What is going on with the SU-57?

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

mixelflick

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3534
  • Joined: 20 Mar 2010, 10:26
  • Location: Parts Unknown

Unread post15 Jun 2019, 14:35

Not that long ago, we heard "no mass production" from the Russians. Limited order, around 12 birds total by the year 2025 or so. Now, we hear "mass production is ready to go", 76 planes on order for the Mother land..

https://militarywatchmagazine.com/artic ... n-of-su-57

What gives? I really doubt the new engine is ready. Instead, I think they've either lined up foreign customers or decided that the SU-57 is necessary - and fast. Could it be the F-35 has finally impressed them? Or is it just Putin using his sway after taking a personal interest in the aircraft? Whatever is going on, its vexing. This on again/off again thing they have going with the SU-57 is bizarre. They're usually a lot more methodical about things.

Rumblings too the super-carrier is back on. Like I said, bizarre..
Offline

citanon

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 441
  • Joined: 01 Jul 2015, 21:42

Unread post15 Jun 2019, 22:53

They are trying to save their fighter industry. As things stand the Su-57 would have trouble against a Super Hornet much less an F-35.

Every simulation we've ever seen of the Su-57's stealth signature is BS because they are all hypothesizing an ideal seemless and smooth skin. LO signature management can be ruined by small manufacturing defects and design details. Until the Russians get that sorted out and develop fieldable RAM coatings those jets may not even be LO not to mention VLO.

The Russians have probably decided to screw stealth and just get something into the field. If they do not keep up the fiction of a viable 5th gen option the Chinese will eat their lunch in the export market with the FC-31.
Offline

madrat

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2355
  • Joined: 03 Mar 2010, 03:12

Unread post16 Jun 2019, 02:50

The Su-57 has plenty of features not found on Su-35S ans Su-30SM that make both dispensable.
Offline

charlielima223

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1079
  • Joined: 12 Jan 2014, 19:26

Unread post16 Jun 2019, 09:34

So either the PAKFA is a fully operational now and has final production versions of everything they wanted... in which case I will need one of these to believe that
Image

or
they said "F**k it comrades... lets just mass produce the damn thing already regardless of how far along we are now"
Offline

milosh

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 874
  • Joined: 27 Feb 2008, 23:40
  • Location: Serbia, Belgrade

Unread post16 Jun 2019, 10:04

Price is key reason. Sukhoi probable have zero profit from this domestic order.

I think those 76 will go to interceptor force because they don't have stealthy nozzles so its side and rear RCS would be noticable bigger then Su-57 with next gen engine which have stealthy nozzles.

MiG-31 fleet in 2020s would be lot smaller. They need to replace ~100 retired MiG-31. Much smaller Su-57 which is super cruiser and carry similar weapon load is ideal for that, plus they will have easier logistics because 117 engine share parts with 117S which replacing AL-31 in RuAF.

So geting Su-57 v0.5 isn't so strange decision.

@mixelflick

What super carrier?!? Last time, construction bureau proposed +40.000 tons carrier, interesting design but definitely not super carrier:
http://www.navyrecognition.com/index.ph ... esign.html
Offline

mixelflick

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3534
  • Joined: 20 Mar 2010, 10:26
  • Location: Parts Unknown

Unread post16 Jun 2019, 14:34

100,000 ton super-carrier mentioned in this piece...

https://militarywatchmagazine.com/artic ... percarrier

For the record, I think the 40,000 ton twin hull design is a lot more practical. Plus, one super carrier doesn't buy them much. Will probably be in port more than it is to sea, and the cost relative to capability it brings is probably marginal. A ship borne SU-57 is probably going to need a super carrier to truly be effective,with cats/traps etc..

That's a tall, tall order for a country never fielding those capabilities before. Just my 2 cents..
Offline

mixelflick

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3534
  • Joined: 20 Mar 2010, 10:26
  • Location: Parts Unknown

Unread post16 Jun 2019, 15:10

citanon wrote:They are trying to save their fighter industry. As things stand the Su-57 would have trouble against a Super Hornet much less an F-35.

Every simulation we've ever seen of the Su-57's stealth signature is BS because they are all hypothesizing an ideal seemless and smooth skin. LO signature management can be ruined by small manufacturing defects and design details. Until the Russians get that sorted out and develop fieldable RAM coatings those jets may not even be LO not to mention VLO.

The Russians have probably decided to screw stealth and just get something into the field. If they do not keep up the fiction of a viable 5th gen option the Chinese will eat their lunch in the export market with the FC-31.


I tend to think this explanation the most plausible.

Staying competitive with the Chinese is going to be important. Perhaps even moreso than adding to her own capabilities/air superiority fleet. If foreign orders dry up and China isn't buying their equipment anymore, only India can save them. And there's some indication they could be ordering from the west some day. It's already started with Rafale. And I'm not sure up-rated Flankers are going to cut it. Besides, China already has them/the SU-35 and even more capable indigenous versions (J-16).

The big question is, will foreign nations be willing to sacrifice stealth? Can India afford to? Not with Chinese stealth birds flooding the market. Even a somewhat reduced signature F/C-31 is going to be a handful in Pakistani colors. The Russians desperately need a truly low signature fighter in the game, and the SU-57 is going to have to be it.

Even without stealth though, it will represent a new and formidable challenge.Way more capable than F-15's, 16's and 18's, Rafale's and Typhoons IMO. The only problem is, many more nations will by then be flying the F-35..
Offline

milosh

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 874
  • Joined: 27 Feb 2008, 23:40
  • Location: Serbia, Belgrade

Unread post16 Jun 2019, 15:51

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 :D

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.
Offline

vilters

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1116
  • Joined: 28 Sep 2009, 00:16

Unread post16 Jun 2019, 15:56

Lets see, 76 airframes you write?

During normal operations, phase inspections, preventive and corrective maintenance, modifications, and the lot you suffer with a "new" airframe, that gives them an operational fleet of about 30 aircraft including taxes.

Well, that's about good enough to equip a single base.

Nothing to see here, move on.
Pure national promotion to keep the industry going.
Offline

vilters

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1116
  • Joined: 28 Sep 2009, 00:16

Unread post16 Jun 2019, 15:59

Oh, and better then F-15, F-16, F-18?

Yep ; With the Russian guarantee and a healthy dose of salt, pepper, mayonaise and ketchup.... to fill the gaps.

When an F-16 comes on UHF and calls : "Boe", they flee like spiders in all possible directions. :devil:
Offline

milosh

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 874
  • Joined: 27 Feb 2008, 23:40
  • Location: Serbia, Belgrade

Unread post16 Jun 2019, 16:08

vilters wrote:Lets see, 76 airframes you write?

During normal operations, phase inspections, preventive and corrective maintenance, modifications, and the lot you suffer with a "new" airframe, that gives them an operational fleet of about 30 aircraft including taxes.

Well, that's about good enough to equip a single base.

Nothing to see here, move on.
Pure national promotion to keep the industry going.


Russia is planing to have ~800 fighters, I mean they don't have 76 Su-35, so buying 76 Su-57 isn't small number for Russia.
Offline

knowan

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 263
  • Joined: 24 Jul 2018, 10:39

Unread post16 Jun 2019, 19:25

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.

As for RAM, I haven't seen any photos of the Su-57 with a RAM coating yet. That suggests Russia is either having difficulty developing a coating, or the stealth of the design is so terrible RAM won't help enough to be worth the expense.
Offline

citanon

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 441
  • Joined: 01 Jul 2015, 21:42

Unread post16 Jun 2019, 19:51

It's one thing to have RAM working in a laboratory. It's quite another to have a RAM coating with the material properties suitable for coating over massive areas on the surface of a fighter, and have that be consistently manufacturable, and have that be maintainable in the field, and have that at low enough cost, and to have the manufacturing process developed for it's deployment and the maintenance process developed for it's upkeep.

In materials science it's not the "can" that kills you it's the "and". Even having a piece of the material in hand doesn't get you so far with those "ands".
Offline

Corsair1963

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 5885
  • Joined: 19 Dec 2005, 04:14

Unread post17 Jun 2019, 01:12

Much of what comes out of Russia in regards to future Weapons Programs. Is just Smoke and Mirrors....
Offline

milosh

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 874
  • Joined: 27 Feb 2008, 23:40
  • Location: Serbia, Belgrade

Unread post17 Jun 2019, 09:20

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.
Next

Return to Modern Military Aircraft

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 29 guests