What is going on with the SU-57?
- Elite 5K
- Posts: 5332
- Joined: 20 Mar 2010, 10:26
- Location: Parts Unknown
milosh wrote:Chinese didn't sold anything to anyone expect J-7 in last couple of decades. No one bought J-10 nor J-11. Maybe they will sell JF-17 to someone. I don't count Pakistan they were partner.
And I really find funny when citation say Russians don't know to make RAM
When Russians visited our aircraft museum folks there ask them why they don't take parts of F-117 as Chinese did. Answer was simple "it is old tech compare to what we are working" so even though Russians didn't field stealth in past don't think they don't have clue about RAM, Tu-160 is probable first their plane where they apply RAM (some sources say it is Tu-22M3), intakes are threaded with graphite RAM and there are some sources (interview with constructor) which mentioned airframe have RAM coatings.
And if you don't like what Russians say you can googled CIA report from 1980s where CIA say lot more scientists and engineers works on RAM development in USSR then in USA.
So there will be RAM on the SU=57 then?
Where might I ask? And is it going to cover the entire airframe, or just the forward facing parts? I'm legitimately asking these questions, because from what I've seen - it looks like a regular aluminum airframe. Some composites in some areas, but otherwise unremarkable looking. Certainly not with the finish of an F-22 or F-35 where each appears with a very different/peculiar finish vs. our legacy birds..
- Senior member
- Posts: 316
- Joined: 24 Jul 2018, 10:39
milosh wrote:knowan wrote:A catamaran carrier is an awful idea, because their stability is worse in rough seas. Only a nation with such terribly limited experience at carrier operations could come up with such an idea.
It is semi catamaran it have classic bow only stern is catamaran:
https://thaimilitaryandasianregion.blog ... rrier.html
Disadvantage is smaller hangar.
It will still be less stable in rough seas and bury the bow into waves more than a monohull design.
The only way to negate that disadvantage of a catamaran is by using a SWAFT hull type, but those have their own significant disadvantages, such as requiring far more power to achieve the same speeds as an equivalent monohull design.
Seakeeping is a critical design criteria for an aircraft carrier, as it is one of the largest determining factors in their ability to conduct combat operations, so any aircraft carrier design that sacrifices seakeeping is militarily unsound.
- Elite 2K
- Posts: 2317
- Joined: 27 Feb 2008, 23:40
- Location: Serbia, Belgrade
mixelflick wrote:Where might I ask? And is it going to cover the entire airframe, or just the forward facing parts? I'm legitimately asking these questions, because from what I've seen - it looks like a regular aluminum airframe. Some composites in some areas, but otherwise unremarkable looking. Certainly not with the finish of an F-22 or F-35 where each appears with a very different/peculiar finish vs. our legacy birds..
https://www.mycity-military.com/imgs4/1 ... AMqeMT.jpg
ПКМ is composite. Aircraft skin isn't aluminium it is composite. You can clearly see it on assembly photos.
- Elite 1K
- Posts: 1154
- Joined: 28 Sep 2009, 00:16
Ach, those Ruskies. They are still scratching behind their ears. . . .
Do these western airframes have no room inside?
Why otherwise would you put the Random Access Memory on the outside? ? ? ?
Or does RAM not mean RAM but RAM. 
This time I am completely lost.
They know the thing sucks, but still continue with it.
Tja, they have to or lose face completely.
Do these western airframes have no room inside?
Why otherwise would you put the Random Access Memory on the outside? ? ? ?
Or does RAM not mean RAM but RAM.
This time I am completely lost.
They know the thing sucks, but still continue with it.
Tja, they have to or lose face completely.
- Active Member
- Posts: 245
- Joined: 28 Mar 2010, 14:29
- Location: Australia
Nothing changes on F16. The so called Experts and the Amateurs
all stuck in the past or there present in the way they think.
The SU57 for instance.
Russia told us years ago the SU57 had become less of a Priroty.
They saw no immediate need for it. They considered the SU35 all they really needed at present. No need to pour money into the SU57 and try to rush it into production.
They had higher priorities. They did not tell us what those priorities were.
Gradually but surely there priorities and strategy has become clear.
They were concentrating on:
1) Ensuring there Nuke Deterrent remained viable once Gerorge Junior broke the ABM Treaty. They succeeded. The US ABM system is still very primitive in reality but now they have perfected there Hypersinic Glide Vehicle delivery system the USA has to go back to the drawing board. The first Missile with there Avanguard delivery vehicle already deployed. Problem solved. From now on they simply replace ICBMs with the new Delivery system as older ones are replaced. Putin is probably correct when he says MAD is now assured for at least 40 years. They have other projects in the Nuke Deterrent are also nearing completion. There Nuke powered big Torpedo.
2) Air Defences. They have now I understand about 50 Batallions of S400 deployed plus about 150 Battalions of upgraded S300 deployed. Who wants more? Could 100 x SU57 do a better job? There first S500 now being extensively trialled and no doubt refined.
3) There new Hypersonic Air Launched Missile in initial Production. There Kalibre now in Production. About 1,000 per year is there goal. Could a SU57 launch there Hypersonic better than there Mig31 or modified TU22M3 Bombers? No! With the range of there Hypersonic Missile Stealth is irrelevant.
Would the SU57 have helped them in Syria? No! Useless!
If the USA had decided to throw there Muscle around in Syria I assume they simply would have deployed more Battalions of S400/300 and used them in the way they are meant to be used. Constantly moving, hidden, dispersed, false emitters, dummy S400/300 blow ups etc. with there mobile Medium Range SAMs and close in protection systems.
Would 100 x SU57s or 100 x F35s be a better Deterrent against NATO interfering than say 5 Battalions of S400 and 5 Battalions of updated S300s deployed? No!
In my mind they have achieved there goals "there way" and done it very cost effectively.
There Military spending in real terms has been maintained but as a % of GDP it is reducing and as a percent of there Federal Budget is also decreasing.
They were being genuine when they said they saw no great need for the SU57.
Thats Russians by Culture. Very straight. That includes there Politicians. Very few like Pompous!
If in the unlikely event they do want to Project Power which always has to involve Ground Troops to be effective there SAMs again are far better than Aircraft to protect advancing Troops. Simply have S400/300 etc. following up the Troops providing 24x7 Air Cover.
Use Ground Attack Aircraft and Tanks, and Missiles as part of the Assault but do they need SU57s to do that? No! To a big degree they don't even need them to fly Cover for the Ground attack Aircraft. The SAMs provide most of the cover.
They have spent there money well. Add to the above there new Nuke powered Cruise Missile they hope to have proven up by 2021/22 and it is obvious they made the correct decision.
All there new Weapons now in production or going into production are far more important than having a few Squadrons of SU57 in service or lots of T14 tanks. Another project that has fallen behind its initial schedule. They are well ahead in many other areas though nobody dreamed they would be 5 years ago.
They legitimately can now claim in many areas for at least a decade "I have a bigger dick than you."
That is what counts.
all stuck in the past or there present in the way they think.
The SU57 for instance.
Russia told us years ago the SU57 had become less of a Priroty.
They saw no immediate need for it. They considered the SU35 all they really needed at present. No need to pour money into the SU57 and try to rush it into production.
They had higher priorities. They did not tell us what those priorities were.
Gradually but surely there priorities and strategy has become clear.
They were concentrating on:
1) Ensuring there Nuke Deterrent remained viable once Gerorge Junior broke the ABM Treaty. They succeeded. The US ABM system is still very primitive in reality but now they have perfected there Hypersinic Glide Vehicle delivery system the USA has to go back to the drawing board. The first Missile with there Avanguard delivery vehicle already deployed. Problem solved. From now on they simply replace ICBMs with the new Delivery system as older ones are replaced. Putin is probably correct when he says MAD is now assured for at least 40 years. They have other projects in the Nuke Deterrent are also nearing completion. There Nuke powered big Torpedo.
2) Air Defences. They have now I understand about 50 Batallions of S400 deployed plus about 150 Battalions of upgraded S300 deployed. Who wants more? Could 100 x SU57 do a better job? There first S500 now being extensively trialled and no doubt refined.
3) There new Hypersonic Air Launched Missile in initial Production. There Kalibre now in Production. About 1,000 per year is there goal. Could a SU57 launch there Hypersonic better than there Mig31 or modified TU22M3 Bombers? No! With the range of there Hypersonic Missile Stealth is irrelevant.
Would the SU57 have helped them in Syria? No! Useless!
If the USA had decided to throw there Muscle around in Syria I assume they simply would have deployed more Battalions of S400/300 and used them in the way they are meant to be used. Constantly moving, hidden, dispersed, false emitters, dummy S400/300 blow ups etc. with there mobile Medium Range SAMs and close in protection systems.
Would 100 x SU57s or 100 x F35s be a better Deterrent against NATO interfering than say 5 Battalions of S400 and 5 Battalions of updated S300s deployed? No!
In my mind they have achieved there goals "there way" and done it very cost effectively.
There Military spending in real terms has been maintained but as a % of GDP it is reducing and as a percent of there Federal Budget is also decreasing.
They were being genuine when they said they saw no great need for the SU57.
Thats Russians by Culture. Very straight. That includes there Politicians. Very few like Pompous!
If in the unlikely event they do want to Project Power which always has to involve Ground Troops to be effective there SAMs again are far better than Aircraft to protect advancing Troops. Simply have S400/300 etc. following up the Troops providing 24x7 Air Cover.
Use Ground Attack Aircraft and Tanks, and Missiles as part of the Assault but do they need SU57s to do that? No! To a big degree they don't even need them to fly Cover for the Ground attack Aircraft. The SAMs provide most of the cover.
They have spent there money well. Add to the above there new Nuke powered Cruise Missile they hope to have proven up by 2021/22 and it is obvious they made the correct decision.
All there new Weapons now in production or going into production are far more important than having a few Squadrons of SU57 in service or lots of T14 tanks. Another project that has fallen behind its initial schedule. They are well ahead in many other areas though nobody dreamed they would be 5 years ago.
They legitimately can now claim in many areas for at least a decade "I have a bigger dick than you."
That is what counts.
-
- Forum Veteran
- Posts: 925
- Joined: 05 Dec 2015, 18:09
- Location: The Netherlands
Yeah, Russia cannot fight a conventional war anymore with their outdated equipment.
Relapsing to nuclear weapons delivered by hypersonic wunderwaffens and mass propaganda is the only option left.
Relapsing to nuclear weapons delivered by hypersonic wunderwaffens and mass propaganda is the only option left.
"Those who know don’t talk. Those who talk don’t know"
- Senior member
- Posts: 316
- Joined: 24 Jul 2018, 10:39
botsing wrote:Yeah, Russia cannot fight a conventional war anymore with their outdated equipment.
Relapsing to nuclear weapons delivered by hypersonic wunderwaffens and mass propaganda is the only option left.
The entire reason Russia mentions its nuclear weapons all the time is because of how insecure they are in everything else.
- Elite 1K
- Posts: 1154
- Joined: 28 Sep 2009, 00:16
Long time ago, Russia was a great force with a powerful mouth.
The mouth is all what is left. Oh, don't forget the gallons of Wodka.
Gas and Wodka is all what's left.
What are they thinking?
As soon as they power up a defence system, we see it, and an F-35 or Tomahawk will take it out before they can breath a second time.
We will have air dominance within the first week, and can fly around in our pyjama's in anything we want from the second week onwards.
They can flee, hide, or burry whatever they have under tons of sand as all others have done before them.
The mouth is all what is left. Oh, don't forget the gallons of Wodka.
Gas and Wodka is all what's left.
What are they thinking?
As soon as they power up a defence system, we see it, and an F-35 or Tomahawk will take it out before they can breath a second time.
We will have air dominance within the first week, and can fly around in our pyjama's in anything we want from the second week onwards.
They can flee, hide, or burry whatever they have under tons of sand as all others have done before them.
- Elite 2K
- Posts: 2317
- Joined: 27 Feb 2008, 23:40
- Location: Serbia, Belgrade
botsing wrote:Yeah, Russia cannot fight a conventional war anymore with their outdated equipment.
Relapsing to nuclear weapons delivered by hypersonic wunderwaffens and mass propaganda is the only option left.
Well new Russian conventional weapons are problem for USA:
https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/20 ... -homeland/
I don't think USSR ever had similar capability.
-
- Forum Veteran
- Posts: 925
- Joined: 05 Dec 2015, 18:09
- Location: The Netherlands
milosh wrote:Well new Russian conventional weapons are problem for USA:
https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/20 ... -homeland/
I don't think USSR ever had similar capability.
Oh right, you only need a handful of very expensive conventional missiles to win a full conventional war.
What do you think will happen to Russia when they use this on USA targets?
"Those who know don’t talk. Those who talk don’t know"
- Elite 2K
- Posts: 2317
- Joined: 27 Feb 2008, 23:40
- Location: Serbia, Belgrade
botsing wrote:milosh wrote:Well new Russian conventional weapons are problem for USA:
https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/20 ... -homeland/
I don't think USSR ever had similar capability.
Oh right, you only need a handful of very expensive conventional missiles to win a full conventional war.
What do you think will happen to Russia when they use this on USA targets?
Maybe something similar but nothing knew to Russians.
Wipe out electric network and oil refineries in America and you have unthinkable. Something like that in cold war wasn't possible without nukes.
No wonder NORAD commander see that as huge danger.
Last edited by milosh on 19 Jun 2019, 19:43, edited 2 times in total.
- Elite 4K
- Posts: 4486
- Joined: 23 Oct 2008, 15:22
milosh wrote:botsing wrote:milosh wrote:Well new Russian conventional weapons are problem for USA:
https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/20 ... -homeland/
I don't think USSR ever had similar capability.
Oh right, you only need a handful of very expensive conventional missiles to win a full conventional war.
What do you think will happen to Russia when they use this on USA targets?
Maybe something similar but nothing knew to Russians.
Wipe out electric network and oil refineries in America and you have unthinkable. Something like that in cold war wasn't possible without nukes, and now Russians can to that using conventional weapons. So no need for nukes to knock down US society.
No wonder NORAD commander see that as huge danger.
It'd take more than a handful of missiles.
- Senior member
- Posts: 316
- Joined: 24 Jul 2018, 10:39
USA has had that capability since the 1980s. Russians should be proud their country is finally catching up to 40 year old tech!
Aside from that, Russia has the problem of delivery platforms, due to the USA being in a much more isolated position than Russia.
To achieve strategic effects with conventional cruise missiles requires thousands and thousands of missiles, and Russia simply doesn't have the capability of carrying that many missiles at once on their submarines and long-range bombers.
It would take numerous sorties to achieve it, by which time the USA is retaliating with its own conventional capabilities.
Aside from that, Russia has the problem of delivery platforms, due to the USA being in a much more isolated position than Russia.
To achieve strategic effects with conventional cruise missiles requires thousands and thousands of missiles, and Russia simply doesn't have the capability of carrying that many missiles at once on their submarines and long-range bombers.
It would take numerous sorties to achieve it, by which time the USA is retaliating with its own conventional capabilities.
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 19 guests