SU-57 deployed to Syria

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

marsavian

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1175
  • Joined: 02 Feb 2018, 21:55

Unread post29 May 2018, 14:57

Russian electronic warfare firm claim that is going to upgrade products after studying US Tomahawks downed in Syria

https://www.rt.com/news/428105-russians ... wks-syria/
https://sputniknews.com/military/201805 ... ectronics/

A Russian military contractor, specializing in electronic warfare, will use information gained from dissecting a US Tomahawk cruise missile, used during an attack on Syria, to boost the capabilities of its own equipment.

The missile, delivered to Russia after the tri-party night attack on Syrian government targets by the US, the UK and France in April, is of particular interest to KRET, a leading developer of electronic equipment for the Russian military, according to Vladimir Mikheev, an aide to the company’s First Deputy Director Vladimir Zverev.

“Our new equipment needs to cover all spectra, optical and radio, which we found in the products of our counterparts,” Mikheev told Radio Sputnik.

“As specialists we were very interested in seeing the real-life use of various weapon systems in Syria, including the Tomahawks. Now having this missile in our hands we clearly know what channels it uses to communicate control, navigation and geolocation information,” he explained.

Mikheev said incorporating the knowledge gained from studying the US cruise missiles will take KRET two to three years. It will help Russian electronic warfare systems be better in countering American missiles “on all stages of combat deployment” he said.
Offline
User avatar

popcorn

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 7683
  • Joined: 24 Sep 2008, 08:55

Unread post30 May 2018, 04:06

It probably means a lot to the Russians that the Su-57 got it's baptism of fire before the F-35. :roll:

https://southfront.org/syrian-war-repor ... -in-syria/
"When a fifth-generation fighter meets a fourth-generation fighter—the [latter] dies,”
CSAF Gen. Mark Welsh
Offline

Corsair1963

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 5474
  • Joined: 19 Dec 2005, 04:14

Unread post30 May 2018, 06:45

marsavian wrote:Russian electronic warfare firm claim that is going to upgrade products after studying US Tomahawks downed in Syria

https://www.rt.com/news/428105-russians ... wks-syria/
https://sputniknews.com/military/201805 ... ectronics/

A Russian military contractor, specializing in electronic warfare, will use information gained from dissecting a US Tomahawk cruise missile, used during an attack on Syria, to boost the capabilities of its own equipment.

The missile, delivered to Russia after the tri-party night attack on Syrian government targets by the US, the UK and France in April, is of particular interest to KRET, a leading developer of electronic equipment for the Russian military, according to Vladimir Mikheev, an aide to the company’s First Deputy Director Vladimir Zverev.

“Our new equipment needs to cover all spectra, optical and radio, which we found in the products of our counterparts,” Mikheev told Radio Sputnik.

“As specialists we were very interested in seeing the real-life use of various weapon systems in Syria, including the Tomahawks. Now having this missile in our hands we clearly know what channels it uses to communicate control, navigation and geolocation information,” he explained.

Mikheev said incorporating the knowledge gained from studying the US cruise missiles will take KRET two to three years. It will help Russian electronic warfare systems be better in countering American missiles “on all stages of combat deployment” he said.


Sorry, Sputnik and RT are hardly credible sources. As a matter of fact you will get little respect posting them here. :shock:
Offline

weasel1962

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1575
  • Joined: 07 Jun 2012, 02:41
  • Location: Singapore
  • Warnings: 1

Unread post30 May 2018, 06:52

Corsair1963 wrote:Sorry, Sputnik and RT are hardly credible sources. As a matter of fact you will get little respect posting them here. :shock:


Not sure what the issue is regarding media source. CNBC, which is a western source, basically just repeats the claim and doesn't make it any more respectable.
https://www.cnbc.com/2018/04/25/russia- ... apons.html
Offline
User avatar

botsing

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 803
  • Joined: 05 Dec 2015, 18:09
  • Location: The Netherlands

Unread post30 May 2018, 17:15

weasel1962 wrote:Not sure what the issue is regarding media source. CNBC, which is a western source, basically just repeats the claim and doesn't make it any more respectable.
https://www.cnbc.com/2018/04/25/russia- ... apons.html

Pointing at other turds do not make these turds (RT and Sputnik) smell less.

They are all bad sources and should be discarded as "news". Just look at how casually they pretend to have these "facts":
a) tomahawks were "shot" down
b) Russia now have the remains of these tomahawks
c) Russia now "knows" how these tomahawks work to the fine details.

It's at best just mere speculation based on nothing but rumours. Why would a government show that they have very specific details about a competitors weapon? To give that competitor a fair and honest warning that it should upgrade these stated abilities?
"Those who know don’t talk. Those who talk don’t know"
Offline

marsavian

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1175
  • Joined: 02 Feb 2018, 21:55

Unread post30 May 2018, 21:42

The impact remains were displayed at a public news conference plus the intact one(s) which did not work apparently. Obviously Syria is a sales pitch for Russian hardware for them but all information should be given a fair hearing regardless of the source. No-one has to believe any of it but it's interesting what they are claiming.
Offline

mixelflick

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3250
  • Joined: 20 Mar 2010, 10:26
  • Location: Parts Unknown
  • Warnings: 3

Unread post31 May 2018, 14:31

Back on topic... the SU-57/Syria story gets more confusing by the day.

Two (or was it 4) were allegedly sent to Syria. Then we were told they stayed for a whole 2 days. In those 2 days, we're told the testing involved this cruise missile shot, and that its "electronics" passed the test as well.

QUESTION: How much testing can you accomplish in 2 days? Why did they beat such a hasty retreat? If it did successfully drop/fire that cruise missile, what does that say about its potential roles if and when its operational?

And the status of the program swings wildly from media source to media source. The Aviationist seems to give it some credibility, as does The Drive. In almost all other western news outlets, its panned as an abysmal failure. Perhaps the truth lies somewhere in between?

No 2nd stage engine through 2025 means not many produced domestically, nor any foreign orders. Which means per unit cost must be astronomical. The Aviationist recently quoted an asking price of only around $50 million/copy. How on earth do you develop small quantities of a stealthy, supercruising sensor/shooter with integrated avionics and world class dogfighter (complete with all new weapons) - for an asking price of $50 million?
Offline

Corsair1963

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 5474
  • Joined: 19 Dec 2005, 04:14

Unread post01 Jun 2018, 03:01

Russia is the Master of Smoke and Mirrors. So, anything they say about what is really going on with the Su-57 has to be taken with a Grain of Salt.

:?


"IMHO"
Offline

afjag

Enthusiast

Enthusiast

  • Posts: 30
  • Joined: 29 Aug 2017, 23:15

Unread post01 Jun 2018, 12:38

How on earth do you develop small quantities of a stealthy, supercruising sensor/shooter with integrated avionics and world class dogfighter (complete with all new weapons) - for an asking price of $50 million?


Governent imposed price controls. Something that is virtually impossible in the West.
Offline
User avatar

geforcerfx

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 847
  • Joined: 10 Feb 2014, 02:46

Unread post01 Jun 2018, 17:07

afjag wrote:
How on earth do you develop small quantities of a stealthy, supercruising sensor/shooter with integrated avionics and world class dogfighter (complete with all new weapons) - for an asking price of $50 million?


Governent imposed price controls. Something that is virtually impossible in the West.


Which results in cut corners and poor quality, all bad traits to a advanced aircraft trying to have some stealth in the design.

Russian can only control so much of the cost, they can't founder modern processors so they are buying those out of Taiwan and China which puts them at there mercy for cost. I haven't found a single Russian company that designs ASICs or FPGAs so they are prob going to rely on standard multipurpose CPUs for most of the processing.

If the aircraft is going to cost $50 million it will be significantly less stealthy than it's western counter parts, it will have more basic engines until they decide to fund the new ones into the fleet and it will be maybe 25% of the sensor and networking capabilities of western and Chinese aircraft. The cost advantage they have over the west if they were building a apples to apples fighter is labor cost, engineers are a lot cheaper and there factory workers make around 1/4 what American and European workers do. But China can beat them there and are trying to make a apples to apples fighter fleet with the west, and they have the tech know how to get there.
Offline

wrightwing

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3185
  • Joined: 23 Oct 2008, 15:22

Unread post01 Jun 2018, 18:23

The simple answer is that the Su-57 won't cost $50 million. It's far more likely to be >$100 million.
Offline

vilters

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1055
  • Joined: 28 Sep 2009, 00:16

Unread post01 Jun 2018, 19:43

If they are "smart", what I doubt. . . . . The Su-50's will be free. => Because they aren't gonna go in production.
What is the "+" value compared to a 27-35 series A/C? ? ? ? Newer metal? :D

Wait 10 more years for the engines? The design will be obsolete by then.

Be strong ;
Cut the cheese right here and right now, and start all over again on a clean sheet of paper.

But? They are Russians, and given a few dozen wodka's, they are not smart at all.
Offline

vilters

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1055
  • Joined: 28 Sep 2009, 00:16

Unread post01 Jun 2018, 19:56

Don't know how close any of you guys have been to Recent build Mig or Su fighter aircraft, but they can not get even the most basic things together.

If you see how panels are joined. How Rivets are placed. How "visible" bolts hold the thing together. The gaps between panels, the lack of finishing, the rust and oxidation?

Do I have to continue?
Unfinished external panels overlapping. Best example I ever got was the CLT of a Mig-29.
That was a mechanical wonder.

Soms welds. Really? Are you serious?
Cockpit ergonomics. That pilot needs 2 heads and 6 hands to get it all done.

Maintenace is simple.
A screwdriver, some pliers and most of all : A solid hammer.

But? And that has to be said. They are solid.
Fuel, oil and air in the tires, and they are good untill overhould or crash whichever comes first.
Offline

vilters

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1055
  • Joined: 28 Sep 2009, 00:16

Unread post01 Jun 2018, 20:00

Oh, another thing that brings out a smile every time.

On the Mig -29, they forgot to build wash-out in the wing.
Solution?
Fly with the ailerons some degrees UP all the time. :-) Funny guys those Russians. :-)
Offline

awsome

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 164
  • Joined: 17 Dec 2008, 03:11
  • Location: vancouver

Unread post02 Jun 2018, 02:20

"Learn something new".
A basic primer.
https://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/p ... _CT468.pdf[/quote]


Actually read it and you will see where the worlds problems lie. Anyone who may be an economic competitor is seen by those setting American policy as "being at war" with America. f@%king psychos...
PreviousNext

Return to Modern Military Aircraft

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 11 guests