bend a little.....


What real numbers? If you were a Russian, and you had gone through the 1990s and were faced with the choice of a guy who doubled or tripled your standard of living in the last decade, vs. a pack of hyenas of various other candidates ranging from psychopathic crazies, to old commies promising to return you to bread lines, to a multitude of weird socialists and weird oligarchs who mostly live abroad. You face the choice of a guy who brought stability, economic liberalization etc., or a bunch of unknowns. What would you chose?

Be truthful. Who would you chose, given the options available?

In the West we think people in other countries have the luxury of choosing the perfect and the luxury of ruling out candidates because they made a gaffe or their tax returns aren't public or their genitalia. Trivial and nonsensical issues. You can have that luxury in the US and in developed Western countries (and often to our detriment since we pick people on idiotic reasons, since little else matters). But they don't have that luxury in many other places, including Russia. They have real problems to deal with...not "social justice" retarded problems.

Certainly, I'd vote for Putin if were a Russian. Not a second's doubt.

That being said, he shot himself in the foot for no particular reason with Ukraine and now is paying a heavy price for it. Which is of course the downside of not being able to transition into a modern economy in time.

Now to bring this a LITTLE back on topic to PAK-FA, not being under sanctions would have helped them quite a bit in terms of their lack of technological advancement. The biggest advancements they made in terms of electronics since the end of the Cold War was the acquisition of Western systems like French targeting pods and the acquisition of civilian telecommunication technologies. This directly led to a big jump in technical level for radar development and production, and the jump in capability from their early AESAs to their current AESAs. These are based directly on civilian technology licensed to Russia. They may still be quite behind the West, but they were at least getting an infusion of new technology which they could not have developed on their own. Now, that avenue is blocked once more.

Same for development in computing power which was again the direct result of civilian technologies licensed from the West. Now that is unlikely to happen again in the near future.

They can do airframes and engines, since the West has no particular advantage over Russia in those fields. But electronics are big problem because the West has massive civilian developers and manufacturers to fuel new technologies, whereas Russia has virtually nothing in that regards.

Re: SU-57: On hold for a decade

Unread postPosted: 20 Dec 2017, 09:51
by wrightwing
mas wrote:I suppose the Russians now know exactly how close the Su-35 have to get to detect the F-22 on their radar/irst.

There's no evidence that Flankers detected F-22s, at least in a stealthy configuration. It's a safe bet that the USAF isn't going to give up freebies to the Russians, over Su-25s. The Su-35 flew to where the Su-25s were, which was a known location. Raptors shadowed the Flanker the entire time, not the other way around.

Re: SU-57: On hold for a decade

Unread postPosted: 20 Dec 2017, 11:01
by tincansailor
arian wrote:
mas wrote:Cued by sources like kievpost and rferl I read his posts casually remarking to people who he argued with online on Russian nationalist forums that an fsb computer spat out the election results every time whereby United Russia party always gets 60%+


You're underestimating the probability that the Russian people actually like Putin. He hardly needs to cheat to win elections. He was doing a fine job prior to 2015 in growing the economy and improving their lot in life, and in bringing Russia into a more reasonable position on the world stage.

I have little doubt he could get 60% of the vote in any free and fair election at the federal level. At the local level there are more problems, and that's usually where the cheating happens in Russia.

The problem with dictators like Putin (or Erdogan and that sort of type) isn't that they can't get popular support to win elections, at least not the first 5 or 6 times :wink: . It's that over time everything erodes and you can't keep growing the economy and satisfying most of the people, most of the time. Not if they fail to turn the economy into a modern diversified economy that isn't reliant on a single commodity market and on a monopolistic position. If they fail to do that, then long-term prospects of them remaining in power are diminished. But Putin wasn't there yet. He miscalculated. He actually caused an economic collapse that would not have happened on its own.



Thanks arian for giving us the Worms Eye view of history. "The problem with dictators". In the 90s Russia's economy went into freefall because of the end of government investment, and the corrupt selloff of the public sector of the economy. The lack of rule of law meant that anyone with government, or organized crime support could buy the former assets of the state for pennies on the dollar. Apparatchiks became overnight Billionaires, at the expense of 99% of the population, who lost their savings, and what had been secure incomes. The new Billionaires cashed out, and parked their profits in Western banks, starting a massive capital out flow.

Putin ended the Free for all era of stealing everything you can get your hands on. It was replaced with the standard that only Putin, and his supporters can steal. He was never working to build a modern diversified economy. Effectively ending multiparty democracy created a sense of stability, which encouraged foreign investment, in Russia's mineral based economy. Starting from the incredible low point of the year 2000 Russia's economy, and standard of living went up. Starting, and winning the second Chechen War raised Russian national moral.

After a decade foreign investors started waking up to the effects of what the lack of rule of law meant. Your investments weren't safe. You couldn't freely transfer capital, bribery was the norm, and contract law was a suggestion. Even murder could be employed has a business practice, and businessmen out of favor with the regime were thrown into prison on trumped up charges.

Speaking of Trump, Russian money laundering gave him a new lease on life, after American Banks stopped loaning him money. His multiple bankruptcies, lack of ethics, and management incompetence made him a business pariah. It's amazing what hundreds of millions of dollars of dirty money, and an unreality TV show can do for you. Add $2 Billion of free media and you can make a used car salesman president of the United States. And it did.

Even before sanctions foreign investment was already drying up. The price of oil fell, starving the Russian economy of hard currency. Putin did nothing to change the basic nature of post Cold War Russia. It's a corrupt, anti-democratic, illiberal society, with an xenophobic culture. Even Third World countries are able to use their cheap labor to earn national income, and participate in the global economy, Russia can't even do that. All they can do is sell raw materials. Oil, gas, gold, diamonds, uranium, titanium, you name it. Oh sorry they do sell weapons.

Until the Russian People demand an open society they will continue to be ruled by thugs like Putin. Historically the Russian People have rejected liberal republican values, fearing their own freedom. The Russian People don't expect their leaders to give them a modern diversified economy, they don't know what that is. How can they join the global economy, when they fear, and loath foreigners? All they can understand are appeals to Russian Nationalism.

Trump appeals to the same xenophobic forces in America. The paranoid ideas that everyone in the world hates us, our trading partners are cheating us, global environmental agreements are a conspiracy against us, our allies are getting a free ride, people migrate here to steal jobs, or go on welfare, are all part of a dark pessimistic world view. The Russian People have traditionally believed everyone in the world want's to attack them. Russia will never be a First World Country, and America won't be Great Again until those self defeating ideas are rejected by the people of both counties.

Re: SU-57: On hold for a decade

Unread postPosted: 20 Dec 2017, 13:49
by madrat
Thanks for revealing your true colors. It's obvious you really hate the right and center with your regular undertones. But you LEFT no doubt the way you lean now. You almost verbatim mention crapola my liberal democratic Marxist acquaintance mentions, so absolutely contrary to reality there is absolutely no reason to argue with it. Drugs are bad. Mmmmmkay.

Re: SU-57: On hold for a decade

Unread postPosted: 20 Dec 2017, 14:56
by mixelflick
CLIFFS

* The SU-57 is going to be a long time coming, 2nd stage engine is the main obstacle (though there are others)
* Uprated Flankers will have to carry the load. They fly with early 90's tech by western standards
* Trump haters permeate this thread, one in particular. Everything is Trump's fault. He's a Nazi and you are too if you like him
* Puerto Rico's failure as an entity and their failed culture is America's fault.
* 200,000 more PR's bailed and came to FL to leech off of US taxpayers, no doubt will vote for Democrats to keep the gravy train going

Re: SU-57: On hold for a decade

Unread postPosted: 20 Dec 2017, 15:00
by milosh
@arian

I wouldn't say sanctions only create trouble for Russia. For example canceling Mistral deal was good thing. That 1billion they got from it would be much wiser to use to fix Kuznetsov (getting MiG-29K instead Su-33 which would solved wire snapping) and to modernize Kirovs then what they would get from two helicopter carriers.

For amphibious landing they will have to Ivan Green ships which are much smaller and cheaper then Mistral and can land tanks directly on shore.

Just to add, french target pod deal was killed lot before sanctions. T220 pod was presented in 2012 and after that you don't hear anymore about licenced Damocles pod.

Re: SU-57: On hold for a decade

Unread postPosted: 20 Dec 2017, 15:09
by milosh
mixelflick wrote:CLIFFS

* The SU-57 is going to be a long time coming, 2nd stage engine is the main obstacle (though there are others)
* Uprated Flankers will have to carry the load. They fly with early 90's tech by western standards
* Trump haters permeate this thread, one in particular. Everything is Trump's fault. He's a Nazi and you are too if you like him
* Puerto Rico's failure as an entity and their failed culture is America's fault.
* 200,000 more PR's bailed and came to FL to leech off of US taxpayers, no doubt will vote for Democrats to keep the gravy train going


Su-57 is more important as whole system then as fighter. This is similar as new tank. In west folks only talk about tank T-14 which they wrongly call Armata, Armata is univesal platform. T-14 as alone is irrelevant no matter how good it is. Older russian tanks are good enough for defensive operations, no need for new tank just for that.

But new platform that is something totally else. You reduce logistical nightmare which USSR left, also you get some very interesting capabilities (new APS for example for all vehicle of Armata family).

Su-57 is in fact, new engine, new sensors and new weapons. All three projects will be used for other fighters, even old MiG-31 which would get new big missile.

Re: SU-57: On hold for a decade

Unread postPosted: 20 Dec 2017, 20:54
by madrat
The Su-35S and Su-57 both use the same engines right now. But when the new Iz.30 comes to full rate production will the Su-35S production resume or stop? And wouldn't it have made sense at least to have Su-34 and Su-30SM3 share the same engines? The Su-30SM should be the top fighter, being an old-school two-seater with the largest available sensor suite since MiG-31BM. So many different tangents being procured right now really waters down the big picture:

Foxhounds
------------------------------------------------
MiG-31BM (N007 Zaslon-AM, D-30)
MiG-31BSM (N007 Zaslon-AM, D-30)

Flankers
------------------------------------------------
Su-27S FLANKER-B (Tikhomirov-NIIP N001 Myech TC-MSA, AL-31F, single-seat, 10 hardpoints; KnAAPO)
Su-27SM FLANKER-B Mod. 1 (mid-life upgrade Su-27S, Phazotron-NIIR N001V TC-MSA, AL-31F w/1-D TVC, new cockpit, modern ECM, single-seat; IAPO)
Su-27SM2 FLANKER-B Mod. 2 (stage II upgrade Su-27SM, Tikhomirov-NIIP N011 Irbis PA-MSA, AL-41F1S, single-seat, glass cockpit, 1,000kg more fuel than Su-27; KnAAPO)
Su-27SM3 (upgraded Su-27S, Phazotron-NIIR Zhuk-MFS, AL-31FM1; KnAAPO)
Su-27UB FLANKER-C (trainer, N011M BARS Hybrid ESA, two-seat; IAPO)
Su-27UBM FLANKER-C (upgraded Su-30KN into trainer, N011M BARS Hybrid ESA, IFR probe, two-seat; IAPO)
-------------canard-----------------------------
Su-30 (Tikhomirov-NIIP N001 Myech TC-MSA, AL-31F, two-seat, canards, IFR probe, multi-role, 200kg more fuel than Su-27; KnAAPO)
Su-30M FLANKER-F (Tikhomirov-NIIP N001 Myech TC-MSA, AL-31F, two-seat, canards, IFR probe, 1st multi-role, 200kg more fuel than Su-27, 12 hardpoints; KnAAPO)
Su-30M2 FLANKER-G (Su-30MK2 originally destined for the PLAAF, but not delivered, Phazotron-NIIR N001VEP, two-seat, canards, IFR probe; KnAAPO)
Su-30SM FLANKER-H (Tikhomirov-NIIP N011M BARS-R Hybrid ESA, AL-31F, two-seat, canards, wide-angle HUD; KnAAPO)
Su-30SM2 FLANKER-H (Tikhomirov-NIIP Irbis, Al-31F, two-seat, canards; IAPO)
Su-30SM3 FLANKER-H (AL-31F-M1, two-seat, canards; KnAAPO)
-------------naval------------------------------
Su-33 Flanker-D (Tikhomirov-NIIP N011 BARS Hybrid ESA, AL-31F3, single-seat, canards, unique folding wings, high-lift devices and a tailhook arresting gear for carrier operations; KnAAPO)
Su-33UB (Tikhomirov-NIIP N011 BARS, AL-31F3, two-seat, canards, unique folding wings, high-lift devices and a tailhook arresting gear for carrier operations; KnAAPO)


Super Flanker
------------------------------------------------
Su-27BM/Su-35BM Flanker-E (Tikhomirov-NIIP N035 Irbis-E PESA, Phazotron-NIIR N-012 tail, AL-41F1S, single-seat, glass cockpit, 1,000kg more fuel than Su-27; KnAAPO)
Su-35S Flanker-E (Tikhomirov-NIIP N035 Irbis-E PESA, AL-41F1S/117S w/3-D TVC, single-seat, IFR probe, all-digital FBW, new MFD's, single-seat, reclined seat; KnAAPO)


Fullback
------------------------------------------------
Su-34 Fullback ( V004 PESA, Phazotron-NIIR N-012 tail, AL-31FM1, side-by-side two-seat, 10,000kg more fuel than Su-27, canards; NAPO)

PAKFA
------------------------------------------------
T-50 ( Tikhomirov-NIIP N035 Irbis-E, AL-41F1/117, six hardpoints)
Su-57 (Tikhomirov-NIIP N036 Byelka AESA, AL4-1F3/Iz.30)

Fulcrums
------------------------------------------------
MiG-29 (Tikhomirov-NIIP N019 Rubin)
MiG-29B (Phazotron-NIIR N019 Sapfir 29)
MiG-29S/9.13 Fulcrum-C (Phazotron-NIIR N019M, limited ground attack, fatback)
MiG-29SMT/9.17 Fulcrum-E (upgrade 9.12/9.13, Phazotron-NIIR Zhuk-ME PESA, RD-33 ser.3, new MFD's, improved HOTAS, fatback)
MiG-29UBT/9.51T (SMT upgrades to MiG-29UB)
MiG-29M/9.15 Fulcrum-E (redesigned airframe, Phazotron-NIIR Zhuk-AE AESA, RD-33MK, IFR probe, all-digital FBW, new MFD's, improved HOTAS, single-seat)
-------------naval------------------------------
MiG-29K (Phazotron-NIIR Zhuk-ME PESA)
MiG-29KUB/9.47 Fulcrum-D (trainer version of MiG-29K, Phazotron-NIIR Zhuk-ME PESA)

Feel free to correct anything in this list...

Re: SU-57: On hold for a decade

Unread postPosted: 20 Dec 2017, 22:52
by swiss
Thanks for this list Madrat. Interesting.

And all this Birds are all still in service by now in the Russian AF? :shock:

Re: SU-57: On hold for a decade

Unread postPosted: 20 Dec 2017, 23:16
by mas
Tincansailor: good analysis on post communist Russia. As for Trump he was just looking for a unique angle to get elected in a sea of republicans and the nationalist one worked for him although to be fair I thought Clinton was an unbalanced psycho who was more likely to inadvertently start WW3 with Russia than any prospective presidential candidate ever had. To also be fair to Trump again I do like his politically incorrect honesty about matters which is a refreshing change from career politicians and their perennial lying BS. The democrats only have themselves to blame for cheating Sanders out of the nomination because at that point they gave Trump the win because Sanders probably would have beaten him given his lack of historical baggage and more amenable personality.

As for the Russians traditionally fearing everyone wants to attack them well history has proven them right because everyone of their neighbors who have got powerful and full have coveted their excess land for their own population. In the last few centuries it was Europeans like Sweden, France, Germany and in this millennium it would have been the Chinese and Indians if Russia was not so armed to the teeth with nuclear and conventional weapons. It's funny how history has formed because Russia basically sprang from Slavic and Nordic Europeans invading Asia and taking land from Mongol and Turkish races. They sure scooped up a lot of land doing so which everyone has wanted since over the centuries.

As for Su-57 it makes sense to wait for the new engine before going into full production otherwise it's just an overweight Su-35 which is a little stealthier. They will not get the full performance and range improvements of the new airframe with the Su-35's engines. The Su-35 I also see outliving the Su-30MK because it has actually had some stealth work done on it as well as having better engines, radar and sensors.

Re: SU-57: On hold for a decade

Unread postPosted: 20 Dec 2017, 23:50
by arian
milosh wrote:@arian

I wouldn't say sanctions only create trouble for Russia. For example canceling Mistral deal was good thing. That 1billion they got from it would be much wiser to use to fix Kuznetsov (getting MiG-29K instead Su-33 which would solved wire snapping) and to modernize Kirovs then what they would get from two helicopter carriers.

For amphibious landing they will have to Ivan Green ships which are much smaller and cheaper then Mistral and can land tanks directly on shore.

Just to add, french target pod deal was killed lot before sanctions. T220 pod was presented in 2012 and after that you don't hear anymore about licenced Damocles pod.


Of course, once you get the technology, no need to license anymore. The Mistral deal was more to get modern ship-building know how that it was for the ships itself. I don't think spending money on rust-bucket Kuznetsov was a better deal then getting modern carrier building technology from the French (which was the intention in the first place). We all know why the Russians were buying these things in the first place.

milosh wrote:Su-57 is more important as whole system then as fighter. This is similar as new tank. In west folks only talk about tank T-14 which they wrongly call Armata, Armata is univesal platform. T-14 as alone is irrelevant no matter how good it is. Older russian tanks are good enough for defensive operations, no need for new tank just for that.

But new platform that is something totally else. You reduce logistical nightmare which USSR left, also you get some very interesting capabilities (new APS for example for all vehicle of Armata family).

Su-57 is in fact, new engine, new sensors and new weapons. All three projects will be used for other fighters, even old MiG-31 which would get new big missile.


None of the new sensors, engines or weapons couldn't have been developed independently of PAK-FA. In fact, they already were/are. The technology is common to multiple of the newer Russian planes since it's all produced by the same company in the first place (the components are anyway).

This "it's a system" argument makes little sense to me. None of those elements are dependent on each other, and none are revolutionary in that they could only have come about as a result of PAK-FA. Same for Armata. Those new "APS" are little more than evolution of the same APS which has been developed in USSR since mid 1980s. Over the years it has appeared in numerous variants on numerous previous prototypes before Armata. Even in other ex-USSR countries it has appeared in similar variants.

swiss wrote:And all this Birds are all still in service by now in the Russian AF?


Some of those are just prototypes, not necessarily in-service planes.

madrat wrote:The Su-35S and Su-57 both use the same engines right now. But when the new Iz.30 comes to full rate production will the Su-35S production resume or stop? And wouldn't it have made sense at least to have Su-34 and Su-30SM3 share the same engines? The Su-30SM should be the top fighter, being an old-school two-seater with the largest available sensor suite since MiG-31BM. So many different tangents being procured right now really waters down the big picture:


Part of the reason is to keep various production lines open, since each is produced by different manufacturer even through they are all "Sukhoi" designs. Su-34 is built in Novosibirsk, Su-30 is built in Irkut, Su-35 is built in Komsomolsk-on-Amur. You've got to keep all three busy, so all three get build.

Re: SU-57: On hold for a decade

Unread postPosted: 21 Dec 2017, 00:28
by madrat
I don't believe the list I made was anything concerning prototypes. It's like the Su-27BM/Su-35BM, many more were actually produced than I thought. Not all Su-27SM were converted to Su-27SM2, nor have all Su-27S been upgrades to Su-30SM3. Add on the fact that the production line for some of the old versions were simply converted to build the newer versions. It's a huge procurement mess. Surprisingly enough the Russians still have the early Su-27's and Su-30's in service!

Re: SU-57: On hold for a decade

Unread postPosted: 21 Dec 2017, 00:48
by arian
madrat wrote:I don't believe the list I made was anything concerning prototypes. It's like the Su-27BM/Su-35BM, many more were actually produced than I thought. Not all Su-27SM were converted to Su-27SM2, nor have all Su-27S been upgrades to Su-30SM3. Add on the fact that the production line for some of the old versions were simply converted to build the newer versions. It's a huge procurement mess. Surprisingly enough the Russians still have the early Su-27's and Su-30's in service!


Some are definitely prototypes. MiG-29 modernization with AESA for example is not actually going into service (yet). Su-30 with Irbis is not going into service (if it was ever built). Su-35BM isn't going into service.

And a lot of these other versions were early versions produced in small batches and bought for trials or limited use over a couple of decades, but for now it seems they have standardized on a single type of Su-27 modernization, Su-30 modernization and Su-35.

It's no more confusing than all the F-16 blocks out there, although each F-16 block was build in large quantities. But nonetheless, about as confusing.

Re: SU-57: On hold for a decade

Unread postPosted: 21 Dec 2017, 01:09
by arian
milosh wrote:Just to add, french target pod deal was killed lot before sanctions. T220 pod was presented in 2012 and after that you don't hear anymore about licenced Damocles pod.


Just to add a bit on this, Democles was licensed to the Ural plant in 2008. The Ural plant is the one which then produced the indigenous Russian pods several years later. The tech transfer was real, and by that time there was no longer a need to produce the French design. Same sort of tech transfer between France and Russia happened with Sagem who transferred their Matis-LR thermal imaging technology to Russia in 2014. Same of course for tanks, with Thales selling Catherine thermal imaging technology to Russia, which then become Sosna-U which upgraded T-90s. Prior to this French tech transfer they only had passive image intensifiers (which is horrifying to think that into the 2010s they had no thermal sights at all)

All of these things allowed Russia to advance in this field in a short period of time.

Same thing we saw with the licensing of civilian telecommunication technology for the production of antenna elements which went directly into the advancement of their latest generation of AESA.

Good or bad, this was a realistic and fruitful collaboration for Russia; big and needed developments. These things are now closed. They may seem small, but these were huge leaps and bounds for Russia since up till that time they were basically still stuck with what was left over from USSR days and very little advancement was made in these critical technologies.

Re: SU-57: On hold for a decade

Unread postPosted: 21 Dec 2017, 01:45
by arian
But new platform that is something totally else. You reduce logistical nightmare which USSR left, also you get some very interesting capabilities (new APS for example for all vehicle of Armata family).


To expand a bit more on this: the APS used on the family of vehicles is the evolutionary design of the old Drozd system first deployed in 1983 in Afghanistan. Fixed HE rounds fired based on radar detection of incoming projectile. The system evolved from about early/mid 1970s from a system called Veer-3 which fired basically HE shells in the direction of an incoming round, into Drozd deployed in the field, into Drozd-2 in mid-1990s which was a smaller version, and then into Afghanit on Armata. It's far from a new system. (Veer-3 BTW was not the first APS system. The first in the world was developed and tested by Germany in late 60s. That one worked on shape charges rather than HE grenades.)

Of course just about everyone else has also developed similar HE-grande style systems since the 1990 (and many other configurations besides HE projectiles).

Re: SU-57: On hold for a decade

Unread postPosted: 21 Dec 2017, 01:50
by madrat
Su-30SM2 most certainly was built with Irbis. People sometimes refer to Su-35BM as Su-30S, which is strange considering it's a single-seat. The canards make it similar to an Su-30, but that's about the only similarities as its basis is Su-27M. Su-35BM were only fielded in LRIP and they were diverted to the Russian White Knights aerobatics team. All are still combat capable.

Re: SU-57: On hold for a decade

Unread postPosted: 21 Dec 2017, 03:16
by arian
madrat wrote: People sometimes refer to Su-35BM as Su-30S, which is strange considering it's a single-seat. The canards make it similar to an Su-30, but that's about the only similarities as its basis is Su-27M. Su-35BM were only fielded in LRIP and they were diverted to the Russian White Knights aerobatics team. All are still combat capable.


Russian Knights only have Su-30SMs now and prior to that had Su-27s. As far as I know, they never had Su-35BM. Su-35BM was a designation for the export version of Su-35, which was never build other than in a single prototypes (again, as far as I know. Please provide evidence to the contrary if you have it).

Su-30SM2 most certainly was built with Irbis.


I can find no evidence of this. The only evidence is some newspaper article claiming that Komsomolsk-on-Amur will deliver 5 "Su-30SM2". But Komsomolsk-on-Amur makes Su-30M2 (which is the Russian designation for non-canard export Su-30MK2). And every other source says these are actually Su-30M2. Su-30SM (Russian designation for canard export Su-30MKI) is made by Irkut.

No such thing as "Su-30SM2" even appears to exist or have ever been build, as far as I can tell.

Re: SU-57: On hold for a decade

Unread postPosted: 21 Dec 2017, 03:34
by madrat
Probably because it was built at IAPO, not KnAPPO.

Image

Re: SU-57: On hold for a decade

Unread postPosted: 21 Dec 2017, 06:03
by arian
Ok I stand corrected. They had 6 of these "Su-35" versions.

However, these are not "Su-35BM". These are the first Su-35 prototypes called "Su-27M". They still had Bars radars. Not sure what has happened to them by now, but I don't think they were ever "in-service" types as they did not perform well in trials. So not sure they were ever assigned to any combat units. Several others were pure prototypes and still serve as test-bed aircraft.

These were also the platform on which that single "Su-37" version was build on.

This is actually not the "Su-35" as we know it today, but a dead-end project that started in the 1980s with the T-10M. These planes were build in the late-80s early-90s, but the design went nowhere. The Su-35 in its new incarnation is a "new" design from the 2000s not based on the T-10M (Su-27M) airframe. So still not "Su-35BM".

Probably because it was built at IAPO, not KnAPPO.


Irkut doesn't mention any such designation or variant as "Su-30SM2". It talks about Su-30SM. All its announcements on its website and fulfillment of such orders talk of Su-30SM.

So several of those variants and designations, from what I can tell, refer to either prototypes or the designations are mixed up. There was no "Su-27BM" for example, but rather T-10BM which is the factory designation for what become the Su-35S; ie T-10BM (Su-27BM) is actually the new Su-35 incarnation which is different from the failed prior "Su-35" (Su-27M) incarnation based on T-10M. As such, these are not operational types or separate Su-35 variants.

Re: SU-57: On hold for a decade

Unread postPosted: 21 Dec 2017, 06:37
by madrat
I don't know why your google-fu is so weak. The Su-35BM was not Su-35-1 or Su-35B. Once again you're misrepresenting Su-35BM. There were eight Su-35BM, not six. And there were five times that many of the Su-27M that you spoke about. Realize Su-35BM was considered overweight and underperforming, hence Su-35S was a new modernized Su-35BM offshoot. It's kind of a Russian trend to build an old thing using a newer frame with COTS technology.

I made it easy for you to decypher which form of Su-30SM was the modification 2 versus modification 3. IAPO makes a different Su-30SM than KnAPPO. Really, it's not difficult to follow. And I reviewed several sources to verify each model.

Re: SU-57: On hold for a decade

Unread postPosted: 21 Dec 2017, 06:58
by arian
You're still wrong. Those are Su-27M, not BM. Nor Su-35BM. T-10BM was the designation for Su-35S we see today.

5 times that many Su-27Ms??? There were a total of 12 build including all the prototypes and the test beds etc. 6 "production" airframes which were not assigned to any combat units (as far as I know). Dead-end project that ended in early-mid 90s.

Irkut and Komsomol don't both make Su-30SM. Komsomol makes Su-30M2 (Su-30M--K--2 where the K is for commercial is dropped). Irkut makes Su-30SM. You can check their websites. Go to primary sources, as there is lots of stuff on the internet that makes lots of untrue claims. In any case, no Irbis-equipped Su-30 in service or produced.

Here you go: https://su27flankerfamily.wordpress.com ... 27m-su-35/

Every Su-27M photographed and evidenced, and the 5 (not 6 as I said earlier) that served with the Russian Knights, and apparently are not no longer flyable.

Re: SU-57: On hold for a decade

Unread postPosted: 21 Dec 2017, 09:14
by swiss
Very interesting to read arian

arian wrote: MiG-29 modernization with AESA for example is not actually going into service (yet).


What is your opinion why the Russian build the Mig-35 without AESA. Money?

Also interesting on which level is a T-90 Vladimir, compare to the latest variants of western Tanks. Like Leopard 2, M1 Abrams, Leclerc and Challenger 2 ?

Re: SU-57: On hold for a decade

Unread postPosted: 21 Dec 2017, 09:51
by arian
swiss wrote:What is your opinion why the Russian build the Mig-35 without AESA. Money?


More likely not a mature radar yet and lack of production capability. They supposedly only got the ability to produce AESA elements last year. I don't know how long it takes to actually produce operational radars, test them, get them in service and then begin production, but probably too long for the first batch of upgraded MiG-29s.

Also interesting on which level is a T-90 Vladimir, compare to the latest variants of western Tanks. Like Leopard 2, M1 Abrams, Leclerc and Challenger 2 ?


I don't know. Tanks today are all appearing to be very vulnerable to all sorts of things. Tactics, crew and sensors will win the day at the end rather than inherent tank design. Although the welded turret of the latest T-90 is a huge improvement over the prior cast turrets which had a lot of weak spots (nearly 1/5 the frontal turret was a weak spot in the cast designs), it is still likely vulnerable at any combat range to any Western 120mm round, especially if said rounds are able to defeat Kontakt-5 ERA (as they are claimed to do). OTOH, ammunition is still a big weakness of Russian tanks as none of them are likely to be able to defeat modern Western tank frontal armor. But as we've seen, frontal armor etc aren't all that important in today's battlefield where so many threats can appear from all sides. ATGMs appear to be a bigger threat to tanks today than other tanks, especially since nobody has a whole lot of tanks anymore for much other than small skirmishes.

Re: SU-57: On hold for a decade

Unread postPosted: 21 Dec 2017, 12:56
by hornetfinn
arian wrote:
swiss wrote:What is your opinion why the Russian build the Mig-35 without AESA. Money?


More likely not a mature radar yet and lack of production capability. They supposedly only got the ability to produce AESA elements last year. I don't know how long it takes to actually produce operational radars, test them, get them in service and then begin production, but probably too long for the first batch of upgraded MiG-29s.


Besides producing components and putting them together there is also the software that needs to be developed and tested. In AESAs most things are done with software and there needs to be much more software than in MSA or PESA radars. Software has required a lot of work and caused quite major delays in many AESA radars. Software allows a lot of things not possible otherwise, but it also requires a lot of hard work to get right. Of course it also means that requirements for computing hardware are higher. AESA tech is great, but not easy to get right. It has taken pretty much 10-15 years to develop an operational fighter AESA from Western countries and I doubt Russia will have any easier time.

Re: SU-57: On hold for a decade

Unread postPosted: 21 Dec 2017, 15:08
by XanderCrews
arian wrote:^^^ Long post by tincan and not a single mention of Trump, Nazis, our impending death at the hands of North Korea, or the beautiful cultural contributions of Puerto Rico?

Surely, it is a holiday miracle.



Do we inform the mods that he has been hacked? or just play along?

Re: SU-57: On hold for a decade

Unread postPosted: 21 Dec 2017, 15:23
by XanderCrews
swiss wrote:
Also interesting on which level is a T-90 Vladimir, compare to the latest variants of western Tanks. Like Leopard 2, M1 Abrams, Leclerc and Challenger 2 ?



I'll risk being called a fanboy, but western Tanks are better . The russians are still usong derivitives of derivitives.

Maybe the most interesting thing about Russia is that they can't play war like the USSR could. They have to reinvent themselves. Swarming cheap tanks won't work when you don't have the same swarm. At the tail end of the USSR we were seeing the light bulb turn on in terms of quality vs quantity

Netcentric warfare is the future. Abrams may be a mile apart in the next ground battle. It won't be like 1991. But the results for Russian tanks will be the same.

Re: SU-57: On hold for a decade

Unread postPosted: 21 Dec 2017, 17:34
by collimatrix
swiss wrote:Also interesting on which level is a T-90 Vladimir, compare to the latest variants of western Tanks. Like Leopard 2, M1 Abrams, Leclerc and Challenger 2 ?


T-90 is substantially behind the current generation of Western MBTs, although the latest variants have narrowed the gap.

The best Soviet tanks were generally better than their Western counterparts until the Leo 2/M1 Abrams generation, which leapfrogged Soviet technology by an enormous margin that they simply never recovered. It should be noted that the majority of the Soviet tank park was not comprised of their latest and greatest, however, and that it was always bulked out with older models. The same was usually true of NATO forces, however.

It remains to be seen whether the T-14 Armata regains parity with Western designs, but the T-90 family does not.

T-90 is simply a heavily upgraded T-72, which means that it is stuck with many of the design compromises of the old T-72 design. These design compromises include a transmission that is very compact, but that limits the tank's maneuverability, a suspension design that doesn't have as much shock absorption as the latest models, and a frontal hull armor package that has a huge notch in the top.

arian wrote:Although the welded turret of the latest T-90 is a huge improvement over the prior cast turrets which had a lot of weak spots (nearly 1/5 the frontal turret was a weak spot in the cast designs)


The welded turret of the T-90A doesn't really provide better coverage than the cast turret of the baseline T-90.

Image

The big center of mass weakpoints from the thinner gun mantlet and the notch in the glacis for the driver's position, along with the gaps in reactive armor coverage are about the same. The parts that are well covered are even better protected, but the gaps in the protection are largely unchanged.

it is still likely vulnerable at any combat range to any Western 120mm round, especially if said rounds are able to defeat Kontakt-5 ERA (as they are claimed to do). OTOH, ammunition is still a big weakness of Russian tanks as none of them are likely to be able to defeat modern Western tank frontal armor.


Russian ammunition technology may be somewhat behind the West, although that stuff is pretty secret sauce now so it's hard to say. One thing that can be stated with certainty is that the Russian 125mm smoothbore is a lot weaker than the German 120mm smoothbore. So even with parity in ammunition technology, the 125 still wouldn't hit as hard.

120mm ammunition is much larger, and the guns are rated to slightly higher pressure. On top of that, 120mm ammunition is one-piece, which allows for longer penetrators. With current technology it's better to make penetrators longer rather than faster.

But as we've seen, frontal armor etc aren't all that important in today's battlefield where so many threats can appear from all sides. ATGMs appear to be a bigger threat to tanks today than other tanks, especially since nobody has a whole lot of tanks anymore for much other than small skirmishes.


Most of the recent ATGM-heavy conflicts have been insurgency-type conflicts where one sides armor forces have been what they can scrounge and capture from regular forces, so I'm not sure that they're indicative of how armor would be employed in a symmetrical fight. Furthermore, a lot of the tanks being killed with ATGMs are older T-72 variants without thermal optics. ATGM teams would be a lot less survivable if the tanks they were hunting could see their body heat.

Re: SU-57: On hold for a decade

Unread postPosted: 21 Dec 2017, 18:48
by mixelflick
Wow, never realized there were so many flavors of Flanker. With respect to SU-57 I think the truth lies somewhere between the Russian IOC of 2019 and 2027. So let's call it 2022. By then, what kind of F-22 upgrades will be in effect?

Helmet mounted sight? New radars? How about an up-rated engine? The engine to me is the most intriguing. The USAF has consistently referred to it as in the "35,000" class". Wouldn't it make sense to upgrade those once the SU-57 is entering service/the J-20 is maturing?

Re: SU-57: On hold for a decade

Unread postPosted: 21 Dec 2017, 21:02
by mas
Does the F-22 really need an engine upgrade ? Its current ones are perfect for high altitude supercruising and even the F-35 won't have an engine upgrade by 2022. Engine upgrades can be looked at in the 2030-40 timeframe if at all. F-22's most pressing need is for an IRST/LRF like EOTS or preferably EOTS 2 so it can identify and target aircraft/ground targets at range passively. Then the HMS so it's more quicker in combat decision making. Finally a full MADL translator would be nice as would be cheek mounted AESA to increase the radar FOV.

Re: SU-57: On hold for a decade

Unread postPosted: 21 Dec 2017, 22:56
by arian
collimatrix wrote:The welded turret of the T-90A doesn't really provide better coverage than the cast turret of the baseline T-90.

The big center of mass weakpoints from the thinner gun mantlet and the notch in the glacis for the driver's position, along with the gaps in reactive armor coverage are about the same. The parts that are well covered are even better protected, but the gaps in the protection are largely unchanged.


True, but it's still a lot better than previous cast turrets. The frontal mantlet is a weak spot for all tanks, it's just a matter of how weak and how large it is. Size wise its about the same as on Abrams, and strength wise: who knows. But it represents a much larger % of frontal area than Abrams. OTOH, prior cast turrets had much larger weak spots besides the mantlet area. Due to it being cast, there were large gaps where there could not be any "composite" armor (it is all mostly NERA these days), plus the top of the turret that was heavily sloped was still a weak zone due to it being thin cast steel. Only the cheeks were basically protected by NERA inserts (to some extent).

There was a picture form a Soviet publication where they tested T-72B against 100mm and 125mm APFSDS rounds and it showed that about 1/3 of the frontal turret was vulnerable to even 100mm rounds, and half was vulnerable to both. So huge weak zones.

Welded turret removes most of these, especially the gaps in NERA coverage due to casting shape, and the top slope of the turret (which alone is about 1/3 of the profile of the turret). And the mantlet weak zone is bumped up to some degree. So overall a better design.

Also I'm not sure K-5 coverage is the same. It's the same in older cast-turret T-90 (basically 0 frontal coverage of K-5). But in later versions it's a lot better.

In any case, none of this really matters much as latest 120mm rounds will still penetrate it mostly everywhere from 2,000m range. And its weakness is still ammo and sensors.

collimatrix wrote:Most of the recent ATGM-heavy conflicts have been insurgency-type conflicts where one sides armor forces have been what they can scrounge and capture from regular forces, so I'm not sure that they're indicative of how armor would be employed in a symmetrical fight. Furthermore, a lot of the tanks being killed with ATGMs are older T-72 variants without thermal optics. ATGM teams would be a lot less survivable if the tanks they were hunting could see their body heat.


I don't know. We saw it in Ukraine too. Hundreds of tanks destroyed. That was the closest to a "real" war with "advanced" opponents we've seen since Desert Storm. Very few of those tanks were destroyed by other tanks, and most fell to ATGMs, mines, RPGs, and artillery.

And those insurgent conflicts in the ME may be different, but still even insurgents with ATGMs are destroying somewhere between 600-1,000 Syrian tanks in the course of this war. And we've seen about a dozen Abrams destroyed by ATGMs as well. All in all, doesn't look too good for tanks (of course accounting for tactics of both sides). It appears what matters most is air power, combined arms, and situational awareness. Armor of the tank seems to be last resort. If you get to the point where you get hit, it's probably already too late.

Re: SU-57: On hold for a decade

Unread postPosted: 21 Dec 2017, 23:13
by swiss
Thanks for all your answers.

arian wrote:
More likely not a mature radar yet and lack of production capability. They supposedly only got the ability to produce AESA elements last year. I don't know how long it takes to actually produce operational radars, test them, get them in service and then begin production, but probably too long for the first batch of upgraded MiG-29s.


hornetfinn wrote:
Besides producing components and putting them together there is also the software that needs to be developed and tested. In AESAs most things are done with software and there needs to be much more software than in MSA or PESA radars. Software has required a lot of work and caused quite major delays in many AESA radars. Software allows a lot of things not possible otherwise, but it also requires a lot of hard work to get right. Of course it also means that requirements for computing hardware are higher. AESA tech is great, but not easy to get right. It has taken pretty much 10-15 years to develop an operational fighter AESA from Western countries and I doubt Russia will have any easier time.


So still a long way for the Russians. Its a bit ironic, that "the west" give them the key for the AESA technology. Or at least to develop it faster.

XanderCrews wrote:Maybe the most interesting thing about Russia is that they can't play war like the USSR could. They have to reinvent themselves. Swarming cheap tanks won't work when you don't have the same swarm. At the tail end of the USSR we were seeing the light bulb turn on in terms of quality vs quantity


True. When you see the Military budget of the USSR at the end of 80s, and what they have know.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_c ... xpenditure

But to be fair the Russian should have 500-600 T-90 according to wiki. Not bad.

collimatrix wrote:T-90 is substantially behind the current generation of Western MBTs, although the latest variants have narrowed the gap.

The best Soviet tanks were generally better than their Western counterparts until the Leo 2/M1 Abrams generation, which leapfrogged Soviet technology by an enormous margin that they simply never recovered. It should be noted that the majority of the Soviet tank park was not comprised of their latest and greatest, however, and that it was always bulked out with older models. The same was usually true of NATO forces, however.

It remains to be seen whether the T-14 Armata regains parity with Western designs, but the T-90 family does not.

T-90 is simply a heavily upgraded T-72, which means that it is stuck with many of the design compromises of the old T-72 design. These design compromises include a transmission that is very compact, but that limits the tank's maneuverability, a suspension design that doesn't have as much shock absorption as the latest models, and a frontal hull armor package that has a huge notch in the top.

The welded turret of the T-90A doesn't really provide better coverage than the cast turret of the baseline T-90.

Image

The big center of mass weakpoints from the thinner gun mantlet and the notch in the glacis for the driver's position, along with the gaps in reactive armor coverage are about the same. The parts that are well covered are even better protected, but the gaps in the protection are largely unchanged.

Russian ammunition technology may be somewhat behind the West, although that stuff is pretty secret sauce now so it's hard to say. One thing that can be stated with certainty is that the Russian 125mm smoothbore is a lot weaker than the German 120mm smoothbore. So even with parity in ammunition technology, the 125 still wouldn't hit as hard.

120mm ammunition is much larger, and the guns are rated to slightly higher pressure. On top of that, 120mm ammunition is one-piece, which allows for longer penetrators. With current technology it's better to make penetrators longer rather than faster.

Most of the recent ATGM-heavy conflicts have been insurgency-type conflicts where one sides armor forces have been what they can scrounge and capture from regular forces, so I'm not sure that they're indicative of how armor would be employed in a symmetrical fight. Furthermore, a lot of the tanks being killed with ATGMs are older T-72 variants without thermal optics. ATGM teams would be a lot less survivable if the tanks they were hunting could see their body heat.


Thanks for your inside view of modern Tanks collimatrix. :thumb:

Re: SU-57: On hold for a decade

Unread postPosted: 22 Dec 2017, 00:50
by terrygedran
milosh wrote:@arian

I wouldn't say sanctions only create trouble for Russia. For example canceling Mistral deal was good thing. That 1billion they got from it would be much wiser to use to fix Kuznetsov (getting MiG-29K instead Su-33 which would solved wire snapping) and to modernize Kirovs then what they would get from two helicopter carriers.

For amphibious landing they will have to Ivan Green ships which are much smaller and cheaper then Mistral and can land tanks directly on shore.

Just to add, french target pod deal was killed lot before sanctions. T220 pod was presented in 2012 and after that you don't hear anymore about licenced Damocles pod.


Ivan Green is a piece of sh*t and money thrown to the wind.
Even the Ministry of Defense considered the concept of their use obsolete.
The construction of these ships is absolutely not covered lobbing and corruption.

Re: SU-57: On hold for a decade

Unread postPosted: 22 Dec 2017, 01:13
by terrygedran
swiss wrote:Very interesting to read arian

arian wrote: MiG-29 modernization with AESA for example is not actually going into service (yet).


What is your opinion why the Russian build the Mig-35 without AESA. Money?

Also interesting on which level is a T-90 Vladimir, compare to the latest variants of western Tanks. Like Leopard 2, M1 Abrams, Leclerc and Challenger 2 ?



T-90 Vladimir was accepted in service in 1992 (deep modernization of the T-72B tank)
M1A2 (1992 год)
Leopard 2A4 85-92
-------------
T-90A "Vladimir" (object 188A1)

is produced since 2004, the V-92S2 engine with a capacity of 1000 liters has been installed. with., improved thermal imaging equipment, installed a welded tower instead of cast, strengthened booking of the upper frontal parts of the shell, a new system of PPO. Since 2004 the TVP-2 generation "Buran-M" has been installed, since 2006 the thermal sight of the second generation "Essa" (modification of Catherine-FC on the tanks of the first series and Catherine-XG on the tanks of the 2009 edition) has been installed, the automatic loading mechanism has been improved the booked volume increased by 100 liters. Adopted in 2005.

T-90A
46,5t B-92S2, 1000 hp
125-мм 2А46М/2А46М-5 with 9K119M Reflex-M(~900mm)
Thickness of the tower armor in the frontal part 950mm

Re: SU-57: On hold for a decade

Unread postPosted: 22 Dec 2017, 01:19
by terrygedran
arian wrote:



And those insurgent conflicts in the ME may be different, but still even insurgents with ATGMs are destroying somewhere between 600-1,000 Syrian tanks in the course of this war. And we've seen about a dozen Abrams destroyed by ATGMs as well. All in all, doesn't look too good for tanks (of course accounting for tactics of both sides). It appears what matters most is air power, combined arms, and situational awareness. Armor of the tank seems to be last resort. If you get to the point where you get hit, it's probably already too late.


600-1,000 Syrian tanks

"T-55"

Re: SU-57: On hold for a decade

Unread postPosted: 22 Dec 2017, 02:15
by arian
terrygedran wrote:600-1,000 Syrian tanks

"T-55"


At least half are T-72s. 300 are confirmed from photos and videos.

Go back to copy-pasting Wikipedia.

Re: SU-57: On hold for a decade

Unread postPosted: 22 Dec 2017, 02:48
by XanderCrews
terrygedran wrote:
T-90 Vladimir was accepted in service in 1992 (deep modernization of the T-72B tank)
M1A2 (1992 год)
Leopard 2A4 85-92
-------------
T-90A "Vladimir" (object 188A1)

is produced since 2004, the V-92S2 engine with a capacity of 1000 liters has been installed. with., improved thermal imaging equipment, installed a welded tower instead of cast, strengthened booking of the upper frontal parts of the shell, a new system of PPO. Since 2004 the TVP-2 generation "Buran-M" has been installed, since 2006 the thermal sight of the second generation "Essa" (modification of Catherine-FC on the tanks of the first series and Catherine-XG on the tanks of the 2009 edition) has been installed, the automatic loading mechanism has been improved the booked volume increased by 100 liters. Adopted in 2005.

T-90A
46,5t B-92S2, 1000 hp
125-мм 2А46М/2А46М-5 with 9K119M Reflex-M(~900mm)
Thickness of the tower armor in the frontal part 950mm


The more fuel the better. Tired of the same old explosions and cook offs.

Re: SU-57: On hold for a decade

Unread postPosted: 22 Dec 2017, 02:52
by XanderCrews
arian wrote:
terrygedran wrote:600-1,000 Syrian tanks

"T-55"


At least half are T-72s. 300 are confirmed from photos and videos.

Go back to copy-pasting Wikipedia.



It's the same crap they always say. Just like how that "wasn't real communism" its never a "real t-72" it's the "monkey model", "dumb arabs", "misemployed" insert excuse. Now those T-72s getting smoked by 1970s era ATGMs have morphed to T-55 right before your own lying eyes!

These things are junk we figured that out after we killed them in droves after respecting them for years and years only to find out the Russians can't do basic things like blowout ammo lockers, or crew protection.

Re: SU-57: On hold for a decade

Unread postPosted: 22 Dec 2017, 03:19
by arian
XanderCrews wrote:Now those T-72s getting smoked by 1970s era ATGMs have morphed to T-55 right before your own lying eyes!


To be fair, Turkish Leo2s were also being smoked by the same missiles in Syria. Soviet designs are especially vulnerable, but all tanks are appearing too vulnerable these days.

All these recent wars have been massacres of tanks, and very few of them inflicted by other tanks. 265 tanks destroyed in Ukraine (at least the ones confirmed by photos): 84 Russian and 181 Ukrainian. Probably less than 10% inflicted by other tanks. 300++ T-72s in Syria: probably 1% inflicted by other tanks.

The demise of the tank as a primary weapon of war has been prematurely declared many times before. But this time it's getting pretty close.

Re: SU-57: On hold for a decade

Unread postPosted: 22 Dec 2017, 07:15
by arian
Here's that picture I was talking about: T-72B frontal armor evaluated against BM-8 100mm round (~300mm penetration) and BM-26 125mm round (~400mm penetration). 1/3 of the frontal turret is <300mm protection, and over half is <400mm protection.

Image

As you can see the cast design is so poor that even in the cheeks, nearly 1/3 of the profile is still just steel and no special armor insert.

So all those claims of "monkey models!" are kind of pointless. Monkey model or not, the base armor of all of these is the same. Only the cheek inserts differ. And even this T-72B that by the time was latest Soviet version is paper-thin compared to the capabilities of US rounds. It would have been dead just the same. In those few cases where you even have to shoot at a tank from the front, as most cases were probably side shots.

Re: SU-57: On hold for a decade

Unread postPosted: 22 Dec 2017, 07:31
by madrat
Battle buses will eventually replace tanks. Big semi armored city bus sized automatons that have the ability to take massive beatings and continue to fight because of their massive redundant control pathways. Hit them with big bombs they just bounce. Like a cat it lands on its feet so to speak. Shoot it with1 million rounds of AP heavy bore machine-gun fire and it doesn't miss a beat. Even it's battery and fuel is networked so there is no way to kill it without pretty well throwing so much firepower at it it's a net loss in the favor of the automaton. Keep it simple to make, stuff it with networked fiber optics for redundant communication among its internal cells. Give it 1,000 electronic eyeballs. Make it impossible to burn. Make it light. But most of all give it enough punch to make it lethal.

Re: SU-57: On hold for a decade

Unread postPosted: 22 Dec 2017, 09:25
by jj284b
If last conflicts show us anything, then its lack of training and lack of skill of commanders that caused all those tanks to get killed.. plus, technology matters - you cannot expect sending tanks made in 1980 against enemy armed with modern ATGM and expect them to win. Its like sending 1980 planes against S-400 and then saying planes are obsolete because they cannot deal with SAMs..

at Ukraine, more Ukrainian tanks were destroyed by tank gun fire - Russians used T-72B3 with thermal sights, which Ukrainian tanks didnt had, therefore were picked out at distances they couldnt do anything about it.. yet, eventually, some T-72B3 were destroyed because Ukrainians were able to improve tactically and used terrain to their advantage as they should (no tank can survive getting hit from sides by APFSDS rounds)

Insurgency conflicts proved one thing - tanks really need Active Protection System (APS) to survive against ATGMs.. they might cost almost 1milion $ per item, but they will save you from multiple attacks.. its just not possible to put enough of armor on a tank to stop modern ATGMs from all directions.. APS can do that for you - if anything, i think next tanks would incorporate active protection as a base protection system, that will handle high threats like ATGMs or APFSDS rounds, while passive armor will handle low threats that dont require being hit by APS (autocannon rounds for example).. tank like this could be a lot lighter than today's tanks, therefore it would be easier to get it whatever you need to send some..

Re: SU-57: On hold for a decade

Unread postPosted: 22 Dec 2017, 10:06
by arian
jj284b wrote:at Ukraine, more Ukrainian tanks were destroyed by tank gun fire - Russians used T-72B3 with thermal sights, which Ukrainian tanks didnt had, therefore were picked out at distances they couldnt do anything about it


Most tanks were destroyed in places where there wasn't much of a long range involved due to terrain. Also, very little evidence to suggest much tank fire was involved. Certainly, vast vast majority of Ukrainian tanks were destroyed by other means than tanks, and not "T-72B3". T-72B3s (and others like T-72B model 1989 etc.) were used in specific places by Russian forces and we kind of know where those were. And we kind of know what Ukrainian losses in those spots were too, and there's probably only 1 documented case of them going against each other (both were destroyed). A few other cases of tanks with KE round holes in them: at least some of those were MT-12 anti-tank guns in ambush positions. But again, only a handful of any documented cases.

In any case, I'll await your evidence of any of this, given the evidence to the contrary.

jj284b wrote:If last conflicts show us anything, then its lack of training and lack of skill of commanders that caused all those tanks to get killed.. plus, technology matters - you cannot expect sending tanks made in 1980 against enemy armed with modern ATGM and expect them to win. Its like sending 1980 planes against S-400 and then saying planes are obsolete because they cannot deal with SAMs..


Both sides involved were equally trained and roughly armed with similar generation weapons. After all, if Syrian tank crews and tactics were poor, why were Syrian rebel crews and tactics any better if they were mostly trained in the Syrian army in the first place? And most of the weapons involved were 1970s and 1980s vintage too, except for some Kornets (but those were mostly used by the Syrian army and not the rebels).

And likewise, Iraqis, Saudis, Turks etc all suffered losses in similar ways. The explanation that EVERYBODY sucks in training and tactics...EXCEPT always the guys with the ATGMs, doesn't sound convincing by the 5th or 6th conflict it happens.

Re: SU-57: On hold for a decade

Unread postPosted: 22 Dec 2017, 10:47
by milosh
XanderCrews wrote:These things are junk we figured that out after we killed them in droves after respecting them for years and years only to find out the Russians can't do basic things like blowout ammo lockers, or crew protection.


You really think they couldn't make separate bustle ammo storage :shock:

They could and they did, but generals didn't like idea.

Re: SU-57: On hold for a decade

Unread postPosted: 22 Dec 2017, 11:58
by arian
jj284b wrote:at Ukraine, more Ukrainian tanks were destroyed by tank gun fire - Russians used T-72B3 with thermal sights, which Ukrainian tanks didnt had, therefore were picked out at distances they couldnt do anything about it


More specifically, out of 265 tanks destroyed in Ukraine for which we have photographic evidence of, there are precisely 6 which are clearly killed by other tanks: 2 Ukrainian T-64s, 2 Russian T-64s, 1 Russian T-72B and 1 Russian T-72B Model 1989.

The T-72B Model 1989 may have been hit by an MT-12 100mm anti-tank gun, however. And 3 others are possibles: 2 Ukrainian T-64s and 1 Russian T-72B. These are ambiguous cases.

Certainly more were destroyed by tanks than the ones which show a clear evidence of being so. But the point is that if out of 265 we can only find 6...tank on tank combat probably was extremely rare and insignificant.

milosh wrote:You really think they couldn't make separate bustle ammo storage :shock:


Bustle ammo storage isn't the same thing as ammo compartment which can protect crew in case of explosion. And in the case of Abrams it's not just in the bustle but also hull ammo storage is designed to protect the crew in case of explosion. In fact, it's not an easy thing to design at all and none of the other Western tanks have anywhere near the same level of crew protection in terms of ammo detonation as Abrams has.

Now I agree with you that it's no surprise Russians didn't do it, as nobody else did it either by that point and nobody did it to the degree of Abrams anyway. But it certainly wasn't the case that "they did, but the generals didn't like it".

Re: SU-57: On hold for a decade

Unread postPosted: 22 Dec 2017, 12:00
by swiss
arian wrote:Here's that picture I was talking about: T-72B frontal armor evaluated against BM-8 100mm round (~300mm penetration) and BM-26 125mm round (~400mm penetration). 1/3 of the frontal turret is <300mm protection, and over half is <400mm protection.

Image

As you can see the cast design is so poor that even in the cheeks, nearly 1/3 of the profile is still just steel and no special armor insert.


Thanks for the Picture arian. From which Russian source is this?

Re: SU-57: On hold for a decade

Unread postPosted: 22 Dec 2017, 12:20
by milosh
arian wrote:
milosh wrote:You really think they couldn't make separate bustle ammo storage :shock:


Bustle ammo storage isn't the same thing as ammo compartment which can protect crew in case of explosion. And in the case of Abrams it's not just in the bustle but also hull ammo storage is designed to protect the crew in case of explosion. In fact, it's not an easy thing to design at all and none of the other Western tanks have anywhere near the same level of crew protection in terms of ammo detonation as Abrams has.

Now I agree with you that it's no surprise Russians didn't do it, as nobody else did it either by that point and nobody did it to the degree of Abrams anyway. But it certainly wasn't the case that "they did, but the generals didn't like it".


I am talking about 1990s and later. For example object 640 had blow-out panels and ammo was 100% separated from crew but generals didn't like idea of thin ammo bustle box.

Re: SU-57: On hold for a decade

Unread postPosted: 22 Dec 2017, 16:23
by collimatrix
terrygedran wrote:
I bet you want to say this "T-72s" are Т-72Б3 обр. 2016 ?


... what is your point? Of course that's a T-72. It has a centerline driver position, and doesn't have full-diameter road wheels and the IR searchlight is to the right of the gun.

Notwithstanding the... nonstandard applique armor kit, yes, that's definitely a T-72. Do you even Russian tanks bro?

I'm not sure why you chose that picture. It's not like it's hard to find pictures of the SAA operating T-54s, T-55s and T-62s.

Re: SU-57: On hold for a decade

Unread postPosted: 22 Dec 2017, 17:32
by XanderCrews
milosh wrote:You really think they couldn't make separate bustle ammo storage :shock:

They could and they did, but generals didn't like idea.


I never said they couldn't. They as you say choose not to. Why are you bitching when we agree?

Of course they didn't like it because that would be against their bad design philosophy.

And I thank them for their stupidity. I know Abrams tankers who swear by those ammo lockers. And it was one of the key reasons for Australias choice of Abrams over Leo

Re: SU-57: On hold for a decade

Unread postPosted: 22 Dec 2017, 17:37
by XanderCrews
collimatrix wrote:
terrygedran wrote:
I bet you want to say this "T-72s" are Т-72Б3 обр. 2016 ?


... what is your point? Of course that's a T-72. It has a centerline driver position, and doesn't have full-diameter road wheels and the IR searchlight is to the right of the gun.

Notwithstanding the... nonstandard applique armor kit, yes, that's definitely a T-72. Do you even Russian tanks bro?

I'm not sure why you chose that picture. It's not like it's hard to find pictures of the SAA operating T-54s, T-55s and T-62s.


He is literally proving my point above that's not a "real" T-72.

The no true Scotsman fallacy of ever moving goalposts continues!

Re: SU-57: On hold for a decade

Unread postPosted: 22 Dec 2017, 17:46
by XanderCrews
arian wrote:
XanderCrews wrote:Now those T-72s getting smoked by 1970s era ATGMs have morphed to T-55 right before your own lying eyes!


To be fair, Turkish Leo2s were also being smoked by the same missiles in Syria. Soviet designs are especially vulnerable, but all tanks are appearing too vulnerable these days.

All these recent wars have been massacres of tanks, and very few of them inflicted by other tanks. 265 tanks destroyed in Ukraine (at least the ones confirmed by photos): 84 Russian and 181 Ukrainian. Probably less than 10% inflicted by other tanks. 300++ T-72s in Syria: probably 1% inflicted by other tanks.

The demise of the tank as a primary weapon of war has been prematurely declared many times before. But this time it's getting pretty close.


I disagree.

One of my very close friends was a tanker in Iraq during the surge. We can't just count when tanks die. They would park a tank and whole neighborhoods would go quiet. They never lost a tank and grunts love having them around.

I quizzed about tanks in urban environments for hours and they basically know what they are doing. Not that ATGMs aren't dangerous but you coordinate with combined arms like infantry, recon, etc.

Re: SU-57: On hold for a decade

Unread postPosted: 22 Dec 2017, 17:51
by XanderCrews
madrat wrote:Battle buses will eventually replace tanks. Big semi armored city bus sized automatons that have the ability to take massive beatings and continue to fight because of their massive redundant control pathways. Hit them with big bombs they just bounce. Like a cat it lands on its feet so to speak. Shoot it with1 million rounds of AP heavy bore machine-gun fire and it doesn't miss a beat. Even it's battery and fuel is networked so there is no way to kill it without pretty well throwing so much firepower at it it's a net loss in the favor of the automaton. Keep it simple to make, stuff it with networked fiber optics for redundant communication among its internal cells. Give it 1,000 electronic eyeballs. Make it impossible to burn. Make it light. But most of all give it enough punch to make it lethal.


Vilters level achieved

Re: SU-57: On hold for a decade

Unread postPosted: 22 Dec 2017, 17:53
by XanderCrews
terrygedran wrote:
I bet you want to say this "T-72s" are Т-72Б3 обр. 2016 ?


No he said "T-72" which is exactly what that picture was. Pretty simple. You're trying to say he said things he never did.

Nice try though, I guess.

Re: SU-57: On hold for a decade

Unread postPosted: 22 Dec 2017, 19:36
by collimatrix
XanderCrews wrote:
milosh wrote:You really think they couldn't make separate bustle ammo storage :shock:

They could and they did, but generals didn't like idea.


I never said they couldn't. They as you say choose not to. Why are you bitching when we agree?

Of course they didn't like it because that would be against their bad design philosophy.

And I thank them for their stupidity. I know Abrams tankers who swear by those ammo lockers. And it was one of the key reasons for Australias choice of Abrams over Leo


Just to be clear, there were several prototypes for Soviet tanks that had isolated ammunition storage, and the upcoming T-14 will have ammunition that is completely separated from the crew.

There were several prototype tank designs in the late 1980s that demonstrated that the Soviet tank design bureaus were well aware of the flaws in their designs. There was Object 187, which had a new glacis design lacking the weak point in the T-64/72/80. There were a number of designs that had unmanned turrets or externally mounted guns with the crew entirely in the hull (T-14 is essentially a revival of these designs).

None of these were mass-produced. Instead, after the breakup of the USSR, the T-90 was placed in production. A design that could largely re-use existing T-72 production tooling. It's almost like they didn't have any money.

Similarly, and to bring this back on topic, there was active research in the late USSR into fighter aircraft planform alignment and internal weapons bays, especially by the Yakovlev design bureau. Again though, there was no money. Only with the recent increases in Russian defense spending has any of this stuff had a chance to see mass production.

Re: SU-57: On hold for a decade

Unread postPosted: 22 Dec 2017, 22:52
by arian
collimatrix wrote:Just to be clear, there were several prototypes for Soviet tanks that had isolated ammunition storage, and the upcoming T-14 will have ammunition that is completely separated from the crew.

There were several prototype tank designs in the late 1980s that demonstrated that the Soviet tank design bureaus were well aware of the flaws in their designs. There was Object 187, which had a new glacis design lacking the weak point in the T-64/72/80. There were a number of designs that had unmanned turrets or externally mounted guns with the crew entirely in the hull (T-14 is essentially a revival of these designs).

None of these were mass-produced. Instead, after the breakup of the USSR, the T-90 was placed in production. A design that could largely re-use existing T-72 production tooling. It's almost like they didn't have any money.

Similarly, and to bring this back on topic, there was active research in the late USSR into fighter aircraft planform alignment and internal weapons bays, especially by the Yakovlev design bureau. Again though, there was no money. Only with the recent increases in Russian defense spending has any of this stuff had a chance to see mass production.


This isn't much of an argument, however. Anybody can do anything given sufficient time and money and resources. (not anybody of course, but anybody of that level).

Nobody is saying the Russians have the IQ of tincansailor or airforcesfreak. They obviously know what the weaknesses of their designs are (just as the Abrams designers know the weaknesses of their design). The point is, in many cases they really couldn't improve on them given the resources, time and money available. Or they decided it was worth the trade off for whatever other benefit they got from those compromises.

Turns out in some cases they made the right compromises, and in some they made the wrong ones.

Saying "oh well but they totally did....in the 90s!" is missing the point.

Re: SU-57: On hold for a decade

Unread postPosted: 22 Dec 2017, 22:54
by arian
XanderCrews wrote:I disagree.

One of my very close friends was a tanker in Iraq during the surge. We can't just count when tanks die. They would park a tank and whole neighborhoods would go quiet. They never lost a tank and grunts love having them around.

I quizzed about tanks in urban environments for hours and they basically know what they are doing. Not that ATGMs aren't dangerous but you coordinate with combined arms like infantry, recon, etc.


I agree with you. I didn't say tanks are useless or dead. Rather that it now needs to be much more part of a combined arms team as it is more vulnerable today than before. And its role seems to be much more of an infantry support vehicle, than a tank-killer.

Re: SU-57: On hold for a decade

Unread postPosted: 25 Dec 2017, 00:48
by botsing
juretrn wrote:
white_lightning35 wrote:-snip-

Now if only the author of the massive wall of text knew what's a MMIC in the first place.
Or even, god forbid, knew what's GaN and what are the challenges related to its production; and why there's not a snowball's chance in hell Russia is making any GaN phased arrays anytime in the next decade.

This is not about facts but about trying to confuse people just rightly enough that they think it might be possible, no matter how the odds are favored, that Russia pulls off a miracle.

In other words, these are just nationalistic rhetorics directed at doubting Russians and not meant for us.

arian wrote:
This is the same organization that is making 5,000km jammers


Yes, but is it a hypersonic jammer?

It's a plasma stealth armored giant of 5,000km high posture, right?

Re: SU-57: On hold for a decade

Unread postPosted: 26 Dec 2017, 06:54
by tincansailor
T-72Ms dont have kontact-1 or 5 armour on them you can find clearly any statement on articles than pulling a picture out of a T-72M and calling it a T-72B is not that convincing sorry. The T-72Ms were scrapped missing half there sh*t the T-72 Babylon tanks were using mild steel instead of laminated RHA armour. and possibly as rumored mild steel rounds instead of tungsten alloy.......Sorry you were just way off might be my last comment.


We're about to find out how good Russian Army T-72s are. Ukraine will now be receiving Javelin ATGMs. The Russians are not too happy about it, saying we have crossed a red line. Too damn bad. Russia has rushed weapons to every enemy the U.S. has fought since after WWII. Russian tanks should have hard kill defense systems, that will now be put to the test. Should be interesting.

Re: SU-57: On hold for a decade

Unread postPosted: 26 Dec 2017, 06:57
by arian
Now, here's another very recent article (September 2017) describing the work on a GaN-based AESA experiment by Pulsar.

http://j.pulsarnpp.ru/images/journal/is ... peckij.pdf

Electronic antenna unit for X-band space application aesa

A. V. Belolipetskiy, O. V. Borisov, Yu. V. Kolkovsky, G. V. Legai, V. M. Minnebaev, Al. V. Redka, An. V. Redka

JSC «Pulsar»

Results of design and manufacturing of electronic antenna unit for active electronically scanned antenna array (AESA) of onboard radar complex for the Earth remote sensing are given in this article. Electronic antenna operation frequency range ∆F = 9,3-9,8 GHz. Electron beam angles sector in azimuth is ±1,5 deg, by elevation angle is ±15 deg. Antenna beam width in azimuth is in the range of 4-5 deg, by elevation – in the range of 3,8-4,5 deg

Electronic engineering. Series 2. Semiconductor devices. Issue 3 (246) 2017, pp. 15-25


Now, lets look at this beauty.

8 2-channel modules, 10W each
256 antenna elements
about 380mm x 370mm in area
90kg weight

Here is front emitter
Image

Here is back
Image

So this is "state of the art" 2017 GaN AESA. Obviously this is an experimental unit. What we can observe are:

1) Again we see flat antenna elements, as with all other Russian systems shown so far
2) 10W modules. Not good.
3) Still pretty big size
4) Massive weight, probably because of cooling problems

Overall, if this represents the state of Pulsar in 2017 with regards to GaN, then 10 years away from production examples would be far too generous. These are worst than their GaAs modules (developed from licensed German telecom technology)

Re: SU-57: On hold for a decade

Unread postPosted: 26 Dec 2017, 07:10
by arian
Here we have the first experimental device based on GaN developed by Pulsar back in 2015.

http://j.pulsarnpp.ru/images/journal/is ... Ivanov.pdf

Six-channel trm for X-Band APAA: transmitting channel

K. A. Ivanov, A. A. Osipovsky, Al. V. Redka, An. V. Redka, A. V. Tikhomirov

JCS «Pulsar»

The results of design and fabrication of the six-channel Х-band T/R-module for Active phased antenna arrays are presented in the article. The results of measurements of the main parameters of the transmitting channel, its design, main technical characteristics and the results of thermal performance simulation in a pulsed mode are given. The main factors affecting the linearity of the phase response in the transmitting channel, the variation of phase between transmitting channels in the ensemble are investigated

Electronic engineering. Series 2. Semiconductor devices. Issue 2-3 (236-237) 2015, pp. 21-31


Let's look at this one.

6-channel module
6w Power
Dimensions: 258mm x 150mm x 58mm
Weight of module: 4.6kg

To say this is bad would be an understatement. Clearly issues with cooling.

So there we have it. Clearly this work at both Istok and Pulsar is very early experimental stage work. And the products of these experiments are nothing that would even be close to anything you'd want to put on a plane. These are all still being build as "brick" style modules. Power, weight and dimensions are no good at all (not for 2017, or even for 2000).

They are actually much more advanced with their GaAs modules based on better German technology.

Now I know that since you don't understand a single word I've typed here you'll think to yourself "well there you have it! Russian companies have already developed GaN AESA and it's been in production for the past 10 years and already 60 million have been produced and deployed on everything from PAK-FAP to Yak-18!!! Confirmed!!!" :roll:

But what these Russian technical publications actually show is very very early level experimental work.

Re: SU-57: On hold for a decade

Unread postPosted: 26 Dec 2017, 07:45
by arian
Now, to compare this 2017 Pulsar super-awesome GANNNNN AESA radar with something from 2001.

In 2001 TNO-FEL, a Dutch lab, developed an X-band AESA for SAR applications called MiniSAR (same name as the Sandia system, but that was an Ku-band system).

This 2001 X-band AESA had 24 modules, 10W each, weight about 30kg

So 2001 technology available to a Dutch lab compares very favorably to 2017 Russian GANNNNNNNNNNN AESA.

Re: SU-57: On hold for a decade

Unread postPosted: 26 Dec 2017, 10:19
by arian
terrygedran wrote:Are you ready to prove that these tanks are not Ukrainian,Czech Republic ,Bulgaria,Azerbaijan ,Georgia?


LOL: http://lostarmour.info/media/images/id576-05.jpg

You must be the dumb one in the troll farm. I hope they pay you half what they pay the other trolls.

Re: SU-57: On hold for a decade

Unread postPosted: 26 Dec 2017, 11:24
by juretrn
Terribly sorry,
http://defence-blog.com/army/syrian-mil ... kamal.html

"muh monkey models" lol.

Re: SU-57: On hold for a decade

Unread postPosted: 26 Dec 2017, 12:50
by tincansailor
arian wrote:
tincansailor wrote:Ukraine will now be receiving Javelin ATGMs.


Stupid Trump. Puerto Rican children could have eaten those Javelins.



No arian, they can't eat them. But those bad Spanish speaking Americans could have used the Javelins to hunt for game in the rainforests of their blacked out island. The 40,000 Nigerians that don't want to go back to their huts in Africa after seeing American, could have gone to Puerto Rico, to teach them how to use the Javelins. The Haitians could have helped, but their just too sick. They all have AIDs. But the "Fine People" who marched that night in Charlottesville are needed here. They have to stay and preserve our proud Confederate History.

Lets all praise our great leader Trump for allowing us all to say "Merry Christmas" again. He's made this just the greatest, biggest, bestest, most joyest Christmas ever, in the history of the whole wide world. Happy Trumpmas arian, and a Merry Trumpyear too. P.S. Did you know the Special Counsel got coal in his stockings? Little Bobby Mueller was a very bad boy this year.

Re: SU-57: On hold for a decade

Unread postPosted: 26 Dec 2017, 13:57
by tincansailor
terrygedran wrote:
tincansailor wrote: Russia has rushed weapons to every enemy the U.S. has fought since after WWII. Russian tanks should have hard kill defense systems, that will now be put to the test. Should be interesting.


"since after WWII"
U.S. did the same.

" Russian tanks should have hard kill defense systems"
You mean the Ukrainians captured by militiamen ?

" that will now be put to the test"
I'm sorry but no there are no special modern systems that can be tested( Ukrainian or someone else's).

So the hard pressed Ukrainian Army set the separatists up? They obtained dozens of a tank model they don't use, and gave them to the Separatists? The Separatists then used these tanks to defeat the Ukrainians in a number of key battles, inflicting heavy loses in the process. And they did this to make the world think Russia was helping the Separatists? Not a very good strategy, especially since only dupes didn't already know Russia a helping the Separatists, and sending Troops, and heavy weapons to invade Ukraine.

Putin has already said Russian Troops have gone into Ukraine. He said men on their own time, while on leave volunteered to fight. Whole units took their tanks, self propelled artillery, APCs, rocket launchers, and even tactical ballistic missile batteries into combat in Ukraine, with supply coveys in support. Sure I know lots of guys in the American Army who drive their tanks home on leave to show off to their friends, and families.

So other then Afghanistan, when we were helping the people survive your genocidal invasion what are you talking about? When you invaded Georgia? they used almost all Soviet Weapons. Only after your aggression did the U.S. give any weapons to them, but almost all their weapons are still Soviet Models. Israel sold them some small arms. The Chechens got no weapons from the U.S.. Russia on the other hand is giving weapons to the Taliban. what anti-Western army, or terrorist group didn't get armed by Russia? You even gave arms to the IRA.

Re: SU-57: On hold for a decade

Unread postPosted: 26 Dec 2017, 15:46
by mixelflick
Some of the claims for SU-57 are downright ludicous. At the same time, it's probably not in as dire straights as some would believe. So the truth is somewhere in between.

I just have a (real) hard time believing they've built an F-22 equivalent with 1/10th the funding, expertise etc. Sure it's 15 years on from an early Raptor, but you can't tell me for under $100 million (one estimate I saw was $50 million/copy!) they're going to deliver a Raptor killer, much less a Raptor.

By the time they deliver on the new engine, the Raptor will have 9x block II, AIM-120D, new stealth coatings, new sensors/avionics AND it'll have the F-35 to leverage.

And does anyone here think Pratt or the Air Force just sat on "35,000lb" thrust engines for a decade? I mean c'mon... Anyone??

Re: SU-57: On hold for a decade

Unread postPosted: 26 Dec 2017, 17:45
by thismightgetdeleted
@Arian

"so you probably don't understand the use of the word "developing" in the context of my sentence." Or maybe you just dont know the own words coming out of your mouth? They have developed GaN MMICs in earlier years http://www.niip.ru/upload/iblock/4c8/4c ... b41e86.pdf which of course will lead to your next statement

"When describing Russian GaN developments it talks of two companies: Pulsar and Istok. In describing Russian GaN developments, it describes the work of Istok. It says Istok imported substrates from Cree, and imported transistors from TriQuint" OK read this part again on my previous post, "The scientific and technological concern "Roselectronika" facilitates the realisation of many projects based on GaN technology - without the use of foreign developments (import substitution)"." So again there are more sources that show they can create Gan MMICs LTCC more in particular but I am probably wasting my time having to explain that to you. Read page 18 or page 20 in PDF format it already says the company developes GaN or GaAS

"So this is "state of the art" 2017 GaN AESA. Obviously this is an experimental unit. What we can observe are:

1) Again we see flat antenna elements, as with all other Russian systems shown so far
2) 10W modules. Not good.
3) Still pretty big size
4) Massive weight, probably because of cooling problems"

Yes congrats Russia has different GaN MMICs with different power ratings and you choose the lowest reminds me of that one time you pulled a picture of a T-72M and called it a T-72B without realizing Iraq used scraps of a T-72M and replaced the laminated steel for mild steel or thought that the soviets gave soviet block nations and armor protection equal to theirs. I still can't stop laughing from that. This would be your response if there was no bias. http://translate.google.co.in/translate ... 19&act=url

" AK Breakthrough in operating temperatures yet. Today, GaN-transistors exhibit almost the worst performance thermal stability than GaAs-devices. For example, the active structure at a temperature of 350 ° C mean time between failures for GaAs-transistors is 10 -100 hours, and GaN at least 10 hours (test data 2007 year). GaN-technology devices will be improved, but in any case, the heat in the GaN-devices is removed from the area 10 times lower compared to GaAs, however enough problems. The efficiency of GaN-transistors have really high, 60--65%. But this is - not a breakthrough in modern GaAs pHEMT-transistor efficiency reaches 55%.

Breakthrough GaN-devices - in specific power from a unit periphery transistor gate, and as a result - a single crystal IIA. Today, with the single crystal GaAs MIS in the range of 10 GHz can be removed approximately 15-20 watts. For example, such devices in 2008 is manufactured by M / A-COM. But this can be considered a limit on the crystal becomes too large and fragile. With the GaN crystal IIA can be charged up to 100 watts. This goal is achievable, already demonstrated GaN monolithic amplifier with an output of about 40 watts."

Here is another part, "What is the specificity of your products?


S.I. Historically, our main customers are somehow connected with electronic warfare (EW) systems. Modern EW systems are in many cases made on the basis of active phased antenna arrays (AFAR). Unlike radar AFAR, these are small-element, but very wide-band gratings. We produce broadband amplifiers - bricks, from which then our customers build their EW systems. Our devices operate in the GHz band in wide bands: 2--18, 8--18, 4--8, 1--2, 1--4, 2--4 GHz, etc. The power is from 20 mW (low-noise amplifiers - LNA) to 20-100 W. There is also a 200-watt amplifier with a working band from 0.5 to 1 GHz."
And of course you can go look back at my 2 early sources of Roselectronika supplying the GaN LTCC MMICs to the AFAR radar and EW systems (even a god damn picture and statements of Roselectronika supplying the GaN MMICs with the specific named aircraft EW systems like Himalayas......One could not ask for a better source than this).

Re: SU-57: On hold for a decade

Unread postPosted: 26 Dec 2017, 19:19
by juretrn
"Know your place"
Image

Re: SU-57: On hold for a decade

Unread postPosted: 27 Dec 2017, 16:06
by milosh
mixelflick wrote:I just have a (real) hard time believing they've built an F-22 equivalent with 1/10th the funding, expertise etc. Sure it's 15 years on from an early Raptor, but you can't tell me for under $100 million (one estimate I saw was $50 million/copy!) they're going to deliver a Raptor killer, much less a Raptor.


1/10th of Raptor funding :roll:

ATF R&D cost ~30billions, PAK-FA R&D will cost ~10billions.

Re: SU-57: On hold for a decade

Unread postPosted: 27 Dec 2017, 18:54
by botsing
milosh wrote:ATF R&D cost ~30billions, PAK-FA R&D will cost ~10billions.

The ~ $32 billion in research and development costs for the F-22 is in then year dollars, spread over the years from the program start till production end.

For the total cost in 2017 dollars you have to check the R&D cost per each year and calculate that back to 2017 dollars. Taking 2004 as a last baseline (https://www.gao.gov/new.items/d06391.pdf page 59) it will be at least $42 billion in 2017 dollars.

Also remember that the F-22 did not start from scratch, if we look at the stealth aspect alone already it is build upon technology made available by planes like the B-2 and F-117 which makes parts of their R&D also part of the F-22.

Re: SU-57: On hold for a decade

Unread postPosted: 27 Dec 2017, 19:49
by milosh
botsing wrote:
milosh wrote:ATF R&D cost ~30billions, PAK-FA R&D will cost ~10billions.

The ~ $32 billion in research and development costs for the F-22 is in then year dollars, spread over the years from the program start till production end.

For the total cost in 2017 dollars you have to check the R&D cost per each year and calculate that back to 2017 dollars. Taking 2004 as a last baseline (https://www.gao.gov/new.items/d06391.pdf page 59) it will be at least $42 billion in 2017 dollars.

Also remember that the F-22 did not start from scratch, if we look at the stealth aspect alone already it is build upon technology made available by planes like the B-2 and F-117 which makes parts of their R&D also part of the F-22.


But that still is far from 1/10 of funding. Also you need to check salaries, salaries in Russia are much lower so % of salary cost in Su-57 funding is quite smaller then in F-22 which mean most of money is going for new technologies which is logical becuase even though they did have interesting "stealth" research program in 1980s (by CIA public available study) in 1990s they do very little.

Re: SU-57: On hold for a decade

Unread postPosted: 27 Dec 2017, 20:54
by icemaverick
Higher salaries also means you are attracting better talent. An engineer for Sukhoi is getting paid barely above poverty levels by US standards so chances are that Sukhoi doesn’t have the best talent. On the other hand, Lockheed, BAE Systems, Boeing, Northrop Grumman etc can offer industry-leading compensation packages and thereby attract top talent from around the world.

Re: SU-57: On hold for a decade

Unread postPosted: 27 Dec 2017, 23:04
by botsing
milosh wrote:But that still is far from 1/10 of funding.

You are missing the point, this is not about the exact ratio but about the massive difference in R&D spending that is not only historical but is still going on today: e.g. Compare the current USA military R&D budget with the complete Russian defense budget, now do the same for the past decennia and you will see the enormous lead the USA has.

icemaverick wrote:Higher salaries also means you are attracting better talent. An engineer for Sukhoi is getting paid barely above poverty levels by US standards so chances are that Sukhoi doesn’t have the best talent. On the other hand, Lockheed, BAE Systems, Boeing, Northrop Grumman etc can offer industry-leading compensation packages and thereby attract top talent from around the world.

^ This.

The USA attracts a lot of talent from other countries, payment and career paths are often better in the USA than in their country of origin. This is not only happening in Russia but also to a lesser extent in the EU, USA snags away a lot of world talent.

Re: SU-57: On hold for a decade

Unread postPosted: 28 Dec 2017, 01:20
by mas
juretrn wrote:"Know your place"
Image


SPEED KILLS ! 8)

Re: SU-57: On hold for a decade

Unread postPosted: 28 Dec 2017, 01:38
by arian
milosh wrote:But that still is far from 1/10 of funding. Also you need to check salaries, salaries in Russia are much lower so % of salary cost in Su-57 funding is quite smaller then in F-22 which mean most of money is going for new technologies which is logical becuase even though they did have interesting "stealth" research program in 1980s (by CIA public available study) in 1990s they do very little.


Milosh, sometimes you can be a bit silly. And you know when you're being silly.

You're comparing "program cost" for PAK-FA in "WILL BE" terms (ie not actual money spend but estimated program cost money), with R&D money of a program from decades ago, and pretending they are in constant dollar terms, or that program costs are the same thing as R&D.

Really now? Really?

As for the "salaries are lower in Motherland hence we make best stuff cheaper!" argument, we've had this discussion before. And no, it doesn't work that way.

Salaries are way lower in Europe too compared to the US. Are they making cheaper stuff? Salaries are really low in India. What are they making? By that logic, Somalia and Haiti, tincanturd's spiritual homeland, ought to be making spaceships to the moon right now at a fraction of Space X's cost.

It doesn't work that way because of several reasons. First, salaries to a large extent reflect the value created. Lower salaries, lower value created at an aggregate level. Second, because a lot of things going into these projects are absolutely the same cost for everyone. Russia isn't making it's own 7-axis CNC machines and carbon fiber laying robots, is it? :wink: No it's not. It's buying those from the same place everyone else is buying them. Is it developing its own software for running these machines? No, it's buying them from the same place as everyone else is. 90% of the equipment, materials, parts etc etc is bought from the same place as everyone else, and costs the same as everyone else's.

That is to say, lower labor costs do make things cheaper. Of course. But not with the same level of productivity or technical capability or quality. You're just assuming that they can do it "just as good" for a lower cost simply because of lower labor costs. The just as good part is pretty obviously not the case. Hence the cheaper cost.

Re: SU-57: On hold for a decade

Unread postPosted: 28 Dec 2017, 10:33
by milosh
arian wrote:No, it's buying them from the same place as everyone else is. 90% of the equipment, materials, parts etc etc is bought from the same place as everyone else, and costs the same as everyone else's.


Not good example because CNC cost lot more in 1990s then it cost today. Same thing can be applied on carbon laying machines, electronics, computers (probable biggest price drop highest) etc.

Re: SU-57: On hold for a decade

Unread postPosted: 28 Dec 2017, 14:11
by mixelflick
milosh wrote:
mixelflick wrote:I just have a (real) hard time believing they've built an F-22 equivalent with 1/10th the funding, expertise etc. Sure it's 15 years on from an early Raptor, but you can't tell me for under $100 million (one estimate I saw was $50 million/copy!) they're going to deliver a Raptor killer, much less a Raptor.


1/10th of Raptor funding :roll:

ATF R&D cost ~30billions, PAK-FA R&D will cost ~10billions.


And after you factor in inflation? Look, whether it's 1/10th or 1/3rd they're doing this on a comparatve shoestring budget. I hope it turns out OK, I really do. Great looking bird. But the chances of it being a true threat to the Raptor are between slim and none.

If by the time they further refine it it's better, I'll say so. Until then, it's (at best) a prototype..

Re: SU-57: On hold for a decade

Unread postPosted: 28 Dec 2017, 18:40
by wrightwing
By the time it's refined, the Raptor will have been significantly upgraded (new sensors, new computers, new helmet sights, new datalinks, new RAM, new weapons, new cockpit displays, and possibly upgraded propulsion), so the bar to exceed will be even higher.

Re: SU-57: On hold for a decade

Unread postPosted: 28 Dec 2017, 19:30
by botsing
milosh wrote:
arian wrote:No, it's buying them from the same place as everyone else is. 90% of the equipment, materials, parts etc etc is bought from the same place as everyone else, and costs the same as everyone else's.


Not good example because CNC cost lot more in 1990s then it cost today. Same thing can be applied on carbon laying machines, electronics, computers (probable biggest price drop highest) etc.

Some things will get cheaper and some things will get more expensive over the years.

The things that are getting cheaper are the simple things, this since we learn how to make these static designs more efficiently. Highly complex designs however are getting increasingly more expensive to develop due to the complexities having an effect on each other: more complexities together require more interoperability.

In simple terms, see every complexity as a number-rotor in a combination lock: With every complexity you add, you add a number-rotor thereby increasing the possible lock positions and making it exponentially harder to unlock the combining technology.

Modern military airplanes are an increasing combination of complex technologies, it's therefor an illusion to think that prices for developing a competing design will decrease.

Re: SU-57: On hold for a decade

Unread postPosted: 28 Dec 2017, 20:58
by XanderCrews
mas wrote:
juretrn wrote:"Know your place"
Image


SPEED KILLS ! 8)



Lol nice

Re: SU-57: On hold for a decade

Unread postPosted: 29 Dec 2017, 00:27
by arian
milosh wrote:Not good example because CNC cost lot more in 1990s then it cost today. Same thing can be applied on carbon laying machines, electronics, computers (probable biggest price drop highest) etc.


:roll: Yes yes. As everyone can plainly see, the Ruskies managed to create an airplane in the PAK-FA that is obviously just as good as F-22, but at a lower cost.

It's obvious to everyone that that is what they did.

And they managed to do this because they were able to get CATIA version 6 at a lower price. Explains everything!

Did you read my prior links to their GaN AESA technology level? You think this is "just as good"?

Re: SU-57: On hold for a decade

Unread postPosted: 29 Dec 2017, 00:41
by XanderCrews
arian wrote:
milosh wrote:Not good example because CNC cost lot more in 1990s then it cost today. Same thing can be applied on carbon laying machines, electronics, computers (probable biggest price drop highest) etc.


:roll: Yes yes. As everyone can plainly see, the Ruskies managed to create an airplane in the PAK-FA that is obviously just as good as F-22, but at a lower cost.

It's obvious to everyone that that is what they did.

And they managed to do this because they were able to get CATIA version 6 at a lower price. Explains everything!

Did you read my prior links to their GaN AESA technology level? You think this is "just as good"?


You would think these supreme capitalists would show improvement in other measurements of Russian progress like the economy, manufacturing, industry etc.

Re: SU-57: On hold for a decade

Unread postPosted: 29 Dec 2017, 01:22
by KamenRiderBlade
XanderCrews wrote:
arian wrote:
milosh wrote:Not good example because CNC cost lot more in 1990s then it cost today. Same thing can be applied on carbon laying machines, electronics, computers (probable biggest price drop highest) etc.


:roll: Yes yes. As everyone can plainly see, the Ruskies managed to create an airplane in the PAK-FA that is obviously just as good as F-22, but at a lower cost.

It's obvious to everyone that that is what they did.

And they managed to do this because they were able to get CATIA version 6 at a lower price. Explains everything!

Did you read my prior links to their GaN AESA technology level? You think this is "just as good"?


You would think these supreme capitalists would show improvement in other measurements of Russian progress like the economy, manufacturing, industry etc.
I love your great sarcasm as usual.

=D

Re: SU-57: On hold for a decade

Unread postPosted: 29 Dec 2017, 03:04
by arian
Also as was mentioned earlier, these figures are comparing apples with hypothetical oranges.

The $10 billion figure for PAK-FA is "estimated" program cost. I.e., program cost includes R&D and production costs. And its estimated for obvious reasons, since nothing of the sort has been done yet.

The $32 billion figure for F-22 is just R&D cost. And it is in "then year dollars", meaning adding up the amounts spend in each year not adjusted for inflation. It comes from this document: https://www.globalsecurity.org/military ... c-2010.pdf

R&D expenditures going back to 1983 (and forward projected to 2016 since this was written in 2010). Page 14. Page 15 gives them adjusted to 2005 dollars.

Adjusting these to 2017 dollars, R&D expenditures come out to ~$50 billion. Total program cost comes out to roughly ~$100 billion in 2017 dollars.

So even the hypothesized estimated future PAK-FA program cost is still 1/10 the F-22 cost, in 2017 dollars. The entire R&D part of it is 5x of the total PAK-FA estimated program cost, which means it is also probably 10x the PAK-FA R&D cost.

So yes the 10x figure is probably pretty accurate. Of course, the Russian figure of $10 billion is also total nonsense and totally made up. Their latest estimate according to what they are offering the Indians is $8 billion just in R&D expenditures to be split between the two countries (from 2016). So the overall program cost is obviously not going to be $10 billion but much more than that.

Of course, as everyone knows, the Russians can do everything just as good at 1/10 the cost, because they get paid 1/10 as much. As evidenced by their auto industry which is now making copies of Dacia cars.

Re: SU-57: On hold for a decade

Unread postPosted: 29 Dec 2017, 17:08
by botsing
arian wrote:Of course, as everyone knows, the Russians can do everything just as good at 1/10 the cost, because they get paid 1/10 as much. As evidenced by their auto industry which is now making copies of Dacia cars.

The best selling car in Russia for 2017 is the Kia Rio.

Second place is for the Russian LADA Vesta, the cheapest model of that car translates to about 9600,- dollar. No western person in their right mind would buy this car for 10 times that price, so clearly a Russian product is not made at 1/10th the cost of a western product.

Re: SU-57: On hold for a decade

Unread postPosted: 29 Dec 2017, 18:51
by XanderCrews
thismightgetdeleted wrote:
juretrn wrote:"Know your place"
Image


@arian can you please look at my post on page 13. @juretrn can you also show a picture without any 3rd world country operating the migs as US adversary and just use Russia with their pilots flying the migs, are they properly trained for those migs than US pilots, have the latest best variants, and atleast bring the sukhois into the equation? The mig-21 and F-4 phantom picture is agreeable for the most part its like comparing the T-34 to the German tiger tanks. Intent is on quantity more than quality......Oh hate to cause a bigger headache but this is one of many examples of the questions I would ask for those fulcrums and falcons. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_M ... 1_variants and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonnell ... Phantom_II can you tell me what variants were used? Countries like Vietnam, Iraq and soviet block nations dont really have the best of the best from the soviets themselves....Not to take a steaming sh*t on that picture or anything like it holds no merit on what a superior design is but punching kids can make anyone feel tough than punching adults.


Beyond splitting hairs about which exact variant was used to kill other variants with who at the controls, the "trend" very clearly favors the West. To the point where da Komrades klub basically points to exceptions, excuses, and voodoo as to explain the failings.

It's fun to watch. If you look in the top left corner it even makes mention of the pilot excuse.

Of course we have anecdotes like the Soviet advisors getting their butts kicked in various engagements from Korea to the mid east. (But those must be lies)

The bottom line is even the Russians figured out the quantity over quality doesn't really work as it wasn't even creating favorable attrition.

Re: SU-57: On hold for a decade

Unread postPosted: 29 Dec 2017, 18:53
by milosh
arian wrote:Also as was mentioned earlier, these figures are comparing apples with hypothetical oranges.

The $10 billion figure for PAK-FA is "estimated" program cost. I.e., program cost includes R&D and production costs. And its estimated for obvious reasons, since nothing of the sort has been done yet.


It is just R&D. Check what Indians wrote you will see it is only R&D.

And I didn't wrote nothing about GaN, GaN believers need to answer simple quiestion: why would Russians invest money in GaAs if GaN is around the corner???

Re: SU-57: On hold for a decade

Unread postPosted: 29 Dec 2017, 19:03
by thismightgetdeleted
XanderCrews wrote:
thismightgetdeleted wrote:
juretrn wrote:"Know your place"
Image


This might take 3 days to reach anyone or possibly not. @arian can you please look at my post on page 13. @juretrn can you also show a picture without any 3rd world country operating the migs as US adversary and just use Russia with their pilots flying the migs, are they properly trained for those migs than US pilots, have the latest best variants, and atleast bring the sukhois into the equation? The mig-21 and F-4 phantom picture is agreeable for the most part its like comparing the T-34 to the German tiger tanks. Intent is on quantity more than quality......Oh hate to cause a bigger headache but this is one of many examples of the questions I would ask for those fulcrums and falcons. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_M ... 1_variants and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonnell ... Phantom_II can you tell me what variants were used? Countries like Vietnam, Iraq and soviet block nations dont really have the best of the best from the soviets themselves....Not to take a steaming sh*t on that picture or anything like it holds no merit on what a superior design is but punching kids can make anyone feel tough than punching adults.


Beyond splitting hairs about which exact variant was used to kill other variants with who at the controls, the "trend" very clearly favors the West. To the point where da Komrades klub basically points to exceptions, excuses, and voodoo as to explain the failings.

It's fun to watch. If you look in the top left corner it even makes mention of the pilot excuse.

Of course we have anecdotes like the Soviet advisors getting their butts kicked in various engagements from Korea to the mid east. (But those must be lies)

The bottom line is even the Russians figured out the quantity over quality doesn't really work as it wasn't even creating favorable attrition.


I also said it is way more than likely the Vietnamese had sh*t variants for there are some they considered export and some not along with different generations used in the war.....Its not like it offends me or the Russians or anything. But I find it strange. For example I get satisfaction of knocking out a guy that is on my weight class, but I get no satisfaction fighting someone smaller and weaker than me which I am hoping is not everyone in this forum as my example if that favors the west than so be it.

Re: SU-57: On hold for a decade

Unread postPosted: 29 Dec 2017, 19:04
by tincansailor
So Russia is having problems with India as a partner for SU-57 development. Iran has a lot of new found money thanks to the last president, could they pick up the slack, and revive the program? The only stealth fighters they can acquire are off the shelf J-31s, or SU-57s. The SU-57 option would be more expensive, but they would at least get some technology, and domestic production out of it. With Iran, and Russia at least in a temporary alliance would this be a viable option for each of them? If India stayed in the deal would Iran sharing in the cost make it more workable?

Re: SU-57: On hold for a decade

Unread postPosted: 29 Dec 2017, 19:09
by botsing
thismightgetdeleted wrote:are they properly trained for those migs than US pilots, have the latest best variant
...
Intent is on quantity more than quality......
...
can you tell me what variants were used? Countries like Vietnam, Iraq and soviet block nations dont really have the best of the best from the soviets themselves....

Comrade, did you even look at that picture?

Muh excuses

:doh:

Re: SU-57: On hold for a decade

Unread postPosted: 29 Dec 2017, 19:23
by juretrn
botsing wrote:
thismightgetdeleted wrote:are they properly trained for those migs than US pilots, have the latest best variant
...
Intent is on quantity more than quality......
...
can you tell me what variants were used? Countries like Vietnam, Iraq and soviet block nations dont really have the best of the best from the soviets themselves....

Comrade, did you even look at that picture?

Muh excuses

:doh:

Weren't a great many MiG-21s in Vietnam only marked in NVA AF markings but were in fact owned and piloted by Russians?

Re: SU-57: On hold for a decade

Unread postPosted: 29 Dec 2017, 19:43
by botsing
juretrn wrote:Weren't a great many MiG-21s in Vietnam only marked in NVA AF markings but were in fact owned and piloted by Russians?

Not sure about that one.

This one though is a famous one:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Rimon_20
Rimon 20 was the code name of an aerial battle in 1970 which pitted the Israeli Air Force directly against Soviet fighter pilots stationed in Egypt during the War of Attrition. Israel chose its most skilled fighter pilots to participate in the planned dogfight in order to send a message to the Soviet Union. During the three-minute engagement, which took place on July 30, 1970, the Soviets were dominated by their veteran Israeli counterparts, resulting in the downing of five Soviet-flown MiG-21s by Israeli F-4 Phantoms and Mirage IIIs.

Re: SU-57: On hold for a decade

Unread postPosted: 29 Dec 2017, 20:07
by basher54321
juretrn wrote:Weren't a great many MiG-21s in Vietnam only marked in NVA AF markings but were in fact owned and piloted by Russians?


No not in Vietnam - nearly all North Vietnamese - although some North Korean squadrons (whatever) were sent over.

Soviet regiments with Soviet Pilots flew early in Korea (early 1950s) while gradually handing things over to China and North Korea.

Re: SU-57: On hold for a decade

Unread postPosted: 29 Dec 2017, 20:26
by basher54321
botsing wrote:This one though is a famous one:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Rimon_20
Rimon 20 was the code name of an aerial battle in 1970 which pitted the Israeli Air Force directly against Soviet fighter pilots stationed in Egypt during the War of Attrition. Israel chose its most skilled fighter pilots to participate in the planned dogfight in order to send a message to the Soviet Union. During the three-minute engagement, which took place on July 30, 1970, the Soviets were dominated by their veteran Israeli counterparts, resulting in the downing of five Soviet-flown MiG-21s by Israeli F-4 Phantoms and Mirage IIIs.



Part of operation Kavkaz from the Soviet side:

https://www.scribd.com/doc/292903983/Operation-Kavkaz

Re: SU-57: On hold for a decade

Unread postPosted: 29 Dec 2017, 20:49
by XanderCrews
thismightgetdeleted wrote:
I also said it is way more than likely the Vietnamese had sh*t variants for there are some they considered export and some not along with different generations used in the war.....Its not like it offends me or the Russians or anything. But I find it strange.


Yes its this old chestnut again. The "monkey model" defense. "those were our crap variants of our otherwise superb things" dovetails nicely with "We have superb things, those are just crap operators"

Image


By all accounts it was Mig-17s in Vietnam giving the biggest headaches.

For example I get satisfaction of knocking out a guy that is on my weight class, but I get no satisfaction fighting someone smaller and weaker than me which I am hoping is not everyone in this forum as my example if that favors the west than so be it.


War isn't about "satisfaction." And we watched a tiny nation in Israel with western gear beat up on well equipped enemies with great numbers and soviet gear. and this ins't "knocking out" its war-- kill or be killed. Shockingly the people who kill and win and live are pretty satisfied given the alternative. Pilots especially. An air to air kill is the pinnacle of a fighter career. Its not "aww shucks, I wish he was in a better plane like one of ours, I almost feel bad"

We also have plenty of captured Soviet/Russian gear here in the states that we have played with and picked apart going back decades. We have had American pilots on exchanges flying Russian/soviet gear. We even have US training programs that teach on Russian and Soviet gear.

Image

I know that because i've seen those very aircraft up close.

Its not that Russian gear doesn't have advantages in certain areas because they do. There is no monopoly on superior engineering, but we can safely say having both flown, and flown against Russian aircraft that the west has a superior product. I don't think thats extreme. There is a reason the West relies heavily on its airpower. Its really good, and since we rely on it, it get better and we dedicate time and resources to improving it constantly.

I understand what you are asking. You are asking for context. The situations and subtlety that goes beyond a simple score board, but the truth is even analyzing this (and many have) the West seems to win out in most areas and "fairly" at that

Re: SU-57: On hold for a decade

Unread postPosted: 29 Dec 2017, 23:23
by arian
milosh wrote:It is just R&D. Check what Indians wrote you will see it is only R&D.


$8 billion is what the Indians said in 2016 is the projected R&D. Fantasy.

milosh wrote:And I didn't wrote nothing about GaN, GaN believers need to answer simple quiestion: why would Russians invest money in GaAs if GaN is around the corner???


Well, regardless of that, my purpose of bringing that up was to say that most of that technology is bought on the world markets, at market prices.

botsing wrote:Second place is for the Russian LADA Vesta, the cheapest model of that car translates to about 9600,- dollar. No western person in their right mind would buy this car for 10 times that price, so clearly a Russian product is not made at 1/10th the cost of a western product.


Well, the Lada Vesta is similar to the Nissan Versa (at least in appearance and market niche, probably not in quality). It is also developed on the basis of Nissan-Renault JV with Lada. And it costs about the same as a Nissan Versa in the US market (cheapest new car you can buy in the US. You can get it for under $10k).

So it ends up costing about the same, although who knows about the actual build quality. But the other point is that it is the highest level car produced in Russia. In the US, the Nissan Versa is the absolute lowest level car. And that's why you generally get these differences in wages across countries. Not because they can do something "just as well for less", but generally because the wages reflect the highest level of productivity they can achieve.

Re: SU-57: On hold for a decade

Unread postPosted: 29 Dec 2017, 23:25
by arian
thismightgetdeleted wrote:@arian can you please look at my post on page 13


LOL. No.

Re: SU-57: On hold for a decade

Unread postPosted: 29 Dec 2017, 23:34
by juretrn
milosh wrote: GaN believers need to answer simple quiestion: why would Russians invest money in GaAs if GaN is around the corner???

My friend works for one of the biggest power semiconductor manufacturers in the EU, and for them, commercial GaN remains just a pipe dream-or at least not a profitable one. And I'd dare say that company invested orders of magnitude more into the tech than any Russian company did.

also, @wewuz:
You still haven't proven you have a single iota of knowledge about semiconductors and their manufacture - beyond copy-pasting statements of people who do.

Re: SU-57: On hold for a decade

Unread postPosted: 30 Dec 2017, 01:03
by XanderCrews
terrygedran wrote:[
"genocidal invasion"
Just a delightful ability to blame others for your sins.
"we were helping the people"
And these people were Taliban.


All Afghan are Taliban, got it.

"
they used almost all Soviet Weapons. Only after your aggression did the U.S. give any weapons to them"
грузия солдаты.png

Well: not only the US, but the Western coalition and NATO countries:

In addition, thirty MANPADS "Thunder" were received from Poland and up to one hundred missiles to them, from Israel - one battery of the latest SpIDER SAM
The Georgian Navy had two missile boats (the Greek-French type Combatant-2 with Exoset and the former Soviet 206MR from the P-20) and several patrol boats,
Panzerhaubitze 2000(with all documentation and software was thrown on the battlefield)
Do not forget about a pile of instructors .


We gave them the UH-1 Huey too, a real game changer. The majority of Georgian weapons were Soviet/russian


From the reports provided by Ukraine to the United Nations on conventional weapons, since 1999, Kiev has supplied Georgia with about 150 heavy weapons.
In 2005, Georgia significantly expanded the orders for the Ukrainian military-industrial complex. She purchased 16 T-72 tanks, 12 BMP-2 and 10 BTR-80, 6 SAU 2S3, 6 Mi-24 helicopters and 2 Mi-8MT helicopters.
The record year for purchase of weapons was in 2007 when Ukraine sold 74 T-72 tanks, six BTS-5B armored multi-purpose tractors, two self-propelled howitzers 2S7 "Pion", eight training aircraft L-39 (which can also be used as light weapons attack aircraft). At the same time, Georgia's report for 2007 (it also sent such reports to the UN) states that Ukrainian SAU "Pion" received five units, not two. In addition, according to the Georgian version, one SAM Buk and 48 ATGM Combat were also delivered. In 2007, Tbilisi bought from Kiev and small arms.


So russian and Soviet weapons?


In assessing this statistics, there is only one question: how not a very rich country (GDP in 2003 was only about 3.91 billion dollars, while external debt exceeded 1.8 billion dollars, or 46 percent of GDP) in four years, managed to accumulate means sufficient for the purchase and modernization of such quantities of weapons.

In the period from 2004 to 2007, the US formally allocated about $ 500-600 million to Georgia for these purposes. In addition, in 2004, Tbilisi created a special fund for the development of the national army, which could be financed on terms of complete anonymity by both private and legal persons, as well as other state, non-governmental foundations and organizations.


Ok and? We are talking weapons not funding. The West funded the still majority Russian gear of the Georgians.

So, at the moment in Germany a scandal arises over the reports of the German ARD television channel that the Georgian special forces that invaded South Ossetia were armed with G36 assault rifles of the German concern Heckler und Koch. In the Report Mainz program of the ARD channel, Georgian soldiers were shown with these rifles over their shoulders. Head of the Arms Information Office in Freiburg (Baden-Württemberg land) Jürgen Gresslin unequivocally identified the weapon as a G36 rifle with a truncated barrel intended for special forces.

Meanwhile, the German Ministry of Economics assured the media that there was no permission to export this kind of small arms to Georgia. However, according to ARD referring to the British expert publication Jane's Defense Weekly, Heckler und Koch sent a request to the German government to export 230 models of the G36 (200 in a shortened version and 30 in a compact version) to Georgia, but was refused due to the fact that Georgia is involved in military operations. And although the Ministry of Economy did not give permission for the supply of rifles to Georgia, they were still there. According to German law, government permission is necessary for the export of all types of weapons. At the same time, the official authorities of Germany refrain from supplying weapons to zones of territorial conflicts. "If there is a weapon somewhere, the supply of which does not have permission from the government of Germany, then we are talking about illegal exports," stressed Jurgen Gresslin. In turn, representatives of the concern Heckler und Koch, the German media reported, refused to comment on the situation and give explanations about how the rifles could have appeared in the Caucasus.


Wow that's some real scandal. How on earth did they accumulate illegal HK weapons without legal approval from HK and the German government?! There's just no way those guns could have been bought or smuggled from elsewhere!! I mean there are only 40 listed users of G36s alone on wiki.


Holy hell. You Would think Russians of all people would understand smuggling and black markets but here we are.

Keep it up Terry! You are really on topic here

Re: SU-57: On hold for a decade

Unread postPosted: 30 Dec 2017, 01:07
by XanderCrews
arian wrote:Troll level: Pravda


Speaking of trolls, I often wonder if it was a rabid anti communist that designed Soviet tanks. "Yes the ammo goes under the turret... in a carousel. No you don't need a loader this is much better.. reloading quickly is for the West."

Re: SU-57: On hold for a decade

Unread postPosted: 30 Dec 2017, 01:11
by arian
In 2005, Georgia significantly expanded the orders for the Ukrainian military-industrial complex.


The Banderist-Nazi-Kapitalist conspiracy thickens. Nazi tentacles are everywhere.

Re: SU-57: On hold for a decade

Unread postPosted: 30 Dec 2017, 04:52
by mas
thismightgetdeleted wrote:
juretrn wrote:"Know your place"
Image


This might take 3 days to reach anyone or possibly not. @arian can you please look at my post on page 13. @juretrn can you also show a picture without any 3rd world country operating the migs as US adversary and just use Russia with their pilots flying the migs, are they properly trained for those migs than US pilots, have the latest best variants, and atleast bring the sukhois into the equation?


You do know that virtually all those Tomcat kills were by Iranians not only against Iraqis but top notch Soviet and East German pilots too ?.The Tomcat owned the Foxbat which took to evading rather than fighting when it was about. A lot of those Eagle/Falcon kills were also done by the Israelis. Those four Russian fighters were all seriously flawed in some way. The Mig-21 had no BVR capability worthy of the name, the Mig-23 and Mig-25 couldn't competitively turn and the Mig-29 had poor range and BVR capability. Sure the numbers might have been a bit better if it was just Russian Vs American pilots but not a lot. The Su-27 was the first Russian fighter not seriously flawed in some way that could really hang with the teen fighters. They just never saw much combat except in Africa a little.

Re: SU-57: On hold for a decade

Unread postPosted: 30 Dec 2017, 05:30
by arian
Soviet pilot training must have been so bad that every single country that trained its pilots there apparently got really shitty pilots.

Apparently Wewaz/Terry thinks this is a good explanation in defense of his argument.

Strangely every country that got US training ended up with really good pilots. How is that possible?

Re: SU-57: On hold for a decade

Unread postPosted: 30 Dec 2017, 09:47
by milosh
arian wrote:Soviet pilot training must have been so bad that every single country that trained its pilots there apparently got really shitty pilots.

Apparently Wewaz/Terry thinks this is a good explanation in defense of his argument.

Strangely every country that got US training ended up with really good pilots. How is that possible?


Well not all, VPAF pilots were very effective in air to air combat.

Re: SU-57: On hold for a decade

Unread postPosted: 30 Dec 2017, 09:50
by gideonic
arian wrote:Soviet pilot training must have been so bad that every single country that trained its pilots there apparently got really shitty pilots.

Apparently Wewaz/Terry thinks this is a good explanation in defense of his argument.

Strangely every country that got US training ended up with really good pilots. How is that possible?


Not only that. It always makes me smirk, when the same trolls that praise russian gear (for export no less, e.g. India) also bring out the "monkey model" argument for any Soviet/Russian gear actually used in combat. Why on hell should anyone buy any russian gear ever (say, the Su-57?), when it turns into a "inferior monkey-model infinitely worse than the über-wunder russian counterpart" the second it sees actual combat? Just like the cinderella pumpkin carriage or something ...

Yet obviously, the very same trolls see no contradiction there :doh:

Re: SU-57: On hold for a decade

Unread postPosted: 30 Dec 2017, 10:10
by eloise
thismightgetdeleted wrote:Considering the title of this thread I guess 2027 must have come really early if 2-3 su-57s will be out in 2018 or 12 by 2019 :mrgreen: . Jokes aside is this a good forum? I heard rumors from aviation online forum that this forum is filled with chest pumping kids that kick you out if you are not playing in the same sand box as them and now this topic is going from aircraft to talking about tanks....Lets all get back on track of the SU-57 and we all can start doing that by comparing it to another 5th gen aircraft in deciding if this aircraft will be good or not and will it keep its promise of what it will have. So I will keep this short by talking about avionics and engines before talking about the other good stuff

Nice try wewazkangs, but you are not fooling anyone here , when your writing style and your BS nonsense statements stayed exactly the same. FYI you get banned, because repeat the same nonsense over and over and over a thousands times even though you were taught why they are wrong many times, you were acting like a child hopping that if you repeat stuffs often enough, people will start to believe it, and it will be your little victory. Sorry kid, not gonna happen, you can forget about it.




thismightgetdeleted wrote:1. The SU-57 radar and EW systems. I heard in a 2009 magazine and NIIPs website which has not been updated for quite sometime back in 2009 saying it will use GaAS. Than I meet people like Joe Asakura than say the ECM arrays will be using GaN MMICs https://forum.keypublishing.com/showthr ... ost2281246 than there is this talking about the radar using GaN LTCC MMICs.https://bmpd.livejournal.com/675239.html

Nice try, but no. NIIPP is as official as it is, if they said PAK-FA uses GaAs then it uses GaAs. Left aside the fact that you were citing a normal forum member just like any one here. The article from Joe Asakura only talk about the development of GaN circuit modules in Russia, what are their advantages, how they can be used in modern radars, ECM. That doesn't actually mean they will be used in the block of PAK-FA. There are tons of GaN circuits modules developed in US too, many found ways into radar systems already. That doesn't mean the first block of APG-81 will use GaN. There are economy aspects, there are logistics aspects, it is not simple to change the supply chain mid way of the development

thismightgetdeleted wrote: For sure there is evidence that the modules phazatron has changed drastically in size http://www.ato.ru/files/styles/imagesta ... ok=ytptzdE

Doesn't mean they changed from GaAs to GaN, US modules changed dramatically in size as well

thismightgetdeleted wrote:the same looking blue MMICs seem to be on the K-77M missiles https://yanziyang.files.wordpress.com/2 ... d17af8.jpg it also talks about the missiles using digital AESA arrays http://www.i-mash.ru/news/nov_otrasl/44 ... etami.html.

I already taught you before : all AESA radar are digital, you only think that K-77M seeker is special because you don't even understand how a planar array operates

thismightgetdeleted wrote: So why is it taking long for the F-35 to have such similar AESA sensor warhead technology in the late 2020s known as JNAAMs but they are having problems to atleast completing the block 3f software before getting to block 4. http://www.airforce-technology.com/news ... e-5906820/

Taking long? Russian only started to equip their Flanker with basic R-77 since Syria conflict, before that they still relied on R-27. Nevermind K-77M, that not even get a test launch yet. It was expected to get into serial production by 2015, yet even now not yet in Low rate initial production. Taking about PAK-FA, when was the last time, it test launch the K-77M ? Oh yes it didn't either. While hundreds F-35 is transforming from IOC to FOC, PAK-FA is still for the most parts in development. So time is not what anyone with half a brain cell would try to argue in PAK-FA favor.
FYI, JNAAMs is a ramjet missiles with AESA seeker, K-77M is a missile with normal propeller. Kinematic performer, therefore will be in favor of JNAAM.

thismightgetdeleted wrote: So block 5 is to test the DIRCM, IRST and APS systems.

Nice effort but useless as usual, IRST and towed decoys are already integrated in current F-35. Only DIRCM is for later.


thismightgetdeleted wrote:
The T-50-9 has tested its avionics on April 24 2017 for final testing. I am assuming the DIRCM, IRST and APS systems of the SU-57 will be declared operational since the government is waiting on Putin to pass the state armament plan

No it didn't but i don't expect you to understand what involved in testing.

thismightgetdeleted wrote: so the next issue is the izdelie 30 and ROFAR upgrade integration on to the SU-57. From the looks of how the radar might operate. some say 1hz to 100ghz http://fullafterburner.weebly.com/aeros ... amechanger and there is another source of the mig-41 saying it will use the same radio optical phased arrays, "Both the emitter and the receiver have been built on the basis of the experimental prototype as part of the R&D work. All this works and performs the location - we emit an ultra-high frequency signal, it is reflected back and we receive and process it and get the radar picture of an object. We see what we need to do to make it optimal," he said."

Here we go again, with the same nonsense about ROFAR. No, it won't operate from 1Hz to 100 Ghz period. With frequency too low your radar will be overly inaccurate for any purpose, with frequency too high, your EM wave will be absorbed all by moisture in atmosphere. Physics doesn't go way because you hate it.



thismightgetdeleted wrote:
This is the same organization that is making 5,000km jammers like the murmansk-BN and other krasukha systems I heard they are a new organization.

And as i already taught you, to jam a radar, it is actually easier to jam it the further you are from it, because radar signal decrease at faster rate due to 2 ways travel. About, Murmansk, it is just a communication jammer, hardly anything state of the art, you can jam communications by pumping out enough noise.


thismightgetdeleted wrote: So here it stated UHF and the other it states the range it will operate in. Since the SU-57 has a multiband radar that processes both X and L band signals they seem to want to widen that up.

No, Su-57 doesn't use multi band radar. The main FCR radar at the nose use Xband like any aircraft since ever. The IFF array at the wing uses L band, but they are not the same radar period. They do not even form the same beam.

thismightgetdeleted wrote:
"Sensor fusion is a process by which data from several different sensors are "fused" to compute something more than could be determined by any one sensor alone

Nice try pretending like you are someone else, yet still trying to back up your old argument, but again you still don't understand it. They did that by putting together needed pieces. For example: an IR sensor has very good angular accuracy but can't measure distance, a radar's angular accuracy isn't as good but can measure distance. Put them together, you can have accurate directions of target + distance to it. However, if the target found a way to delete that needed piece then sensor fusion won't have much benefit. For example: if your radar were jammed and can't measure distance to target, fuse its info with IR system won't really benefit you at all.

thismightgetdeleted wrote:
this is why the Chinese as another example can track an RCS of .01m2 more than 300km away in which case there is no chance in hell an X-band can do that alone in "tracking" http://www.deagel.com/news/China-Introd ... 17185.aspx.

Oh really? May be you should check what SBX or TPY-2 can do.
And read that piece of tabloid carefully, the radar that can track a ballistic missiles with RCS 0.01m2 from 300 km is SLC-7, it is not the same as the radar in their title

thismightgetdeleted wrote:
The Nebo-M seems to be more powerful than this radar.

And that based on what? Your patriotic feeling?

thismightgetdeleted wrote:Because talks of both JNAAMs and K-77M speak of locking on targets without any transmission

I already taught you. RF guided missiles need to rely on some forms of transmission. For examples: HoJ function can passively guide the AIM-120 into aircraft, but it rely on that aircraft transmit jamming signal. HARMs can theoretically be used against AWACs but it rely on the AWAC to have radar operate. But if a fighter is maneuvering away, and doesn't have its jammer on, then your missile need to use to turn on it's radar, otherwise it will see nothing and will locking on nothing. Pe
thismightgetdeleted wrote:Considering the title of this thread I guess 2027 must have come really early if 2-3 su-57s will be out in 2018 or 12 by 2019 :mrgreen: . Jokes aside is this a good forum? I heard rumors from aviation online forum that this forum is filled with chest pumping kids that kick you out if you are not playing in the same sand box as them and now this topic is going from aircraft to talking about tanks....Lets all get back on track of the SU-57 and we all can start doing that by comparing it to another 5th gen aircraft in deciding if this aircraft will be good or not and will it keep its promise of what it will have. So I will keep this short by talking about avionics and engines before talking about the other good stuff

Nice try wewazkangs, but you are not fooling anyone here , when your writing style and your BS nonsense statements stayed exactly the same. FYI you get banned, because repeat the same nonsense over and over and over a thousands times even though you were taught why they are wrong many times, you were acting like a child hopping that if you repeat stuffs often enough, people will start to believe it, and it will be your little victory. Sorry kid, not gonna happen, you can forget about it.




thismightgetdeleted wrote:1. The SU-57 radar and EW systems. I heard in a 2009 magazine and NIIPs website which has not been updated for quite sometime back in 2009 saying it will use GaAS. Than I meet people like Joe Asakura than say the ECM arrays will be using GaN MMICs https://forum.keypublishing.com/showthr ... ost2281246 than there is this talking about the radar using GaN LTCC MMICs.https://bmpd.livejournal.com/675239.html

Nice try, but no. NIIPP is as official as it is, if they said PAK-FA uses GaAs then it uses GaAs. Left aside the fact that you were citing a normal forum member just like any one here. The article from Joe Asakura only talk about the development of GaN circuit modules in Russia, what are their advantages, how they can be used in modern radars, ECM. That doesn't actually mean they will be used in the block of PAK-FA. There are tons of GaN circuits modules developed in US too, many found ways into radar systems already. That doesn't mean the first block of APG-81 will use GaN. There are economy aspects, there are logistics aspects, it is not simple to change the supply chain mid way of the development

thismightgetdeleted wrote: For sure there is evidence that the modules phazatron has changed drastically in size http://www.ato.ru/files/styles/imagesta ... ok=ytptzdE

Doesn't mean they changed from GaAs to GaN, US modules changed dramatically in size as well

thismightgetdeleted wrote:the same looking blue MMICs seem to be on the K-77M missiles https://yanziyang.files.wordpress.com/2 ... d17af8.jpg it also talks about the missiles using digital AESA arrays http://www.i-mash.ru/news/nov_otrasl/44 ... etami.html.

I already taught you before : all AESA radar are digital, you only think that K-77M seeker is special because you don't even understand how a planar array operates

thismightgetdeleted wrote: So why is it taking long for the F-35 to have such similar AESA sensor warhead technology in the late 2020s known as JNAAMs but they are having problems to atleast completing the block 3f software before getting to block 4. http://www.airforce-technology.com/news ... e-5906820/

Taking long? Russian only started to equip their Flanker with basic R-77 since Syria conflict, before that they still relied on R-27. Nevermind K-77M, that not even get a test launch yet. It was expected to get into serial production by 2015, yet even now not yet in Low rate initial production. Taking about PAK-FA, when was the last time, it test launch the K-77M ? Oh yes it didn't either. While hundreds F-35 is transforming from IOC to FOC, PAK-FA is still for the most parts in development. So time is not what anyone with half a brain cell would try to argue in PAK-FA favor.
FYI, JNAAMs is a ramjet missiles with AESA seeker, K-77M is a missile with normal propeller. Kinematic performer, therefore will be in favor of JNAAM.

thismightgetdeleted wrote: So block 5 is to test the DIRCM, IRST and APS systems.

Nice effort but useless as usual, IRST and towed decoys are already integrated in current F-35. Only DIRCM is for later.


thismightgetdeleted wrote:
The T-50-9 has tested its avionics on April 24 2017 for final testing. I am assuming the DIRCM, IRST and APS systems of the SU-57 will be declared operational since the government is waiting on Putin to pass the state armament plan

No it didn't but i don't expect you to understand what involved in testing.

thismightgetdeleted wrote: so the next issue is the izdelie 30 and ROFAR upgrade integration on to the SU-57. From the looks of how the radar might operate. some say 1hz to 100ghz http://fullafterburner.weebly.com/aeros ... amechanger and there is another source of the mig-41 saying it will use the same radio optical phased arrays, "Both the emitter and the receiver have been built on the basis of the experimental prototype as part of the R&D work. All this works and performs the location - we emit an ultra-high frequency signal, it is reflected back and we receive and process it and get the radar picture of an object. We see what we need to do to make it optimal," he said."

Here we go again, with the same nonsense about ROFAR. No, it won't operate from 1Hz to 100 Ghz period. With frequency too low your radar will be overly inaccurate for any purpose, with frequency too high, your EM wave will be absorbed all by moisture in atmosphere. Physics doesn't go way because you hate it.



thismightgetdeleted wrote:
This is the same organization that is making 5,000km jammers like the murmansk-BN and other krasukha systems I heard they are a new organization.

And as i already taught you, to jam a radar, it is actually easier to jam it the further you are from it, because radar signal decrease at faster rate due to 2 ways travel. About, Murmansk, it is just a communication jammer, hardly anything state of the art, you can jam communications by pumping out enough noise.


thismightgetdeleted wrote: So here it stated UHF and the other it states the range it will operate in. Since the SU-57 has a multiband radar that processes both X and L band signals they seem to want to widen that up.

No, Su-57 doesn't use multi band radar. The main FCR radar at the nose use Xband like any aircraft since ever. The IFF array at the wing uses L band, but they are not the same radar period. They do not even form the same beam.

thismightgetdeleted wrote:
"Sensor fusion is a process by which data from several different sensors are "fused" to compute something more than could be determined by any one sensor alone

Nice try pretending like you are someone else, yet still trying to back up your old argument, but again you still don't understand it. They did that by putting together needed pieces. For example: an IR sensor has very good angular accuracy but can't measure distance, a radar's angular accuracy isn't as good but can measure distance. Put them together, you can have accurate directions of target + distance to it. However, if the target found a way to delete that needed piece then sensor fusion won't have much benefit. For example: if your radar were jammed and can't measure distance to target, fuse its info with IR system won't really benefit you at all.

thismightgetdeleted wrote:
this is why the Chinese as another example can track an RCS of .01m2 more than 300km away in which case there is no chance in hell an X-band can do that alone in "tracking" http://www.deagel.com/news/China-Introd ... 17185.aspx.

Oh really? May be you should check what SBX or TPY-2 can do.
And read that piece of tabloid carefully, the radar that can track a ballistic missiles with RCS 0.01m2 from 300 km is SLC-7, it is not the same as the radar in their title

thismightgetdeleted wrote:
The Nebo-M seems to be more powerful than this radar.

And that based on what? Your patriotic feeling?

thismightgetdeleted wrote:Because talks of both JNAAMs and K-77M speak of locking on targets without any transmission

I already taught you. RF guided missiles need to rely on some forms of transmission. For examples: HoJ function can passively guide the AIM-120 into aircraft, but it rely on that aircraft transmit jamming signal. HARMs can theoretically be used against AWACs but it rely on the AWAC to have radar operate. But if a fighter is maneuvering away, and doesn't have its jammer on, then your missile need to use to turn on it's radar, otherwise it will see nothing and will locking on nothing. Period.

thismightgetdeleted wrote:
Here considering this forum I hope this put everyone back on track talking about aircraft.

More like you desperately repeat the same ideas by different account hoping that this time for some magical reason people will start to buy it.period.

thismightgetdeleted wrote:
Here considering this forum I hope this put everyone back on track talking about aircraft.

More like you desperately repeat the same ideas by different account hoping that this time for some magical reason people will start to buy it.

Re: SU-57: On hold for a decade

Unread postPosted: 30 Dec 2017, 11:59
by arian
Nice try, but no. NIIPP is as official as it is, if they said PAK-FA uses GaAs then it uses GaAs. Left aside the fact that you were citing a normal forum member just like any one here. The article from Joe Asakura only talk about the development of GaN circuit modules in Russia, what are their advantages, how they can be used in modern radars, ECM. That doesn't actually mean they will be used in the block of PAK-FA. There are tons of GaN circuits modules developed in US too, many found ways into radar systems already. That doesn't mean the first block of APG-81 will use GaN. There are economy aspects, there are logistics aspects, it is not simple to change the supply chain mid way of the development


A few pages back I posted the "state of the art" in Russian GaN developments from their own scientific publications. Lets just say...not gonna happen this decade.

Re: SU-57: On hold for a decade

Unread postPosted: 30 Dec 2017, 15:25
by XanderCrews
milosh wrote:
Well not all, VPAF pilots were very effective in air to air combat.


Until the US corrected. Then suddenly things turned. The VPAF lost, and lost huge. It was basically the falcons patriots super bowl. Strong first half, then nothing

Re: SU-57: On hold for a decade

Unread postPosted: 30 Dec 2017, 15:36
by XanderCrews
thismightgetdeleted wrote:Considering the title of this thread I guess 2027 must have come really early if 2-3 su-57s will be out in 2018 or 12 by 2019 : .


Comprehension, not even once.

Jokes aside is this a good forum? I heard rumors from aviation online forum that this forum is filled with chest pumping kids that kick you out if you are not playing in the same sand box as them and now this topic is going from aircraft to talking about...



What an innocent and unloaded question! Not at all obvious!

You need to be an undercover cop with all that talent

Re: SU-57: On hold for a decade

Unread postPosted: 30 Dec 2017, 17:58
by XanderCrews
terrygedran wrote:"Because no one would willingly build tanks like that right?"
Crew 3 (commander, gunner, driver)+Autoloader
Type 90 Kyū-maru
Type 10
Type 99 tank
VT-4 Main Battle Tank
K2 Black Panther
AMX Leclerc



Swing and a miss. The issue isn't having an auto loader in and of itself.

Re: SU-57: On hold for a decade

Unread postPosted: 30 Dec 2017, 19:07
by eloise
I didn't care much about engine but then i figured if i don't correct him, he may think only his others statements were wrong
thismightgetdeleted wrote:2. engines so they have gone from a 3,500km range to an estimated above 5,000km range engine with no refuel or external fuel tanks which is like a 43% increase in range.

No they didn't. Stop using Sputnik then add in even more of your own BS. PAK-FA has never ever officially estimated to reach 5000 km ferry range, not even when carrying fuel tank, nevermind with internal fuel.

thismightgetdeleted wrote: So give or take max thrust rate of AL-41 is 33,000lbs and izdelie 30 is at 42,000lbs and going from mach 1.5 to mach 1.8 in super cruise you get like a 20 increase for super cruise thrust and maybe a little more when dividing max thrust afterburner.So lets look at ADVENT https://www.flightglobal.com/news/artic ... ts-377569/ and http://aviationweek.com/defense/ge-deta ... ngine-plan this basically says 10% more thrust and 30% more range.....The difference here seems that what is currently being tested right now is better than what is on paper known as ADVENT. Should the F-35 ditched ADVENT for a better engine design?

Nice try, but your ignorance get the better of you again.
Izdelie 30 is an under development design that will reach IOC earliest at 2020s, with thrust rating of 42,000 lbs. Current F-135 already has thrust rating of 43,000 lbs. Funny thing is, if you look at the date of your article, you will realized that ADVENT core was already tested in 2012. Around mid 2020s, the F-35 will be upgraded with ACE with 20% better thrust over current F-135 (that 55,900 lbs), 30% better range, and a third stream to reduce IR signature
Image


thismightgetdeleted wrote:And of course you can go look back at my 2 early sources of Roselectronika supplying the GaN LTCC MMICs to the AFAR radar and EW systems (even a god damn picture and statements of Roselectronika supplying the GaN MMICs with the specific named aircraft EW systems like Himalayas......One could not ask for a better source than this)

No, they didn't supply it, you should re-learn English if you thought that was the case. Pay attention to these words they used. They talked about potential application, the same way they say spider silk will make bullet proof vest 10 times lighter. Doesn't mean your bullet proof vest will now be made from spider silk
The new amplifiers will allow for a [more than] 10 times improvement in weight and size parameters of the receivers in radar and electronic warfare avionics, in such complexes as "Khibiny-M", "Rubella-4", "Himalaya", "Tarantula", while improving the noise figure, and would eliminate the the use of foreign-made products in a number of communications systems.

Re: SU-57: On hold for a decade

Unread postPosted: 31 Dec 2017, 00:57
by thismightgetdeleted
@arian
"Nice try wewazkangs" I have no idea who that is?

[... rest of message removed...]

:: Message from mods: thismightgetdeleted was indeed Wewuzkangz - Ban has been issued and most garbage posts have been cleaned up ::

Re: SU-57: On hold for a decade

Unread postPosted: 31 Dec 2017, 06:08
by eloise
thismightgetdeleted wrote:Fine no sputnik than https://defpost.com/russias-pak-fa-fift ... ted-su-57/ "The new engine will make the Su-57 capable of supercruise at 2,000 km/h (1,200 mph) – i.e, to maintain supersonic cruising speed without firing up afterburners. The aircraft can also fly over 5,000 kilometers with no air refueling or external fuel tanks."

Nice try, but again, no
Firstly, that is nothing more than a personal blog post, it is as reliable as Picard.
Secondly, just like you, he also added in his own BS from the cited information. According what written on the page, his information were "reported" on RBTH, yet, funny enough, if you actually went to the RBTH link : https://www.rbth.com/defence/2017/08/02 ... ame_815520, there isn't a single word about combat radius.

thismightgetdeleted wrote:So its still a paper design while the other is already doing flight tests correct? Thats all I wanted to hear. VTOL will obviously require alot of thrust so its obvious from the start. the item 30 still succeeds the ACE.

Nice try but let me spell it out for you: current F-135 already has higher thrust than item 30. ADVENT physical core were already made and tested in 2012 (or 5 years ago), ACE is successor of ADVENT.

thismightgetdeleted wrote:Read my other post that with the image literally state the MMIC models, EW systems and production of the 21 program.

They stated the MMIC modules and how they CAN improve performance of EW equipment, not that they were used in these EW equipment.

thismightgetdeleted wrote:Well rather if you understand technology other than physics its a multiband radar than can go high and low. sensors at high and low can work as one as previously stated.

Unfortunately, we haven't yet develope technology to change the law of physics. So making a radar that operate from 1 Hz to 100 Ghz is idiotic, and the rest of your quotes is nonsense

Re: SU-57: On hold for a decade

Unread postPosted: 31 Dec 2017, 11:54
by arian
The production of such modules - broadband microwave amplifiers for PPR, which is a monolithic integrated circuit of the GaN type - is established at the Istok Research and Industrial Enterprise (Fryazino, Moscow Region), part of the holding company RosElectronics.


Absolutely! Istok is making world-class GaN modules. It is absolutely not true that Istok in fact can't make s**t and is actually buying off the shelf civilian components to run some experiments. Nope. Not true at all.

Your work here is done. You have convinced us. You should leave now and spread your message of GANNNN and ROFLAR to some other poor forum.

Off you go now...

Re: SU-57: On hold for a decade

Unread postPosted: 31 Dec 2017, 20:02
by wrightwing
If you understand physics, then you also understand that the claims about ROFAR are bullshit. When you post bullshit, you destroy all credibility, and get laughed at.

Re: SU-57: On hold for a decade

Unread postPosted: 31 Dec 2017, 20:18
by eloise
thismightgetdeleted wrote:" Your opinion matters alot to me https://defpost.com/about/

No, what i said isn't an opinion, but rather a fact.
" digital news publication" = basically mean any blogs, websites, whatsoever
"founded in 2015 by a group of technology and defence enthusiasts" = literally made by a group of amateur
So yes,the fact is they don't know what they talking about, just like you.

thismightgetdeleted wrote:Well maybe thats because its a different source? No sputnik and no this?

Just admit it, he made that up hopping people don't pay attention. Because up until now Russia MoD haven't release information about PAK-FA ferry range.

thismightgetdeleted wrote:no sh*t its VTOL you know what that means? It has to use a alot of force to lifts itself vertically off the ground is that right?

Nice try, but and gave you the thrust rating of F-135 PW-100 not F-135 PW-600, and the thrust from the lift fan in hover mode was not included.

thismightgetdeleted wrote: Hell tell me the top speed of an F-35 because with that much thrust and its weight it would probably outrun a SR-71 LOL XD.

Nice try but as usual, you demonstrated your lack of understanding in aerodynamic. SR-71 or Mig-25 can fly faster than F-35 not because they have higher T/W but because their variable inlet was designed to allow high pressure recovery performance at high speed. That come at the cost of heavier and higher signature.

thismightgetdeleted wrote: Here you go.

We been over that for several pages already, just because you try to brought it back over and over doesn't make it true. Some things developed in labs # something in serial production # something chosen by investors for specific systems. "can" "will" # "is"
US have loads of GaN modules in production, they can even export it, but that doesn't mean all systems on F-35 use GaN

thismightgetdeleted wrote: You can go look at the radar MMICs "The greatest progress in the development of the S-121 radar is related to bringing to the state of mass production the main element of the radar with AFAR - the receiving-transmitting modules. The production of such modules - broadband microwave amplifiers for PPR, which is a monolithic integrated circuit of the GaN type - is established at the Istok Research and Industrial Enterprise (Fryazino, Moscow Region), part of the holding company RosElectronics."

Nice try but same mistake as usual. You taken that piece from https://bmpd.livejournal.com/675239.html
LiveJournal is another blog service just like WordPress, blogspot.
You want people to take you serious, you need to consider taking information from official sources: either MoD personnel, manufacturer, user manual, scientific researchs ... etc not some random blog or forum posts. That not to say you can't use blog as a source, but only if stuffs they said are easily confirmed such as physics or calculations or with direct citations.


thismightgetdeleted wrote: -How does this change physics? Its basically using frequency in a multi-band radar while giving a description about it.

Because transmit at frequency of 1 Hz with fighter radar is idiotic, you will have a useless omnidirectional transmitter. Transmit at frequency of 100 Ghz with fighter radar is also dumb because you won't see further than a few km. Then there is issue of elements spacing for planar array. I taught you all of this the last time you were here, Had you actually learned, you wouldn't get banned

thismightgetdeleted wrote: Tell me why stealth aircraft are vulnerable in VHF and UHF are vulnerable to Rayleigh Scattering? This relates to physics so i thought you might enjoy it.

Traveling wave (creeping wave), tip diffraction
Bigger lobes for specular reflection
Image
Image

Re: SU-57: On hold for a decade

Unread postPosted: 31 Dec 2017, 21:43
by arian
Nice try but same mistake as usual. You taken that piece from https://bmpd.livejournal.com/675239.html
LiveJournal is another blog service just like WordPress, blogspot.
You want people to take you serious, you need to consider taking information from official sources: either MoD personnel, manufacturer, user manual, scientific researchs ... etc not some random blog or forum posts. That not to say you can't use blog as a source, but only if stuffs they said are easily confirmed such as physics or calculations or with direct citations.


I already posted an actual article from a Russian scientific publication in 2017, written by a JSC Pulsar employee about the state of the art of Russian GaN technology.

Let's just say...they're not recognizing anyone's face from 400km away. LOL

Re: SU-57: On hold for a decade

Unread postPosted: 05 Jan 2018, 15:20
by sdkf251
Hmm.... I remember when Mig19, Mig21 Mig23 and MIg25 were able to make the West speculate on what possible designs
the USSR was making next.

Nowadays, not so much. Imagine a 1970's design still being modified and upgraded and labeled the "best we can offer".
Where is the originality?

On a very different note, If I remember correctly, the 57mm gun in a WW2 US halftrack was given to the Soviets as a lend lease where they called it the SU-57. :mrgreen:

Re: SU-57: On hold for a decade

Unread postPosted: 05 Jan 2018, 16:06
by mixelflick
So in the opinion of most here, is the SU-57 any kind of imminent threat to western air forces? I know it's no F-22, although other forums (keypub is one) speaks of the SU-57 as it's almost combat ready, the current engines work just fine for supercruise, the stealth is good enought etc..

Does anyone think it's something F-15 pilots need concern themselves with in the next 5 years?

Re: SU-57: On hold for a decade

Unread postPosted: 05 Jan 2018, 19:32
by icemaverick
The Su-57 is probably on par with or superior to most Western 4++ men designs. My money is on the latter. It has impressive kinematic performance, it is supermaneuverable, can supercruise, has the best Russian radar/avionics/electronic warfare suite and, while not as stealthy as the F-22 or F-35, should have a low radar cross section.

F-15 pilots will not be facing the Su-57 alone. If the Su-57 deployed to any area close to where F-15s are, there will be Raptors and/or Lightnings there as well. As for being a threat in the next 5 years, I doubt it. They've got 10 flyable prototypes built so far. That's not even enough for an operational squadron. They haven't even started high rate production yet and I doubt they'll be able to churn out more than 10 a year for at least the next few years. Then they have to train pilots and develop tactics. They will also have to setup all the maintenance infrastructure. All of these things take time.

Re: SU-57: On hold for a decade

Unread postPosted: 06 Jan 2018, 01:05
by nn8734
mixelflick wrote:So in the opinion of most here, is the SU-57 any kind of imminent threat to western air forces? I know it's no F-22, although other forums (keypub is one) speaks of the SU-57 as it's almost combat ready, the current engines work just fine for supercruise, the stealth is good enought etc..

Does anyone think it's something F-15 pilots need concern themselves with in the next 5 years?


Not in the next 5 years, unless they suddenly ramp up production (where’s the $$ coming from). By time the SU57 achieves IOC by Western standards (late 2020’s) when it could potentially pose a threat to our fourth gen stuff, well over 1000 F35s will be in service not to mention upgraded F22s. Additionally, Penetrating Counter Air will be coming out or relatively close at that time and dominate anything Russia or China puts in the sky.

Re: SU-57: On hold for a decade

Unread postPosted: 06 Jan 2018, 01:51
by arian
thismightgetdeleted wrote:I shall do a repost of a repost as well http://translate.google.co.in/translate ... 19&act=url don't feel like reposting the same GaN MMICs for the EW systems that clearly state was built by them in 2014 without any foreign exports, if its one ear in and out the other with you.....


It literally doesn't say any of that. It specifically says this:

But in fact in Russia are the programs for creating technological lines for solid-state microwave components?

A.K. Yes, they are. In particular, work on the development of GaN microwave transistor technologies is being carried out at the FGUP NPP Pulsar, FSUE NPP Istok, Svetlana, Elma-Malakhit, and several institutes of the Russian Academy of Sciences. This way is not easy. We do not expect the emergence of serial domestic devices based on GaN in less than eight to ten years.


Nowhere does it say anything about GaN modules for EW applications. Nowhere does it say without foreign imports. Nowhere does it say they are producing or considering any such a thing for any application other than experimental. It specifically says they are having problems with heat, which is exactly what I said earlier as well based on the physical characteristics of these modules from their scientific publications.

And the stuff I cited is from 2017.

You're simply not capable of understanding. You're a lost cause.

Re: SU-57: On hold for a decade

Unread postPosted: 06 Jan 2018, 09:11
by arian
thismightgetdeleted wrote:"Do you understand the meaning of the word R&D? Probably not" -Oh look it says it was developed at the end of the sentence lol. Your trolling is pretty funny


:roll:

Here you go: http://j.pulsarnpp.ru/images/journal/is ... peckij.pdf
http://j.pulsarnpp.ru/images/journal/is ... Ivanov.pdf

Final product of R&D:
6-channel module
6w Power
Dimensions: 258mm x 150mm x 58mm
Weight of module: 4.6kg

"World class" lol

So you hate my source when it said without foreign substitution that the MMICs were made?


You forgot to read where they imported from Cree and TriQuint. My sources are Russian scientific publications in this field from 2017 :wink:

Yours is Key Publishing Forum :doh:

sweet so where does it show the mm rha protection. 100mm and 125mm sound like tank cannon specifications in which they specifically use.


You don't understand BM-8 and BM-26? Do they hire non-Ruski speakers at the troll farm? Must be scraping the bottom of the barrel.

Re: SU-57: On hold for a decade

Unread postPosted: 06 Jan 2018, 19:45
by eloise
thismightgetdeleted wrote: digital news publication by definition even lists new york times and the guardian as such as well.

All scientists are human, does that mean all human are scientists? No.
thismightgetdeleted wrote: Admit what? that none of the articles suite your opinions?

Admit the fact that you can't find anything official from Russian MoD or PAK-FA manufacturer mentioning these combat radius, so you desperately try to cite random numbers from Sputnik and random blogs.

thismightgetdeleted wrote: Talking about the percentages here in thrust and range increase between either aircraft and why the F-35 has still not made the upgrade. Atleast explain what block upgrade it will be.

Current F-135 already have higher thrust than Type 30, PAK-FA doesn't have the Type 30 either, in fact it will only have that around the time F-35 will get ACE.

thismightgetdeleted wrote: and you demonstrated a lack of physics.

Nope, if anyone here demonstrated the lack of understanding in physics, that you. From your so called "3D AESA" to your hypothesis about how "UV sensor is better than IIR", to your imagination radar that operates from "1Hz to 100 Ghz", your understanding of physics is hardly better than a third grade students, nevermind anyone here.

thismightgetdeleted wrote:The mig-25 was pushed to dangerious levels by the pilot. the sr-71 has atleast 20,000 more lbs than the F-35 most of the F-35s thrust was for vertical lift. Its understandable that aircrafts have to be physically shaped a certain way but the thrust is needed for speed and the vertical take off was where most of the thrust was given to the F-35. I am sorry that you cant understand sarcastic jokes.

Nope, wrong again. Both SR-71 and Mig-25 have lower T/W than F-35, they can fly faster not because F-35 thrust only works at vertical take off but because variable inlet allow higher dynamic thrust at high speed than a fixed inlet due to better pressure recovery ratio.

thismightgetdeleted wrote: Lets make this more simple for you.....Has the US introduced GaN MMICs models for either of their radar or EW systems? I know the US can produce GaN but have they introduced any GaN MMICs T/R models specifically yet for aircraft?.

And let me make it simple for you, yes they did.


thismightgetdeleted wrote:You have seen basically all those MMICs in phazatron introduced right? within that time frame they have made alot of different variants like fga-35, fga-35(3d), fga-50 although that might be true for the mig than what what about their 5th gen design.

Arian already explained to you the GaN part and i have already explained to you since you still used Wewuzkangz account for like a billion times that all aircraft fire control radar are 3D radar.


thismightgetdeleted wrote: Your opinions and bias is becoming a little too cute now. https://translate.google.com/translate? ... rev=search Tell me whats the credibility of the AST Center?.

Read better next time:
The bmpd blog is an informal blog

The bmpd blog, however, is not a blog exclusively from the ACT Center, its executives or one of its employees. It publishes both the messages of the ACT Center and the messages of the authors,


thismightgetdeleted wrote:Yup that is the claimed range now what about whats in between?

I already taught you about the concept of Gain and atmosphere absorption last time you were here. Go back to old thread and read instead of hoping people will start to believe you just because you repeat the same BS with a different account.

Re: SU-57: On hold for a decade

Unread postPosted: 06 Jan 2018, 21:00
by juretrn
Oh boy, did he really say US doesn't have GaN radars?

Image

“Raytheon’s GaN technology is backed by 19 years of research and $300m in investment, while our competitors are either new to the market or primarily build GaN for commercial applications,” says Ralph Acaba, VP of Integrated Air and Missile Defense at Raytheon IDS.

Re: SU-57: On hold for a decade

Unread postPosted: 06 Jan 2018, 21:40
by sferrin
eloise wrote:
thismightgetdeleted wrote: Talking about the percentages here in thrust and range increase between either aircraft and why the F-35 has still not made the upgrade. Atleast explain what block upgrade it will be.

Current F-135 already have higher thrust than Type 30, PAK-FA doesn't have the Type 30 either, in fact it will only have that around the time F-35 will get ACE.


Russia or China would kill to get a GE -132 or P&W -232 at this point. (Both were run at 36k+ lbs thrust.) They're still dreaming of a nearly 30 year old F119, nevermind an F135 or the newer 3-stream engines both GE and P&W are testing.

Re: SU-57: On hold for a decade

Unread postPosted: 07 Jan 2018, 02:03
by arian
eloise wrote:
thismightgetdeleted wrote:You have seen basically all those MMICs in phazatron introduced right? within that time frame they have made alot of different variants like fga-35, fga-35(3d), fga-50 although that might be true for the mig than what what about their 5th gen design.


Arian already explained to you the GaN part and i have already explained to you since you still used Wewuzkangz account for like a billion times that all aircraft fire control radar are 3D radar.


All aircraft radar are 3D of course, but that's not what this mythical "3D" the Russians are claiming is. Even though Wewaz may be a silly ignorant troll, the Russian companies making them aren't so stupid as to claim it's a "3D" radar in that sense.

What they mean is the construction method for the modules. Instead of a "stick" module, they are talking about producing them in multiple "layers" on top of each other and hence you get a "3D" module. It refers to the production technique. Which of course it's nothing new at all.

And it's based of the civilian telecom technology the Russians licensed from Germany a few years ago. But again, this construction technique for modules has been used for a couple of decades in US AESAs.

Re: SU-57: On hold for a decade

Unread postPosted: 07 Jan 2018, 05:19
by mas
First Russian 5th generation Su-57 fighter jets to be put in service ‘very soon’ [presumably with Su-35 32klb engines]

https://www.rt.com/news/415166-su-57-russian-army-soon/

Re: SU-57: On hold for a decade

Unread postPosted: 07 Jan 2018, 06:11
by arian
mas wrote:First Russian 5th generation Su-57 fighter jets to be put in service ‘very soon’ [presumably with Su-35 32klb engines]

https://www.rt.com/news/415166-su-57-russian-army-soon/


At only $50 million too. Amazing stuff. I'm so impressed. Especially about that article right next to it about laser shooting out of it. There is absolutely nothing Russia can't do better and cheaper. Nothing.

Except refrigerators.

Re: SU-57: On hold for a decade

Unread postPosted: 08 Jan 2018, 05:01
by Corsair1963
sferrin wrote:
eloise wrote:
thismightgetdeleted wrote: Talking about the percentages here in thrust and range increase between either aircraft and why the F-35 has still not made the upgrade. Atleast explain what block upgrade it will be.

Current F-135 already have higher thrust than Type 30, PAK-FA doesn't have the Type 30 either, in fact it will only have that around the time F-35 will get ACE.


Russia or China would kill to get a GE -132 or P&W -232 at this point. (Both were run at 36k+ lbs thrust.) They're still dreaming of a nearly 30 year old F119, nevermind an F135 or the newer 3-stream engines both GE and P&W are testing.



Yes, by time China and Russia get their Stealth Fighters in service in any real numbers. The US will have improved models of the F-35 with either upgraded F135's (Growth Option 1) or a Version of the ACE from P&W and/or GE.

Must just be driving them crazy! :bang:

Re: SU-57: On hold for a decade

Unread postPosted: 08 Jan 2018, 10:24
by botsing
mas wrote:First Russian 5th generation Su-57 fighter jets to be put in service ‘very soon’ [presumably with Su-35 32klb engines]

https://www.rt.com/news/415166-su-57-russian-army-soon/

Using RT as a "source".

LOL! :mrgreen:

Re: SU-57: On hold for a decade

Unread postPosted: 08 Jan 2018, 20:04
by wrightwing
By soon, he means 2027ish.

Re: SU-57: On hold for a decade

Unread postPosted: 08 Jan 2018, 20:13
by juretrn
wrightwing wrote:By soon, he means 2027ish.

Maybe RT is simply using time standards for nuclear fusion timelines?

Re: SU-57: On hold for a decade

Unread postPosted: 08 Jan 2018, 20:20
by mas
RT is actually not a bad source for non political news, don't think Su-57 intro date is political but I suppose it could be in a tangential way if they are trying to compete with F-35. Btw they are quoting the Joint Aviation Corporation (OAK) not themselves.

Re: SU-57: On hold for a decade

Unread postPosted: 08 Jan 2018, 20:44
by mixelflick
Does anyone else remember when the protoype flew in 2010 ?

IOC given was 2013 :mrgreen:

Re: SU-57: On hold for a decade

Unread postPosted: 08 Jan 2018, 20:44
by botsing
mas wrote:RT is actually not a bad source for non political news

That is just bad practice. RT, by design, will always blend in political propaganda with trivial news items and is therefor suspect and non-trustworthy by default.

It does have one benefit though, it makes us show your true colors by you trying to defend it.

Re: SU-57: On hold for a decade

Unread postPosted: 08 Jan 2018, 21:00
by juretrn
botsing wrote:It does have one benefit though, it makes us show your true colors by you trying to defend it.

I disagree, the best propaganda always has a grain of truth to it.
In this case, the BS is not a RT fabrication, but Russian MoD's.

Re: SU-57: On hold for a decade

Unread postPosted: 08 Jan 2018, 21:13
by botsing
juretrn wrote:
botsing wrote:It does have one benefit though, it makes us show your true colors by you trying to defend it.

I disagree, the best propaganda always has a grain of truth to it.
In this case, the BS is not a RT fabrication, but Russian MoD's.

If you want to research propaganda then sure, its a nice tool. As a reliable source for facts however, it's useless since there will always be a suspect taint to it.

Re: SU-57: On hold for a decade

Unread postPosted: 08 Jan 2018, 21:35
by mas
botsing wrote:
mas wrote:RT is actually not a bad source for non political news

That is just bad practice. RT, by design, will always blend in political propaganda with trivial news items and is therefor suspect and non-trustworthy by default.

It does have one benefit though, it makes us show your true colors by you trying to defend it.


Lol, not defending anything, just having an open mind and calling it like I find it. As a general rule though and in between all the propaganda the Western press will tell the Russians stuff their government doesn't want them to know and the Russian press will tell the West stuff their government doesn't want them to know. Bear that in mind and you can read sources from all round the world to get a more complete picture of what's happening. Are you disputing say for example in the 'always on their tail' story that the Russian pilot actually said that or that it actually happened ? I'm not discounting either proposition and I thought it was an interesting postscript to the ISIS aerial encounters.

I don't doubt for one minute that the F-22s were more interested in professionally husbanding the Su-25s away than any macho mock dogfights unlike the Russians who seem to thrive on such bravado. Or maybe it was the Russian air force just still trying to sell their aircraft hard in this age of stealth through lies or misrepresentations. Whether it is true or not something can be gained from this report whether it's actual facts or the emotional intentions of the Russians. Know your potential enemy ;).

Re: SU-57: On hold for a decade

Unread postPosted: 08 Jan 2018, 23:45
by XanderCrews
arian wrote:
mas wrote:First Russian 5th generation Su-57 fighter jets to be put in service ‘very soon’ [presumably with Su-35 32klb engines]

https://www.rt.com/news/415166-su-57-russian-army-soon/


At only $50 million too. Amazing stuff. I'm so impressed. Especially about that article right next to it about laser shooting out of it. There is absolutely nothing Russia can't do better and cheaper. Nothing.

Except refrigerators.


As a capitalist I'm terrified. These guys haven't even been in the capitalism game 30 years and now hear they are. Beating us. We simply can't compete. Winning at our game!

We will all be flying on Russian built airliners that are as good but made for pennies on the dollar.

Goodnight sweet, Boeing

Re: SU-57: On hold for a decade

Unread postPosted: 08 Jan 2018, 23:46
by XanderCrews
mas wrote:RT is actually not a bad source for non political news, don't think Su-57 intro date is political but I suppose it could be in a tangential way if they are trying to compete with F-35. Btw they are quoting the Joint Aviation Corporation (OAK) not themselves.


It's completely political because God emperor Putin has staked his Rep on it. Don't be naive.

Re: SU-57: On hold for a decade

Unread postPosted: 09 Jan 2018, 00:01
by arian
"In service" can mean anything. Their definition of in service is different from ours. They can surely have 5 planes in some operational test unit "very soon" and call that operational.

As for RT's credibility in non-political stuff, I guess it's no worst than most of Western press. Total garbage. They literally have an article right next to the one mas posted saying the PAK-FA will be able to shoot down missiles with lasers. So there's your credibility. So basically like reading WaPo.

Re: SU-57: On hold for a decade

Unread postPosted: 09 Jan 2018, 00:02
by XanderCrews
mas wrote:
Lol, not defending anything, just having an open mind and calling it like I find it. As a general rule though and in between all the propaganda the Western press will tell the Russians stuff their government doesn't want them to know and the Russian press will tell the West stuff their government doesn't want them to know. Bear that in mind and you can read sources from all round the world to get a more complete picture of what's happening.


Don't have a mind so open your brains fall out. You're saying we need to give propoganda a chance because open mindedness requires we give equal weight to bullshit under the guise that it runs counter to convention. What if the convention is the truth?

"Hey wait a minute guys, this is a conman and a liar with his own agenda, but let's listen as if he was a virtuous truth teller about our government"

Once someone has been proven to be a liar, and a ruthless and cunning one at that, your foolish to give his words validity

Re: SU-57: On hold for a decade

Unread postPosted: 09 Jan 2018, 00:03
by XanderCrews
arian wrote:"In service" can mean anything. Their definition of in service is different from ours. They can surely have 5 planes in some operational test unit "very soon" and call that operational.

As for RT's credibility in non-political stuff, I guess it's no worst than most of Western press. Total garbage. They literally have an article right next to the one mas posted saying the PAK-FA will be able to shoot down missiles with lasers. So there's your credibility. So basically like reading WaPo.



I'd say the key difference between Russian state run media vs the west, is the West is basically incompetant, and biased. But it's not a state run propoganda arm

Re: SU-57: On hold for a decade

Unread postPosted: 09 Jan 2018, 00:31
by arian
XanderCrews wrote:I'd say the key difference between Russian state run media vs the west, is the West is basically incompetant, and biased. But it's not a state run propoganda arm


You don't have to be a state run, when you run yourself as the propaganda arm of a political party. In that sense, it's a lot worst than RT.

Intentional lies look a lot like incompetence if one assumes they are interested in reporting "the truth". But as Future President Oprah told us, they're only interested in telling you "their truth".

Re: SU-57: On hold for a decade

Unread postPosted: 09 Jan 2018, 11:41
by zero-one
XanderCrews wrote:


At only $50 million too. Amazing stuff. I'm so impressed. Especially about that article right next to it about laser shooting out of it. There is absolutely nothing Russia can't do better and cheaper. Nothing.

Except refrigerators.

As a capitalist I'm terrified. These guys haven't even been in the capitalism game 30 years and now hear they are. Beating us. We simply can't compete. Winning at our game!

We will all be flying on Russian built airliners that are as good but made for pennies on the dollar.

Goodnight sweet, Boeing


Great, except all their military aviation projects were supposed to be better, faster, deadlier and at the same time cheaper, easier to produce and maintain than their western counterparts.

Except its not, when the west finally get their hands on these planes, they are always underwhelmed. Yes there are aspects that are impressive, but mostly, there are a lot of negatives.

The Mig-15, Mig-21, Mig-25, Mig-29 and Su-27 all have the same story.

Re: SU-57: On hold for a decade

Unread postPosted: 09 Jan 2018, 21:30
by XanderCrews
zero-one wrote:
XanderCrews wrote:


At only $50 million too. Amazing stuff. I'm so impressed. Especially about that article right next to it about laser shooting out of it. There is absolutely nothing Russia can't do better and cheaper. Nothing.

Except refrigerators.

As a capitalist I'm terrified. These guys haven't even been in the capitalism game 30 years and now hear they are. Beating us. We simply can't compete. Winning at our game!

We will all be flying on Russian built airliners that are as good but made for pennies on the dollar.

Goodnight sweet, Boeing


Great, except all their military aviation projects were supposed to be better, faster, deadlier and at the same time cheaper, easier to produce and maintain than their western counterparts.

Except its not, when the west finally get their hands on these planes, they are always underwhelmed. Yes there are aspects that are impressive, but mostly, there are a lot of negatives.

The Mig-15, Mig-21, Mig-25, Mig-29 and Su-27 all have the same story.



Well thats the rub isn't it? The funniest things about the Russian just doing it better, faster, cheaper, is that they aren't even flooding their own markets with better faster cheaper stuff. its same same.

And BTW 50 million for a PAKFA? If thats true, and you combine that with all the amazing Russia Stronk Capability I'm told it brings, there is no reason to purchase a single Flanker of any variant ever again. According to good old Wiki, 40-65 million is the cost for an Su-35S. Su-57 is next gen and now "sixth gen" in 10 years. Su-57 should be in Serial production RIGHT NOW.

So things aren't adding up at all, but we knew that. On what planet do you "save" 10 million dollars by buying a far inferior product?

So Russia, managed to get the super capitalist game changing airplane, and then those super capitalists made a very non capitalist decision?

It was pointed out a few years ago by people in the know that even a "Mistake jet" Early LRIP F-35 was going to be superior to what it was replacing. Mind numbing that the Russians havn't figured this out.

Re: SU-57: On hold for a decade

Unread postPosted: 09 Jan 2018, 22:04
by botsing
mas wrote:Lol, not defending anything, just having an open mind and calling it like I find it.

The thief and the serial killer are both in jail, so morally they are the same right? :doh:

Western "news" media like Fox are capitalist corporations that want to increase profit, targeting a big and relative naive/impulsive audience is key to selling more advertisements, so consider their content made to attract such audience.

Russian "news" media like RT are government run propaganda tools to target a non-Russian population, so consider their content propaganda.

Don't pretend western media is on the same level as Russian propaganda, since they are not.

Re: SU-57: On hold for a decade

Unread postPosted: 10 Jan 2018, 06:51
by tincansailor
arian wrote:
XanderCrews wrote:I'd say the key difference between Russian state run media vs the west, is the West is basically incompetant, and biased. But it's not a state run propoganda arm


You don't have to be a state run, when you run yourself as the propaganda arm of a political party. In that sense, it's a lot worst than RT.

Intentional lies look a lot like incompetence if one assumes they are interested in reporting "the truth". But as Future President Oprah told us, they're only interested in telling you "their truth".



Do you guys realize your talking about your political views?

Re: SU-57: On hold for a decade

Unread postPosted: 10 Jan 2018, 15:20
by XanderCrews
tincansailor wrote:
Do you guys realize your talking about your political views?


Do you realize we are talking about media bias with a throwaway sarcastic line about Oprah?

Apparently not. Please go away now before you do to this thread what You always do

Re: SU-57: On hold for a decade

Unread postPosted: 10 Jan 2018, 22:52
by charlielima223
botsing wrote:
mas wrote:Lol, not defending anything, just having an open mind and calling it like I find it.

The thief and the serial killer are both in jail, so morally they are the same right? :doh:

Western "news" media like Fox are capitalist corporations that want to increase profit, targeting a big and relative naive/impulsive audience is key to selling more advertisements, so consider their content made to attract such audience.

Russian "news" media like RT are government run propaganda tools to target a non-Russian population, so consider their content propaganda.

Don't pretend western media is on the same level as Russian propaganda, since they are not.


Having a government run media program means that freedom of press (no matter the view/opinion/story/content) WILL NOT EXIST. Media outlets like RT, Sputnik, and Pravada all have a very very obvious Pro-Russia slant where they perpetuate and over inflate themselves while demonizing the west (United States and NATO countries). US Media for the most part IS NOT government controlled. However their propaganda is more politically (left and right) driven then anything else rather then "Merica F-YEAH!".

back to the PAKFA...

The pace of the PAKFA have been glacier. Big whoop they tested a new engine that is finally comparable to the F-119 that was developed more than 20 years ago. They don't even have an AESA radar yet or matured avionics let alone done any substantial weapons tests. Yet I've seen Kremlin trolls claim the PAKFA will be a gen 5+ "stealth killer". I've said it in a comment section that the PAKFA is late to the party. Also, why is the Su-35 always being referred to a gen 4.5++ when it doesn't have an AESA radar or something comparable (that I know of) to link-16.

Re: SU-57: On hold for a decade

Unread postPosted: 11 Jan 2018, 15:42
by mixelflick
You bring up some valid points about the SU-35 and SU-57.

SU-35 is 4.75 gen without an AESA, probably supercruise as well as stealth. The SU-57 may be a super-cruiser, but marginal stealth and god knows what's in the nose/weapons bays. The way they're selling it it comes across as a modern day firefox, but that's to be expected. And lol at $50 million a copy! So they're pumping out 5th gen birds for less than the cost of 4+ gen jets?

Something is seriously wrong with the technology, marketing or both.

Re: SU-57: On hold for a decade

Unread postPosted: 11 Jan 2018, 15:52
by XanderCrews
charlielima223 wrote:
botsing wrote:
mas wrote:Lol, not defending anything, just having an open mind and calling it like I find it.

The thief and the serial killer are both in jail, so morally they are the same right? :doh:

Western "news" media like Fox are capitalist corporations that want to increase profit, targeting a big and relative naive/impulsive audience is key to selling more advertisements, so consider their content made to attract such audience.

Russian "news" media like RT are government run propaganda tools to target a non-Russian population, so consider their content propaganda.

Don't pretend western media is on the same level as Russian propaganda, since they are not.


Having a government run media program means that freedom of press (no matter the view/opinion/story/content) WILL NOT EXIST. Media outlets like RT, Sputnik, and Pravada all have a very very obvious Pro-Russia slant where they perpetuate and over inflate themselves while demonizing the west (United States and NATO countries). US Media for the most part IS NOT government controlled. However their propaganda is more politically (left and right) driven then anything else rather then "Merica F-YEAH!".


Something like 90 percent of reporters identify as liberal, or left leaning. What happened the last 8 years was the left was so in the presidents pocket, they basically became a defacto government propoganda arm. GW was slayed for gitmo by the press for years, Obama used drone strikes to kill kids, "terrorists" and even occasionally Americans and the press barely mentioned it. I guess noble peace prize winners just do things like that! Lol.


He spent 1 trillion on "infrastructure" . In 2013 (after he was reelected) the press said American infrastructure was falling apart. Where did the money go? Why wasn't this reported in 2012?

It's a joke and an obvious one. It's not a matter of if but how much when 90 percent of your work force identify as liberal in a business where objectivity is considered a corner stone

Obama deported more immigrants than any other president in US history. We get crickets.

It's the same old story if this made you mad when guy X does it, why aren't you mad when guy Y does it? If not doing it made you like guy X why does guy Y not doing it bother you?

The saddest thing about Obama and the press giving him a pass, was the security state became the new normal. Obama could have peeled back a lot of unconstitutional measures and everyone could have gone "wow things got a bit crazy there! Back to normal now" instead he made them worse, weaponized the IRS, and put programs like PRISM in place. It's the new normal now. It's bipartisan bad. It's ok when our guy does it.

Press better use their voice before they lose it, and it will be a beloved lefty they never question that will do it

Re: SU-57: On hold for a decade

Unread postPosted: 11 Jan 2018, 16:25
by XanderCrews
mixelflick wrote:You bring up some valid points about the SU-35 and SU-57.

SU-35 is 4.75 gen without an AESA, probably supercruise as well as stealth. The SU-57 may be a super-cruiser, but marginal stealth and god knows what's in the nose/weapons bays. The way they're selling it it comes across as a modern day firefox, but that's to be expected. And lol at $50 million a copy! So they're pumping out 5th gen birds for less than the cost of 4+ gen jets?

Something is seriously wrong with the technology, marketing or both.



Thats what I'm screaming. It should all be Pakfas now

They are better and they cost less and they aren't buying them?

How did the West trick them into this

Re: SU-57: On hold for a decade

Unread postPosted: 12 Jan 2018, 16:25
by mixelflick
I wish to make a prediction re SU-57...

The Russians won't be the first to buy and fly it: The UAE will. They're trying like hell to get the F-35, but you just know that isn't going to happen. The Saudi's are too, but they're unlikely to buy Russian equipment. Even before India (who I believe is goiing to pull the plug soon - for good). And when the UAE sees what they get for the $, it wouldn't surprise me if they return them!

They seem to be on the super sampler pack acquisition plan: F-16E/F's, F-18E/F SH's, Mirage 2000-9's, Advanced F-15's, Typhoon's. Everything except a bona fide 5th gen that can strike sensitive targets and/or hold them at risk. Would love to be a pilot there. But not a logistics guy!

Re: SU-57: On hold for a decade

Unread postPosted: 13 Jan 2018, 19:33
by milosh
Wiki data about Su-35 price is export price, domestic price is lot lower:
http://www.deagel.com/Combat-Aircraft/S ... 20005.aspx

Re: SU-57: On hold for a decade

Unread postPosted: 14 Jan 2018, 01:18
by XanderCrews
milosh wrote:Wiki data about Su-35 price is export price, domestic price is lot lower:
http://www.deagel.com/Combat-Aircraft/S ... 20005.aspx



22 million?


Image

Re: SU-57: On hold for a decade

Unread postPosted: 14 Jan 2018, 19:15
by botsing
XanderCrews wrote:22 million?

Can it be the real price when you only count the empty airframe? So without engines and avionics?

Re: SU-57: On hold for a decade

Unread postPosted: 14 Jan 2018, 19:33
by XanderCrews
botsing wrote:
XanderCrews wrote:22 million?

Can it be the real price when you only count the empty airframe? So without engines and avionics?


Without engines a Super hornet costs the USN about 10 million less. It's still about 60 million bucks.

The source I used said the Flankers were between 40-65 million so the export customers are paying double or triple apparently? Lol

Again why Russia isn't flooding the avaition market with 737 competitors that are a 1/3 the cost to buy and operate I have no idea.

Russia is that kid that brags on the playground and when you ask him to demonstrate he doesn't feel like it or is injured.

Russia is a parrelel universe with old and crumbling infrastructure contrasted and poor people with industrial efficiency unmatched by the West in cost and capability. But they only use it to produce a few dozen warplanes a year instead of fixing a country that is decades behind.
Complicated I guess

Re: SU-57: On hold for a decade

Unread postPosted: 14 Jan 2018, 23:12
by alloycowboy
XanderCrews wrote:
botsing wrote:
XanderCrews wrote:22 million?

Can it be the real price when you only count the empty airframe? So without engines and avionics?


Without engines a Super hornet costs the USN about 10 million less. It's still about 60 million bucks.

The source I used said the Flankers were between 40-65 million so the export customers are paying double or triple apparently? Lol

Again why Russia isn't flooding the avaition market with 737 competitors that are a 1/3 the cost to buy and operate I have no idea.

Russia is that kid that brags on the playground and when you ask him to demonstrate he doesn't feel like it or is injured.

Russia is a parrelel universe with old and crumbling infrastructure contrasted and poor people with industrial efficiency unmatched by the West in cost and capability. But they only use it to produce a few dozen warplanes a year instead of fixing a country that is decades behind.
Complicated I guess



Why isn't Russia flooding the market with a 737 competitor at 1/3 price? Because Boeing will have the US Government slap a 300% tarrif on it, just ask Delta and Bombardier.

With that being said the Comac C919 is about to come on fast and furious so Airbus and Boeing better start thinking about replacement aircraft for the 737 and A320 series.

Re: SU-57: On hold for a decade

Unread postPosted: 14 Jan 2018, 23:20
by milosh
It look like we have some confusion. So let me try to explain, Su-35 domestic price is what is known as flyaway price but probable without any profit for Sukhoi.

That is why Su-35 can cost 2.5time less for Russian AF then for Chinese AF. Also Chinese bought lot of engine spare parts and engines which of course will rise price of whole deal a lot.

Mentioned price of Su-57 is probable same thing, flyaway price of bird without any profit. So Su-57 is surely lot more expensive then Su-35, which is what official comfirm many times in past.

Re: SU-57: On hold for a decade

Unread postPosted: 14 Jan 2018, 23:30
by XanderCrews
milosh wrote:It look like we have some confusion. So let me try to explain, Su-35 domestic price is what is known as flyaway price but probable without any profit for Sukhoi.
.


So sukhoi builds aircraft for the RuAf for zero profit?

Even then I don't believe the number even for a second. There is no other contemporary fighter where the companies building are pulling 50 percent profit or more.

It's closer to about 5 percent profit In my experience.

None of this is even close to believability

Re: SU-57: On hold for a decade

Unread postPosted: 14 Jan 2018, 23:34
by XanderCrews
alloycowboy wrote:
Why isn't Russia flooding the market with a 737 competitor at 1/3 price? Because Boeing will have the US Government slap a 300% tarrif on it, just ask Delta and Bombardier.

.


And yet even Canada attempted it? Not the rule following russians?

Re: SU-57: On hold for a decade

Unread postPosted: 14 Jan 2018, 23:41
by milosh
XanderCrews wrote:
milosh wrote:It look like we have some confusion. So let me try to explain, Su-35 domestic price is what is known as flyaway price but probable without any profit for Sukhoi.
.


So sukhoi builds aircraft for the RuAf for zero profit?

Even then I don't believe the number even for a second. There is no other contemporary fighter where the companies building are pulling 50 percent profit or more.

It's closer to about 5 percent profit In my experience.

None of this is even close to believability


Don't forget it was price in rubles converted in dollars, so before ruble droped it would be lot more in dollars.

Re: SU-57: On hold for a decade

Unread postPosted: 15 Jan 2018, 18:37
by botsing
milosh wrote:Don't forget it was price in rubles converted in dollars, so before ruble droped it would be lot more in dollars.

It's too bad that the link you provided does not state a source and/or history of that price.

With the RUB loosing a lot of it's value over the last ten years that "Unitary Cost" in USD can be anything between ~22 and ~52 million USD, depending on when it was stated.

Re: SU-57: On hold for a decade

Unread postPosted: 15 Jan 2018, 21:59
by milosh
botsing wrote:
milosh wrote:Don't forget it was price in rubles converted in dollars, so before ruble droped it would be lot more in dollars.

It's too bad that the link you provided does not state a source and/or history of that price.

With the RUB loosing a lot of it's value over the last ten years that "Unitary Cost" in USD can be anything between ~22 and ~52 million USD, depending on when it was stated.


In December 2015, Russia's defense ministry signed a five-year contract with Sukhoi company worth more than 60 billion rubles for the supply of 50 multi-role fighters Su-35S for the Russian air force.


More then 60 billion rubles, so between 60 and 70 billion rubles.

Re: SU-57: On hold for a decade

Unread postPosted: 16 Jan 2018, 15:56
by mixelflick
milosh wrote:Wiki data about Su-35 price is export price, domestic price is lot lower:
http://www.deagel.com/Combat-Aircraft/S ... 20005.aspx


22 million for a Super Flanker? This has to be the buy of the decade. So (roughly) the Russians - or anyone with the $ - could be 4 Flankers for every F-35!?

Someone needs to alert Karlo Kopp/APA. Can you imagine the article that follows? F-35 can't turn, can't run, can't climb and only carries 4 AAM's. Even if it isn't slaughtered early and launches all 4 AMRAAM's, they'll need a 100% success rate to succeed. I mean c'mon, 22 million. And 50 million for the PAK-FA?

When the Russian air force sees the real cost of the SU-57 vs. what it gives them above and beyond the SU-35, I'm guessing the production run ends at 12. That way they'll be able to say they have a stealth fighter and afford it..

Re: SU-57: On hold for a decade

Unread postPosted: 16 Jan 2018, 17:06
by XanderCrews
botsing wrote:
milosh wrote:Don't forget it was price in rubles converted in dollars, so before ruble droped it would be lot more in dollars.

It's too bad that the link you provided does not state a source and/or history of that price.

With the RUB loosing a lot of it's value over the last ten years that "Unitary Cost" in USD can be anything between ~22 and ~52 million USD, depending on when it was stated.



It's all made up anyway. If RT was the source would we believe it anymore? What about the Russian gov or sukhou themselves?

None of it is believable

Re: SU-57: On hold for a decade

Unread postPosted: 16 Jan 2018, 18:54
by milosh
@mixelflick

Real Su-35 price (with logistic) is surely higher then 22millions. Chinese are paying ~60million per Su-35 but we don't know did they also buy lot of 117 engines because it look like 117 engine is what really interest China, if WS-15 fail they need to have some backup option.

Su-57 price is surely higher then Su-35, you can check indian sources for example.

Re: SU-57: On hold for a decade

Unread postPosted: 17 Jan 2018, 16:42
by mixelflick
Even 60 million seems cheap for a delivered SU-35. All that supposed capability/superiority vs. any 4th or 4th+ gen, and it's significantly cheaper vs. Typhoon or Rafale? Or even FA/18 SH?

Something doesn't add up. Either it's 1.) not as capable as they say or 2.) the Russians discovered some breakthrough in engineering/construction. The basic airframe is solid enough. The engines appear to be acceptable/better than past iterations. I'm betting where it really falls down is in BVR capability. It seems they've seeded this capability to the West, seeing as "supermaneuverability" is prioritized so much.

They either haven't looked at the data showing BVR kills are now the norm or don't believe it. I can't tell which. Regardless, they're betting awful big on getting to the merge and more importantly, winning there. The 9x is going to be a nasty surprise methinks.

That combination of fewer making it to the merge and even fewer making it out will be their un-doing. They no longer have a 3 or 4 to 1 advantage in airframes, so they can't afford too many losses. Part of me thinks they should have just continued stamping out thousands of Mig-21 like aircraft and doing the best they can with those. As the old saying goes, quantity has a quality all its own..

Re: SU-57: On hold for a decade

Unread postPosted: 18 Jan 2018, 01:20
by nutshell
You forgot the option n° 3: MAGIC.


P.s. supermaneuvrabili-bleed is more correct :mrgreen:

Flankers bleeding more than me with both of my wrists cut wide open by a rusty machete.

Re: SU-57: On hold for a decade

Unread postPosted: 18 Jan 2018, 05:27
by XanderCrews
mixelflick wrote:Even 60 million seems cheap for a delivered SU-35. All that supposed capability/superiority vs. any 4th or 4th+ gen, and it's significantly cheaper vs. Typhoon or Rafale? Or even FA/18 SH?

Something doesn't add up. Either it's 1.) not as capable as they say or 2.) the Russians discovered some breakthrough in engineering/construction. The basic airframe is solid enough. The engines appear to be acceptable/better than past iterations. I'm betting where it really falls down is in BVR capability. It seems they've seeded this capability to the West, seeing as "supermaneuverability" is prioritized so much.

They either haven't looked at the data showing BVR kills are now the norm or don't believe it. I can't tell which. Regardless, they're betting awful big on getting to the merge and more importantly, winning there. The 9x is going to be a nasty surprise methinks.

That combination of fewer making it to the merge and even fewer making it out will be their un-doing. They no longer have a 3 or 4 to 1 advantage in airframes, so they can't afford too many losses. Part of me thinks they should have just continued stamping out thousands of Mig-21 like aircraft and doing the best they can with those. As the old saying goes, quantity has a quality all its own..



I have a few books that really go deep into Russian strategy. I need to find some time time to read them. I don't know If the notion of the quality vs quantities really applies to the Air.

Russia is in an unprecedented state. We've never seen a super collapse like this in the sense that it was the largest military on the planet complete with nuclear weapons.

At the tail end of the USSR they were beginning to suggest an actual volunteer military. It was wild stuff at the time

Re: SU-57: On hold for a decade

Unread postPosted: 18 Jan 2018, 12:59
by hornetfinn
One thing to remember is that Russian/Soviet equipment has had quite different pricing system compared to Western ones. Generally they have been cheaper to acquire but have had higher support costs. Lifetime costs can be equal or even higher in Russian equipment especially considering that they often have had shorter service life. There has been big improvements made in these areas, but I bet there is still real difference to Western aircraft.

Re: SU-57: On hold for a decade

Unread postPosted: 19 Jan 2018, 02:09
by icemaverick
India spent ~$8.8 billion for 36 Rafales. They already operate the Su-30MKI, which has many components in common with the Su-35, and they are of course investing in an Su-57 derivative. They surely had good reason to spend that kind of money on Rafales when Flanker variants can be had for much cheaper....especially considering that an Indian company assembles the Su-30MKI domestically and even subcontracted to build some components for the Su-30MKM (Malaysia).

Re: SU-57: On hold for a decade

Unread postPosted: 19 Jan 2018, 16:44
by mixelflick
icemaverick wrote:India spent ~$8.8 billion for 36 Rafales. They already operate the Su-30MKI, which has many components in common with the Su-35, and they are of course investing in an Su-57 derivative. They surely had good reason to spend that kind of money on Rafales when Flanker variants can be had for much cheaper....especially considering that an Indian company assembles the Su-30MKI domestically and even subcontracted to build some components for the Su-30MKM (Malaysia).


This is a really good point. Why spend all that cash on Rafale's when an SU-35 can be had cheaper? Or SU-34? Or more MKI's? I think one answer is engines, as they've had it with the unreliability and TBO issues. Another may be the SU-30/35 supposed air to ground capabilities. Dumping a few dumb bombs onto the enemy isn't cuting it to claim an air to ground capability. Still another is EW suite, and as I understand it the Rafale is at the top of they heap here.

But it was a truncated buy, and not nearly enough. I recently saw a story they were updating their Jaguar's. Probably a good move given their selection of more swing role combat aircraft is notoriously slow. The big worry (if it was me) is the total lack of a low RCS aircraft anywhere on the horizon. If they're waiting for the FGFA/SU-57, going to be a LONG time, with no guarantee it'll be VLO (or even LO). I really think they should make a pitch for the F-35, as I see it as their only option. China will have 2 stealth platforms eventually, and they need something similar so as to not fall way, way behind..

Re: SU-57: On hold for a decade

Unread postPosted: 19 Jan 2018, 17:47
by icemaverick
The Indian procurement is always a big cluster it seems. I’d add that while the Rafale is not VLO, it certainly has a lower RCS than anything the Chinese or Pakistanis currently operate. In addition to superior A2G ordinance it probably has better air to air missiles than what the Russian jets offer. MICA and Meteor are probably better than the R-77 variants.

Nevertheless, it looks the Indians found the Rafale to be too expensive and they don’t seem keen on another buy at the moment. Right now they are looking into procuring a single engine fighter with the leading candidates being an advanced F-16 variant or the Gripen E.

I wouldn’t be so sure that the Chinese’s 5th gen platforms will actually be better than the Su-57 though. They’ve done a good job of copying the shape of the F-22 and F-35 in certain aspects but there is a lot more to it than that. It’s interesting that the Chinese are still buying Su-35s and are using Russian engines for most of their aircraft. As the Russians are building an original design, they probably have more confidence in their understanding of the tech.

Re: SU-57: On hold for a decade

Unread postPosted: 19 Jan 2018, 18:22
by milosh
@mixelflick

Rafale is selected for MMCA (medium multirole) so Su-30MKI couldn't be even consider for MMCA and with huge fleet of Su-30MKI there isn't real need for more especially when they need money to upgrade them (Super 30 program).

Old Rafale deal would have big transfer of technology and price would be lot lower then what they got but MMCA program collapsed.

They stay in Rafale deal because of transfer of technology and need for modern CATOBAR multirole fighter for future Vishal carrier.

Re: SU-57: On hold for a decade

Unread postPosted: 19 Jan 2018, 19:56
by icemaverick
milosh wrote:@mixelflick

Rafale is selected for MMCA (medium multirole) so Su-30MKI couldn't be even consider for MMCA and with huge fleet of Su-30MKI there isn't real need for more especially when they need money to upgrade them (Super 30 program).


That doesn’t make sense. First off, why did they exclude the Su-30MKI? It is after all a multi role aircraft, no? Even though it is “large” and not “medium” in size it would surely be cheaper to buy more Sukhois than to buy Typhoons or Rafales. If they needed more money to upgrade their Flankers why would they spend $8.8 billion on buying Rafales? This is an especially telling decision when you consider the IAF is well short of it’s required number of combat aircraft.

They stay in Rafale deal because of transfer of technology and need for modern CATOBAR multirole fighter for future Vishal carrier.


There is no transfer of technology in the new Rafale deal; it was a completely new deal from the MMCA competition. The Indian Rafales are all of the land based variety and there are no plans at the moment to buy a carrier based version.

Re: SU-57: On hold for a decade

Unread postPosted: 19 Jan 2018, 22:02
by milosh
icemaverick wrote:That doesn’t make sense. First off, why did they exclude the Su-30MKI? It is after all a multi role aircraft, no?


Because MTOW requirment if I rember correct.

icemaverick wrote:There is no transfer of technology in the new Rafale deal; it was a completely new deal from the MMCA competition. The Indian Rafales are all of the land based variety and there are no plans at the moment to buy a carrier based version.


France offered help with Kaveri engine as part of 36 Rafale deal.

There isn't reason now to buy Rafale M but for future Vishal carrier Rafale M would be excellent option.

Re: SU-57: On hold for a decade

Unread postPosted: 20 Jan 2018, 17:10
by mixelflick
I wholeheartedly agree, Rafale for their carrier makes a LOT more sense than the Mig-29K.

It's going to be a world apart (ahead) insofar as avionics and weapons, to say nothing of the lowered RCS. The Mig-29K isn't exactly selling itself, as one crashed waiting to land on the Kustenov during her Syria deployment. The fact they only flew 4 from her deck is another sign, IMO. Apparently, Russia is foregoing the SU-33 for the Mig-29K now too. While I can understand it has a much smaller deck footprint, it's also shorter ranged. And given no catapault gear, its weapons load is going to be limited as well.

I get the sense it was selected because it was more of a "strike fighter" than then SU-33, that being its one advantage over its larger breatheren. Still, with no real tanking capability (or is it a buddy tanker?), it made little sense to me. India will have all the same issues. The Rafale is infinitely more capable...

Re: SU-57: On hold for a decade

Unread postPosted: 22 Jan 2018, 03:07
by Corsair1963
milosh wrote:
There isn't reason now to buy Rafale M but for future Vishal carrier Rafale M would be excellent option.



No, the Rafale wouldn't be a good option let alone an excellent one. As 4/4.5 Generation Fighters are on the verge of becoming obsolete!

Re: SU-57: On hold for a decade

Unread postPosted: 22 Jan 2018, 17:30
by milosh
mixelflick wrote:I get the sense it was selected because it was more of a "strike fighter" than then SU-33, that being its one advantage over its larger breatheren. Still, with no real tanking capability (or is it a buddy tanker?), it made little sense to me. India will have all the same issues. The Rafale is infinitely more capable...


MiG-29K range is probable better then Su-33, Su-33 info on net isn't correct it is lot heavier and carry less fuel then Su-27 so fuel fraction isn't good as with Su-27. On other hand MiG-29K isn't lot heavier then MiG-29 but fuel capacity is increased a lot (30-40% more internal fuel), plus MiG-29K is buddy tanker capable.

Re: SU-57: On hold for a decade

Unread postPosted: 24 Jan 2018, 02:19
by Corsair1963
milosh wrote:
mixelflick wrote:I get the sense it was selected because it was more of a "strike fighter" than then SU-33, that being its one advantage over its larger breatheren. Still, with no real tanking capability (or is it a buddy tanker?), it made little sense to me. India will have all the same issues. The Rafale is infinitely more capable...


MiG-29K range is probable better then Su-33, Su-33 info on net isn't correct it is lot heavier and carry less fuel then Su-27 so fuel fraction isn't good as with Su-27. On other hand MiG-29K isn't lot heavier then MiG-29 but fuel capacity is increased a lot (30-40% more internal fuel), plus MiG-29K is buddy tanker capable.




Without even looking I doubt the Mig-29K has better range than any model of the Flanker. Even the Naval Su-33..... :doh:

Re: SU-57: On hold for a decade

Unread postPosted: 24 Jan 2018, 15:10
by mixelflick
milosh wrote:
mixelflick wrote:I get the sense it was selected because it was more of a "strike fighter" than then SU-33, that being its one advantage over its larger breatheren. Still, with no real tanking capability (or is it a buddy tanker?), it made little sense to me. India will have all the same issues. The Rafale is infinitely more capable...


MiG-29K range is probable better then Su-33, Su-33 info on net isn't correct it is lot heavier and carry less fuel then Su-27 so fuel fraction isn't good as with Su-27. On other hand MiG-29K isn't lot heavier then MiG-29 but fuel capacity is increased a lot (30-40% more internal fuel), plus MiG-29K is buddy tanker capable.


First time I've heard this, although I guess it could be true. Even if it isn't, I get the feeling the SU-33 is hopelessly out-dated and probably a bear to work on. What was it, almost 20 years since she was built vs. operationally deployed to sea? I see the SU-33 with such limited air to ground capability vs. the Mig-29K, which if I'm not mistaken makes use of much more precision weaponary..