SU-57E: E is for Export

Military aircraft - Post cold war aircraft, including for example B-2, Gripen, F-18E/F Super Hornet, Rafale, and Typhoon.
  • Author
  • Message
Offline

Corsair1963

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 5400
  • Joined: 19 Dec 2005, 04:14

Unread post04 Apr 2019, 00:51

marsavian wrote:
Corsair1963 wrote:
marsavian wrote:Chine might want to pick up a few Su-57 purely for IP theft reasons as that is their traditional shameless MO.


Doubtful in my opinion. As China already got what technology it wanted from the Su-35's. So, what would the Su-57 benefit them???

Surely, not stealth.... :lmao:


Maybe but more likely the new AESA/sensors and engines. More IP to steal.



The Russians are behind the Chinese in many Avionics and the Engines are years off.........
Offline

marsavian

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1152
  • Joined: 02 Feb 2018, 21:55

Unread post04 Apr 2019, 01:05

If you mean years off in engines as in years ahead you would be right ;). The Chinese have been crying about their substandard Russian copies for years !
Offline

mixelflick

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3192
  • Joined: 20 Mar 2010, 10:26
  • Location: Parts Unknown
  • Warnings: 1

Unread post04 Apr 2019, 16:22

[/quote]


Doubtful the Su-57 will ever be produced in even modest numbers.

Also, I would hope the Su-57 would enter production before the PCA. As the later doesn't even exist is physical form yet. Let alone be close to entering production....[/quote]

Let's define "modest"...

IMO, modest would = 100 or less. That would give them enough for 3, 25 plane squadrons (operational units). The remaining 25 would constitute training/testing aircraft. But I'm not clear on how the Russians structure such things. Such small/modest numbers can still be meaningful however. Recall how the US only built 59 or so F-117's, and what they accomplished insofar as kicking down the door in DSI and II.

What were you thinking?
Offline

milosh

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 714
  • Joined: 27 Feb 2008, 23:40
  • Location: Serbia, Belgrade

Unread post08 Apr 2019, 09:53

Corsair1963 wrote:
marsavian wrote:Chine might want to pick up a few Su-57 purely for IP theft reasons as that is their traditional shameless MO.



Doubtful in my opinion. As China already got what technology it wanted from the Su-35's. So, what would the Su-57 benefit them???


Surely, not stealth.... :lmao:


Stealth isn't something you need to copy. Everyone today can get lot better software then Lockheed had when designing F-22, same thing for computer power, in 1980s Cray 2 was what Lockheed could use, it is lot less powerful then better PC workstation from early 2000s.

Trick is materials. Soviets did play a lot with RAM, you have CIA report where they say much more soviet scientists and engineers were working on RAM tech then in USA. Chinese only start playing with that in 2000s. For example Chinese take F-117 parts Russians didn't. When our guys ask them why not they said they developed similar RAM in 1980s and they are working on modern RAM right now (it was in 1999 and 2000). So Chinese were happy to get hands on something which US developed three decades ago.
Offline

Corsair1963

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 5400
  • Joined: 19 Dec 2005, 04:14

Unread post08 Apr 2019, 10:34

milosh wrote:
Corsair1963 wrote:
marsavian wrote:Chine might want to pick up a few Su-57 purely for IP theft reasons as that is their traditional shameless MO.



Doubtful in my opinion. As China already got what technology it wanted from the Su-35's. So, what would the Su-57 benefit them???


Surely, not stealth.... :lmao:


Stealth isn't something you need to copy. Everyone today can get lot better software then Lockheed had when designing F-22, same thing for computer power, in 1980s Cray 2 was what Lockheed could use, it is lot less powerful then better PC workstation from early 2000s.

Trick is materials. Soviets did play a lot with RAM, you have CIA report where they say much more soviet scientists and engineers were working on RAM tech then in USA. Chinese only start playing with that in 2000s. For example Chinese take F-117 parts Russians didn't. When our guys ask them why not they said they developed similar RAM in 1980s and they are working on modern RAM right now (it was in 1999 and 2000). So Chinese were happy to get hands on something which US developed three decades ago.


Little to be gained from the Su-57. While, I've seen nothing to suggest China is remotely interested in acquiring anyways...
Offline

tphuang

Enthusiast

Enthusiast

  • Posts: 47
  • Joined: 13 Aug 2018, 02:42

Unread post08 Apr 2019, 14:26

milosh wrote:
Corsair1963 wrote:
marsavian wrote:Chine might want to pick up a few Su-57 purely for IP theft reasons as that is their traditional shameless MO.



Doubtful in my opinion. As China already got what technology it wanted from the Su-35's. So, what would the Su-57 benefit them???


Surely, not stealth.... :lmao:


Stealth isn't something you need to copy. Everyone today can get lot better software then Lockheed had when designing F-22, same thing for computer power, in 1980s Cray 2 was what Lockheed could use, it is lot less powerful then better PC workstation from early 2000s.

Trick is materials. Soviets did play a lot with RAM, you have CIA report where they say much more soviet scientists and engineers were working on RAM tech then in USA. Chinese only start playing with that in 2000s. For example Chinese take F-117 parts Russians didn't. When our guys ask them why not they said they developed similar RAM in 1980s and they are working on modern RAM right now (it was in 1999 and 2000). So Chinese were happy to get hands on something which US developed three decades ago.

a couple of things on that, 20 years ago, China was really behind in many areas and it probably was 3 to 4 decades behind US. Since then, thanks to the improvements in domestic industries, they have moves forward a lot.

Secondly, China is always looking to get any additional info/data from US stealth program it can. What can it get from the Russians on that front, I don't know

There has been a long list of weapons that Russia has offered to China for the past 15 years and never got picked up. Remember Tu-22M and Tu-95 or Su-30MKK3 or Su-33 or 956EM?

I think this is all about sending a message to the Indians that China could get access to something they've paid a lot of money for. IAF would be stupid to fall for it.
Offline

milosh

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 714
  • Joined: 27 Feb 2008, 23:40
  • Location: Serbia, Belgrade

Unread post08 Apr 2019, 22:31

@mixelflick

Flanker upgrades are connected to Su-57 becuase same sensors and engines. So you don't just develop Su-57 you develop upgrade option for Flanker fleet (domestic and foreign)

MiG-41 is what MiG want to sell. I really doubt it would happen what is lot more realistic is MiG-31 upgrade using Su-57 tech: radar/radars and plasma ignition for engine.

Replacing MiG-31 with Su-30SM?!?

Almost Mach 3 capable plane which can cruise +2Mach and fly very high while have four massive missiles and you want to replace with overweight fighter bomber?!?

Clean Su-30SM is slower then MiG-31 max cruise speed, when you add four R-37 it would be lot slower then clean.

I expect MiG-31 will get hypersonic missiles in future as MiG-31 commander said in documentary I posted here earlier. It is ideal platform to employ hypersonic missiles because dual mode ramjet missile would need mini solid booster or no booster at all if MiG-31 is launch platform.
Offline

Corsair1963

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 5400
  • Joined: 19 Dec 2005, 04:14

Unread post08 Apr 2019, 23:32

tphuang wrote:
a couple of things on that, 20 years ago, China was really behind in many areas and it probably was 3 to 4 decades behind US. Since then, thanks to the improvements in domestic industries, they have moves forward a lot.

Secondly, China is always looking to get any additional info/data from US stealth program it can. What can it get from the Russians on that front, I don't know

There has been a long list of weapons that Russia has offered to China for the past 15 years and never got picked up. Remember Tu-22M and Tu-95 or Su-30MKK3 or Su-33 or 956EM?




China is already passing Russia in a number of key areas. Honestly, it won't be long before Russia starts buying Chinese Military Hardware. (writing is on the wall)
Offline

zero-one

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2037
  • Joined: 23 Jul 2013, 16:19
  • Location: New Jersey

Unread post09 Apr 2019, 07:48

milosh wrote:
Replacing MiG-31 with Su-30SM?!?

Almost Mach 3 capable plane which can cruise +2Mach and fly very high while have four massive missiles and you want to replace with overweight fighter bomber?!?



Russia's air defense doctrine is convinced that ultra long range kills with very fast interceptors will be effective. This has largely fallen out of favor with NATO who now focuses on platforms and weapons optimized for Medium to short range engagements.

My own opinion is that, ultra long range shots against fighters is extremely difficult and even if you take into account Iran's experience where they claim to score 78 kills from their 230+ Aim-54s, its still a very poor result. We don't know how many of the Phoenixes were actually launched or how many were launched from long range. Their farthest kill claims were just around 60 NM anyway

Correct me if I'm wrong but historically, the most effective way to kill another fighter is to shoot it with an IR missile at short range. IIRC the Aim-9 series still has the best historical Pk figures among all air-air weapons.

Contrary to popular belief, I think Stealth isn't there to stop dogfights, its meant to dominate dogfights. It allows you to approach the bandit at close range, undetected, from an advantageous position and shoot within your missiles NEZ. Because historically speaking, sneaking up, unseen and shooting from very close range has been the most efficient way to kill fast and agile targets like fighters.

Just my 2 cents.
Offline

Corsair1963

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 5400
  • Joined: 19 Dec 2005, 04:14

Unread post09 Apr 2019, 09:09

zero-one wrote:
Contrary to popular belief, I think Stealth isn't there to stop dogfights, its meant to dominate dogfights. It allows you to approach the bandit at close range, undetected, from an advantageous position and shoot within your missiles NEZ. Because historically speaking, sneaking up, unseen and shooting from very close range has been the most efficient way to kill fast and agile targets like fighters.

Just my 2 cents.



YES, remember the OODA Loop....(Observe, Orient, Decide and Act)

Which, is why the F-35 is soooo deadly! :twisted:
Offline

mixelflick

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3192
  • Joined: 20 Mar 2010, 10:26
  • Location: Parts Unknown
  • Warnings: 1

Unread post09 Apr 2019, 15:51

milosh wrote:@mixelflick

Flanker upgrades are connected to Su-57 becuase same sensors and engines. So you don't just develop Su-57 you develop upgrade option for Flanker fleet (domestic and foreign)

MiG-41 is what MiG want to sell. I really doubt it would happen what is lot more realistic is MiG-31 upgrade using Su-57 tech: radar/radars and plasma ignition for engine.

Replacing MiG-31 with Su-30SM?!?

Almost Mach 3 capable plane which can cruise +2Mach and fly very high while have four massive missiles and you want to replace with overweight fighter bomber?!?

Clean Su-30SM is slower then MiG-31 max cruise speed, when you add four R-37 it would be lot slower then clean.

I expect MiG-31 will get hypersonic missiles in future as MiG-31 commander said in documentary I posted here earlier. It is ideal platform to employ hypersonic missiles because dual mode ramjet missile would need mini solid booster or no booster at all if MiG-31 is launch platform.


Well, you say yourself the Mig-41 as a project is doubtful.

Those Mig-31's can't continue to fly forever. You can jam whatever new radars/sensors in there you like; if the basic airframe life is 4000 hours and you're flying with 5,000 - bad things are going to happen. If they can develop hypersonic missiles, the speed of the parent aircraft becomes less and less of an issue. They're building more and more SU-30's, so... so why not make SU-30 the platform?

1.) Already in production? Check..
2.) Modern avionics, big nose for big radar, easy to upgrade? Check..
3.) Absurd range, as with all Flankers? Check...
4.) Existing aircraft, aircrew infrastructure? Check..
5.) Brand new airframe, with say 4,000 hours of airframe life left? (as opposed to 1,000 - maybe)? Check..

Upgrading existing Mig-31's is going to make little sense IMO. They're old, and getting older. The ONLY thing the SU-30 lacks is the Mig-31's speed, which again can (more) than make up for with new, hypersonic weapons.

Ergo, my argument for SU-30's to replace existing Mig-31's...
Offline

zero-one

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2037
  • Joined: 23 Jul 2013, 16:19
  • Location: New Jersey

Unread post09 Apr 2019, 16:22

mixelflick wrote:
Ergo, my argument for SU-30's to replace existing Mig-31's...


Well if we're gona replace the Mig-31 with a Flanker, why does it need to be the Su-30?
Isn't ground attack what sets the Su-30 appart from the Su-27?

I know Wikipedia says the 30 was developed to satisfy the range requirements of the PVO, but the 27 and 30 has the exact same fuel capacity. So I was always confused by that.

Anyway, if Flankers will replace the Foxhound, then it'll be better off with new build Su-27 SM3s
Offline

marsavian

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1152
  • Joined: 02 Feb 2018, 21:55

Unread post09 Apr 2019, 20:22

The Mig-41 could be nothing more than a new build updated Mig-31 using the usual Russian evolution MO remembering that the Mig-31 was an evolution of the original Mig-25. Alternatively the Su-57 could replace it if it's a genuinely fast super cruiser.
Offline

milosh

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 714
  • Joined: 27 Feb 2008, 23:40
  • Location: Serbia, Belgrade

Unread post09 Apr 2019, 22:56

@mixelflick
Those Mig-31's can't continue to fly forever. You can jam whatever new radars/sensors in there you like; if the basic airframe life is 4000 hours and you're flying with 5,000 - bad things are going to happen. If they can develop hypersonic missiles, the speed of the parent aircraft becomes less and less of an issue. They're building more and more SU-30's, so... so why not make SU-30 the platform?


Lot of MiG-31 are build in late 80s and early 90s and saw very little flight, in 90s they were more less grounded and only with oil price boom they start flying more. It isn't as USAF F-15 which clock lot more hours then what was planned when F-15 were build.

Around 200 MiG-31 are getting MLU, which would extend service life a lot.

1.) Already in production? Check..

So why would you make ~200 Flankers to replace 200 Foxhounds? Total waste of resources, much better option is to invest in next MiG-31 upgrade. It is similar story as Super Hornet vs Tomcat. Back then folks talk SH is more agile and more modern so it is better then Tomcat even though it couldn't replace Tomcat in its original role, fast fleet interceptor and I doubt it was better bomber then this:
https://i.pinimg.com/originals/64/f0/7c ... f5fa66.jpg

2.) Modern avionics, big nose for big radar, easy to upgrade? Check..


Big nose for big radar? Well:

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/ ... 02246.JPEG
That is ordinary MiG-31 radar antenna it is 1.1m in diameter. But that isn't end, you have realitive easy upgrade which increase antenna to 1.4m:
https://www.testpilot.ru/russia/mikoyan ... 31m-51.jpg

In 1980s this upgrade wasn't easy becuase it needed new electric installation becuase first gen PESA weren't eficient and used lot of power (Zaslon have 30kW of power on its disposal, Zaslon-M would need more) but today it would be very easy to achieved because last gen PESA are lot more efficient, and that is if we don't consider AESA upgrade.

3.) Absurd range, as with all Flankers? Check...

subsonic yes but only in clean configuration. Add big missiles and it would impacted range and if we are talking about supersonic range you can't compare Flanker and Foxhound at all.

4.) Existing aircraft, aircrew infrastructure? Check..

You have that already for MiG-31.

The ONLY thing the SU-30 lacks is the Mig-31's speed, which again can (more) than make up for with new, hypersonic weapons.

Hypersonic use booster to gain altitude and speed (2-3Mach) for ramjet operation and that is altitude and speed which MiG-31 can reach so you don't need booster or at least booster would be lot smaller then in case of Flanker. So you can have four hypersonic missiles maybe even six ( two on wings) compare to two which Flanker could carry.

If you want to use them efficently you will need very powerful radar which upgraded MiG-31 can have, 1.4m antenna with very powerful electric installation which allready exist.

Only thing which could be consider as MiG-31 replacement would be modified Su-57.
Offline

marsavian

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1152
  • Joined: 02 Feb 2018, 21:55

Unread post09 Apr 2019, 23:26

Totally agree, Foxhound is a very fast high flying aircraft half way between normal supersonic aircraft and Blackbird, not easily replaced as a delivery platform for either defence or attack. The other thing is corporate welfare, Russia will make sure Mikoyan is kept busy on both Fulcrum and Foxhound to keep them alive.
PreviousNext

Return to Modern Military Aircraft

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google Adsense [Bot] and 15 guests