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

charlielima223

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 977
  • Joined: 12 Jan 2014, 19:26

Unread post10 Apr 2019, 00:37

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.


Too true. :thumb:

This is echoed by historical accounts of the famous Manfred Van Richtofen. Not known for acrobatic prowess but more of his technique and tactics. Historically most if not all of his recorded victories were often the result of him coming in undetected and getting the jump on his enemy.
Online

madrat

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2212
  • Joined: 03 Mar 2010, 03:12

Unread post10 Apr 2019, 11:39

MiG-31BM is hands down the most credible threat to F-22A. This is not because it could beat it one on one, but because it can conceivably be used to post and block off areas in sweeps, with the F-22A being unable to target them. The MiG-31 can be staged in areas out of reach of assets in a limited war scenario. It's pointless to debate how either would be used in a hot war, because we already know the Russia scheme would be to sustain nuclear attacks over a several year period to thwart any build up of forces while they themselves focus on a ground war. Limited war scenarios are the real near term potential.
Offline

zero-one

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

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

Unread post10 Apr 2019, 12:40

Eagle pilots developed tactics to counter the similar performing Mig-25s
https://militarywatchmagazine.com/artic ... -3-targets
“We had trained for the high-fast-flyer threat and knew that to handle that guy we’d have to dump all of our fuel tanks. We would fly a profile that involved getting to 40,000 ft, then unload the jet (pushing forward on the stick to induce 0g) in full afterburner to get it accelerate. Once up to Mach 1.7 or so, we’d gingerly pull the nose back up to 20-30 degrees, centre up the dot on the AIM-7 (align the nose with the computer-generated steering dot) and salvo all four missiles.”


The Mig-31 is faster but so is the F-22 in a combat configuration, and its stealth with bigger and better sensors.
Offline

mixelflick

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

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

Unread post10 Apr 2019, 13:28

We'll see what they do...

If they do "upgrade" the Mig-31 it won't be the first time. But airframes don't last forever, and sooner or later you just can't upgrade a dated design. Don't get me wrong - I'm a HUGE fan of the Mig-31. But it's in the sunset of its career. Russia may be capable of building better, but the rubles are an issue. I've said before if the Iraqi's had the Foxhound vs. Foxbat in DS, things may have been a lot different. I don't think coalition birds (including the F-15) would have gotten away unscathed.

With respect to SU-57 replacing Mig-31, I've pondered that before - but just can't see it. They've invested so heavily in super-maneuverability, thrust vectoring and presumably stealth... all of those (with the possible exception of stealth) do nothing to add to its mission of defending the motherland. In fact, they'd be paying a lot more $ for capabilities it wouldn't even use. The greater SA, supercruise and weapons sure. But no SU-57 intercepting a B-1, B-2, Chinese stealth bomber etc is going to need to perform backflips and cobra's to fulfill its mission.

Seems like a real longshot IMO..
Online

madrat

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2212
  • Joined: 03 Mar 2010, 03:12

Unread post10 Apr 2019, 13:31

And MiG-31 was designed to fly at twice the height while being able to scan low flying objects and the link groups of MiG-31's together in a coordinated effort. In order to attack the F-22's expose themselves. You aren't necessarily in need of a hard kill to affect the outcome of the mission, you just need to flush opposing fighters out of your zone.
Offline

zero-one

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

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

Unread post10 Apr 2019, 14:29

madrat wrote:And MiG-31 was designed to fly at twice the height while being able to scan low flying objects and the link groups of MiG-31's together in a coordinated effort. In order to attack the F-22's expose themselves. You aren't necessarily in need of a hard kill to affect the outcome of the mission, you just need to flush opposing fighters out of your zone.


The Raptor is also a high flyer in its own right and is usually said to cruise at 60,000 feet. I know the Mig-31 cruises at 80K. but the Raptor can approach underneath, undetected and do an upward face shot from closer range.

They'll be detectable for a few microseconds while their weapons bays are open, then they're gone from radar once it closes again.

the foxhound can't do a bat turn, even at sea level, let alone at 80,000 feet. even if the AMRAAM is crawling up at just Mach 1.4, in a head on shot with a target thats about as maneuverable as a locomotive, those are odds I can live with.
Offline

SpudmanWP

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 8293
  • Joined: 12 Oct 2006, 19:18
  • Location: California

Unread post10 Apr 2019, 16:21

I wonder how hard it would be to add the Meteor to the F-22 or if the bay is big enough for an AMRAAM-ER? The AMRAAM-ER would require a change to the missile to allow ejector launch however or the inclusion of a "tilting-tray" similar to the side AAM bays.
"The early bird gets the worm but the second mouse gets the cheese."
Online

madrat

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2212
  • Joined: 03 Mar 2010, 03:12

Unread post11 Apr 2019, 01:16

Well zero-one, that's fine and dandy sending missiles with minimal wing surfaces up to 80,000 feet. But it's not going to be as successful as you believe.

Never underestimate the strategy of an opponent until victory has been completed.
Offline

skyward

Enthusiast

Enthusiast

  • Posts: 61
  • Joined: 01 Jun 2006, 13:33

Unread post11 Apr 2019, 03:58

The limitation of the f-22 flying higher is that the pilot need a Pressure suit. Beside MIG-31 don't operate at 80,000 ft all the time. it normally operate at 60,000 ft or a lot lower if it have any loiter time. With a big fat RCS, F-22 can see a MIG-31 from very long range and can just wait for the MIG -31 to leave or attack it when the time is right. That is the power of having a stealth.
Offline

charlielima223

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 977
  • Joined: 12 Jan 2014, 19:26

Unread post11 Apr 2019, 04:28

all well and good but didn't we just go :offtopic:
After all isn't there a F-22 vs Mig-31 topic floating somewhere around in the ether of the F-22 board index?
viewtopic.php?f=33&t=25239
Online

madrat

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2212
  • Joined: 03 Mar 2010, 03:12

Unread post12 Apr 2019, 00:32

The reference was to how MiG-31 can be incorporated with Su-57 against stealth fighters.
Offline

zero-one

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

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

Unread post13 Apr 2019, 09:23

Okay so trying steer things back to topic.
I think the Russians are beginning to realize that long range interception is really ideal if you're targeting large waves of heavy bombers like B-52s.

But sending bombers to destroy strategic targets is no longer the preferred method used by most countries. Strike fighters have largely taken on that role. Some of these Strike Fighters like the F-15E and Su-34 can carry more ordnance than the heavy bombers of WW2.

Historically speaking, shooting down these fast and relatively agile (more agile than a heavy bomber at least) Strike fighters at long range did not yield efficient results. The most successful way is to shoot them from short range, but that also puts you in danger of their own air to air weapons. So a compromise is to shoot them from medium ranges.

This is why I believe the Su-57 / Su-35 / Su-30 will make up the backbone of Russia and her sphere of influence's air defense, they are similarly tailored for Medium to Short range engagements like their NATO counter parts.

The Su-57 was supposed to be Russia's F-22/35 Hybrid, Acceptable Stealth levels with the Kinematic performance of the Raptor combined with the sensors of the F-35. The E model looks like it will be for more export markets recapitalizing on the success of the Su-30 and Mig-29.

I even saw a defense page that read.
RCS of 0.1 square meters with super maneuverability is just as good as RCS of 0.0001 square meters with mediocre maneuverability.
LOL. :doh:
Offline

mixelflick

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

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

Unread post13 Apr 2019, 14:05

Kinematics of the F-22? Maybe, if they get the new engine working.

Sensors of the F-35? That's a LOT less likely IMO.And since the new engines/sensors will be making their way into Flankers eventually, what exactly does the SU-57 buy them, that the Flanker doesn't already have?

Marginal increase in stealth and super-cruise. Maybe.

It'll be interesting to see who the first sucker nation is to buy a few. They'll be incredibly expensive on a per airframe basis, probably have an absurd cost per flight hour and the first birds will still be loaded with bugs. Going to be a fancy conservation starter I suppose, but in the end too much $ for too little a capability increase IMO.
Previous

Return to Modern Military Aircraft

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: sferrin and 17 guests