SU-57: On hold for a decade

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

hornetfinn

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2459
  • Joined: 13 Mar 2013, 08:31
  • Location: Finland

Unread post18 Jan 2018, 12:59

One thing to remember is that Russian/Soviet equipment has had quite different pricing system compared to Western ones. Generally they have been cheaper to acquire but have had higher support costs. Lifetime costs can be equal or even higher in Russian equipment especially considering that they often have had shorter service life. There has been big improvements made in these areas, but I bet there is still real difference to Western aircraft.
Offline

icemaverick

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 400
  • Joined: 21 Feb 2012, 23:05
  • Location: New York

Unread post19 Jan 2018, 02:09

India spent ~$8.8 billion for 36 Rafales. They already operate the Su-30MKI, which has many components in common with the Su-35, and they are of course investing in an Su-57 derivative. They surely had good reason to spend that kind of money on Rafales when Flanker variants can be had for much cheaper....especially considering that an Indian company assembles the Su-30MKI domestically and even subcontracted to build some components for the Su-30MKM (Malaysia).
Offline

mixelflick

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2327
  • Joined: 20 Mar 2010, 10:26
  • Location: Parts Unknown

Unread post19 Jan 2018, 16:44

icemaverick wrote:India spent ~$8.8 billion for 36 Rafales. They already operate the Su-30MKI, which has many components in common with the Su-35, and they are of course investing in an Su-57 derivative. They surely had good reason to spend that kind of money on Rafales when Flanker variants can be had for much cheaper....especially considering that an Indian company assembles the Su-30MKI domestically and even subcontracted to build some components for the Su-30MKM (Malaysia).


This is a really good point. Why spend all that cash on Rafale's when an SU-35 can be had cheaper? Or SU-34? Or more MKI's? I think one answer is engines, as they've had it with the unreliability and TBO issues. Another may be the SU-30/35 supposed air to ground capabilities. Dumping a few dumb bombs onto the enemy isn't cuting it to claim an air to ground capability. Still another is EW suite, and as I understand it the Rafale is at the top of they heap here.

But it was a truncated buy, and not nearly enough. I recently saw a story they were updating their Jaguar's. Probably a good move given their selection of more swing role combat aircraft is notoriously slow. The big worry (if it was me) is the total lack of a low RCS aircraft anywhere on the horizon. If they're waiting for the FGFA/SU-57, going to be a LONG time, with no guarantee it'll be VLO (or even LO). I really think they should make a pitch for the F-35, as I see it as their only option. China will have 2 stealth platforms eventually, and they need something similar so as to not fall way, way behind..
Offline

icemaverick

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 400
  • Joined: 21 Feb 2012, 23:05
  • Location: New York

Unread post19 Jan 2018, 17:47

The Indian procurement is always a big cluster it seems. I’d add that while the Rafale is not VLO, it certainly has a lower RCS than anything the Chinese or Pakistanis currently operate. In addition to superior A2G ordinance it probably has better air to air missiles than what the Russian jets offer. MICA and Meteor are probably better than the R-77 variants.

Nevertheless, it looks the Indians found the Rafale to be too expensive and they don’t seem keen on another buy at the moment. Right now they are looking into procuring a single engine fighter with the leading candidates being an advanced F-16 variant or the Gripen E.

I wouldn’t be so sure that the Chinese’s 5th gen platforms will actually be better than the Su-57 though. They’ve done a good job of copying the shape of the F-22 and F-35 in certain aspects but there is a lot more to it than that. It’s interesting that the Chinese are still buying Su-35s and are using Russian engines for most of their aircraft. As the Russians are building an original design, they probably have more confidence in their understanding of the tech.
Offline

milosh

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 600
  • Joined: 27 Feb 2008, 23:40
  • Location: Serbia, Belgrade

Unread post19 Jan 2018, 18:22

@mixelflick

Rafale is selected for MMCA (medium multirole) so Su-30MKI couldn't be even consider for MMCA and with huge fleet of Su-30MKI there isn't real need for more especially when they need money to upgrade them (Super 30 program).

Old Rafale deal would have big transfer of technology and price would be lot lower then what they got but MMCA program collapsed.

They stay in Rafale deal because of transfer of technology and need for modern CATOBAR multirole fighter for future Vishal carrier.
Offline

icemaverick

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 400
  • Joined: 21 Feb 2012, 23:05
  • Location: New York

Unread post19 Jan 2018, 19:56

milosh wrote:@mixelflick

Rafale is selected for MMCA (medium multirole) so Su-30MKI couldn't be even consider for MMCA and with huge fleet of Su-30MKI there isn't real need for more especially when they need money to upgrade them (Super 30 program).


That doesn’t make sense. First off, why did they exclude the Su-30MKI? It is after all a multi role aircraft, no? Even though it is “large” and not “medium” in size it would surely be cheaper to buy more Sukhois than to buy Typhoons or Rafales. If they needed more money to upgrade their Flankers why would they spend $8.8 billion on buying Rafales? This is an especially telling decision when you consider the IAF is well short of it’s required number of combat aircraft.

They stay in Rafale deal because of transfer of technology and need for modern CATOBAR multirole fighter for future Vishal carrier.


There is no transfer of technology in the new Rafale deal; it was a completely new deal from the MMCA competition. The Indian Rafales are all of the land based variety and there are no plans at the moment to buy a carrier based version.
Offline

milosh

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 600
  • Joined: 27 Feb 2008, 23:40
  • Location: Serbia, Belgrade

Unread post19 Jan 2018, 22:02

icemaverick wrote:That doesn’t make sense. First off, why did they exclude the Su-30MKI? It is after all a multi role aircraft, no?


Because MTOW requirment if I rember correct.

icemaverick wrote:There is no transfer of technology in the new Rafale deal; it was a completely new deal from the MMCA competition. The Indian Rafales are all of the land based variety and there are no plans at the moment to buy a carrier based version.


France offered help with Kaveri engine as part of 36 Rafale deal.

There isn't reason now to buy Rafale M but for future Vishal carrier Rafale M would be excellent option.
Offline

mixelflick

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2327
  • Joined: 20 Mar 2010, 10:26
  • Location: Parts Unknown

Unread post20 Jan 2018, 17:10

I wholeheartedly agree, Rafale for their carrier makes a LOT more sense than the Mig-29K.

It's going to be a world apart (ahead) insofar as avionics and weapons, to say nothing of the lowered RCS. The Mig-29K isn't exactly selling itself, as one crashed waiting to land on the Kustenov during her Syria deployment. The fact they only flew 4 from her deck is another sign, IMO. Apparently, Russia is foregoing the SU-33 for the Mig-29K now too. While I can understand it has a much smaller deck footprint, it's also shorter ranged. And given no catapault gear, its weapons load is going to be limited as well.

I get the sense it was selected because it was more of a "strike fighter" than then SU-33, that being its one advantage over its larger breatheren. Still, with no real tanking capability (or is it a buddy tanker?), it made little sense to me. India will have all the same issues. The Rafale is infinitely more capable...
Offline

Corsair1963

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 4526
  • Joined: 19 Dec 2005, 04:14

Unread post22 Jan 2018, 03:07

milosh wrote:
There isn't reason now to buy Rafale M but for future Vishal carrier Rafale M would be excellent option.



No, the Rafale wouldn't be a good option let alone an excellent one. As 4/4.5 Generation Fighters are on the verge of becoming obsolete!
Offline

milosh

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 600
  • Joined: 27 Feb 2008, 23:40
  • Location: Serbia, Belgrade

Unread post22 Jan 2018, 17:30

mixelflick wrote:I get the sense it was selected because it was more of a "strike fighter" than then SU-33, that being its one advantage over its larger breatheren. Still, with no real tanking capability (or is it a buddy tanker?), it made little sense to me. India will have all the same issues. The Rafale is infinitely more capable...


MiG-29K range is probable better then Su-33, Su-33 info on net isn't correct it is lot heavier and carry less fuel then Su-27 so fuel fraction isn't good as with Su-27. On other hand MiG-29K isn't lot heavier then MiG-29 but fuel capacity is increased a lot (30-40% more internal fuel), plus MiG-29K is buddy tanker capable.
Offline

Corsair1963

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 4526
  • Joined: 19 Dec 2005, 04:14

Unread post24 Jan 2018, 02:19

milosh wrote:
mixelflick wrote:I get the sense it was selected because it was more of a "strike fighter" than then SU-33, that being its one advantage over its larger breatheren. Still, with no real tanking capability (or is it a buddy tanker?), it made little sense to me. India will have all the same issues. The Rafale is infinitely more capable...


MiG-29K range is probable better then Su-33, Su-33 info on net isn't correct it is lot heavier and carry less fuel then Su-27 so fuel fraction isn't good as with Su-27. On other hand MiG-29K isn't lot heavier then MiG-29 but fuel capacity is increased a lot (30-40% more internal fuel), plus MiG-29K is buddy tanker capable.




Without even looking I doubt the Mig-29K has better range than any model of the Flanker. Even the Naval Su-33..... :doh:
Offline

mixelflick

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2327
  • Joined: 20 Mar 2010, 10:26
  • Location: Parts Unknown

Unread post24 Jan 2018, 15:10

milosh wrote:
mixelflick wrote:I get the sense it was selected because it was more of a "strike fighter" than then SU-33, that being its one advantage over its larger breatheren. Still, with no real tanking capability (or is it a buddy tanker?), it made little sense to me. India will have all the same issues. The Rafale is infinitely more capable...


MiG-29K range is probable better then Su-33, Su-33 info on net isn't correct it is lot heavier and carry less fuel then Su-27 so fuel fraction isn't good as with Su-27. On other hand MiG-29K isn't lot heavier then MiG-29 but fuel capacity is increased a lot (30-40% more internal fuel), plus MiG-29K is buddy tanker capable.


First time I've heard this, although I guess it could be true. Even if it isn't, I get the feeling the SU-33 is hopelessly out-dated and probably a bear to work on. What was it, almost 20 years since she was built vs. operationally deployed to sea? I see the SU-33 with such limited air to ground capability vs. the Mig-29K, which if I'm not mistaken makes use of much more precision weaponary..
Offline

aaam

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 856
  • Joined: 21 Aug 2010, 22:52

Unread post14 Jul 2018, 03:35

If (that's If) the following is true, it may be more than a decade...

(I'm posting this elsewhere because of the importance.)

http://www.businessinsider.com/russia-a ... ?r=UK&IR=T
Offline

mixelflick

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2327
  • Joined: 20 Mar 2010, 10:26
  • Location: Parts Unknown

Unread post14 Jul 2018, 21:14

aaam wrote:If (that's If) the following is true, it may be more than a decade...

(I'm posting this elsewhere because of the importance.)

http://www.businessinsider.com/russia-a ... ?r=UK&IR=T


The Russians are now at a crossroads, staring into the abyss...

This was their first (and probably only) stab at a "stealth" aircraft, and it failed. They've sunk a lot of $ into it, and it's apparently never going to be mass produced. The F-35 and probably FC-31 are going to flood the export market, limiting the SU-57's international appeal. A production run of 12 birds is going to be insanely expensive, and probably buy them only marginal capability vs. the SU-35. So why build it at all?

That's really the question. What I got from this press release is that they're not even going to attempt to field a 5th gen, instead trying to field a 6th gen (good luck with that). I think we're seeing the beginning of the end for Russia as a designer and certainly exporter of cutting edge combat aircraft. In some ways its sad to see, but in others... a victory for the United States. When that first F-117 came off the line, that started it. After that, they just couldn't keep up...
Offline

project458

Enthusiast

Enthusiast

  • Posts: 53
  • Joined: 05 Dec 2017, 22:21
  • Warnings: 3

Unread post14 Jul 2018, 23:33

mixelflick wrote:
aaam wrote:If (that's If)

This was their first (and probably only) stab at a "stealth" aircraft, and it failed. They've sunk a lot of $ into it, and it's apparently never going to be mass produced. The F-35 and probably FC-31 are going to flood the export market, limiting the SU-57's international appeal. A production run of 12 birds is going to be insanely expensive, and probably buy them only marginal capability vs. the SU-35. So why build it at all?



That's really the question. What I got from this press release is that they're not even going to attempt to field a 5th gen, instead trying to field a 6th gen (good luck with that). I think we're seeing the beginning of the end for Russia as a designer and certainly exporter of cutting edge combat aircraft. In some ways its sad to see, but in others... a victory for the United States. When that first F-117 came off the line, that started it. After that, they just couldn't keep up...


Russia can't keep up? hahahha meet Okhotnik-B (Hunter) :mrgreen:

Image


Lol I think your just smoking to much weed if you really think that, Russia is currently No. 2 when it comes to fighters exports, you think they will let all that business slip away? Flanker exports are still going strong, they will hold the market until Su-57 is ready,


As for the source "business insider" ? LOL when you click that link to the "Scientist" it goes straight to Error 404, which says a lot about quality of your source.
PreviousNext

Return to Modern Military Aircraft

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 12 guests