SU-57 deployed to Syria

[mixelflick]

This may sound stupid for a lot of people but does the Su-57 have RWR?
I went through the avionics of the Su-57 (granted it was only Wikipedia) but I couldn't find it.
The Himalayas system is ECM? can it perform RWR? If not, then that means that the only long range detection method of the Su-57 is via Active radar

https://thaimilitaryandasianregion.word ... fa-russia/

Himalayas [RWR] – ESM

Given Russian electronics inferiority, it is unlikely the Himalayas is a very good ESM either; it is likely equivalent to Western 1990s systems at best, but probably more similar to 1980s systems.

How do you reconcile a 5th gen airframe (with supercruise), some stealth, new longer range weapons and... avionics from the late 80's/early 90's??

Would it not hurt it where a 5th gen really is a 5th gen..... in the avionics/SA department??

[sprstdlyscottsmn]

How do you reconcile a 5th gen airframe (with supercruise), some stealth, new longer range weapons and... avionics from the late 80's/early 90's??

Would it not hurt it where a 5th gen really is a 5th gen..... in the avionics/SA department??

That's the rub, isn't it? So far every metric we have seen on the new Russian AESA radars indicates they are as capable as US 1990s MSA radars. Others on the boards have gone through great lengths to discuss how things like SAR range/resolution is a great indicator of overall radar capability. Now, the Su-57 still has multiple spectrums covered by the sensors. It may have a form of data fusion. It probably has a network datalink (since the MiG-31 has this even back in the 80s). These other things mean it still fulfills many of the 5th gen criteria, just not very well. However by that metric alone (systems) the Rafale is as much of a 5th gen. The Rafale has a reduced basic signature. The Rafale has some supercruise ability. The Rafale lacks proper total signature management in that its RCS when loaded for combat will still be in the 0-10dB range. The Su-57 is expected to be in the -10-0dB range according to the Russians. This order of magnitude reduction is huge for radar detection ranges (~40% reduction). When looking at something like the Typhoon, Rafale, and Su-57 it becomes a little blurry on where 4th gen truely ends and where 5th gen begins. The U.S. set the bar absurdly high on the kinematics and signature management front with the F-22, and then again with multispectral fusion and networking on the F-35. Maybe the question comes down to "Can you without a doubt win the SA battle 99.99% of the time against an F-15?" or "Can you prosecute an F-15 with impunity?".

[knowan]

How do you reconcile a 5th gen airframe (with supercruise), some stealth, new longer range weapons and... avionics from the late 80's/early 90's??

Would it not hurt it where a 5th gen really is a 5th gen..... in the avionics/SA department??

Well, I admit I exaggerated; they probably are now equivalent to Western 2000s electronics, at least with their cutting edge stuff that may or may not be ready for service.


But as for where I'm coming from, it is because the Soviets were weak when it came to semiconductor industry, and Russia has inherited that weakness.
The Soviets were capable of producing powerful radars and other electronics, it came at the expense of mass and volume. When mass and volume was comparable, Western radar was far more powerful; see the 0.9 meter diameter APG-71 having at least twice the detection range of the 1.1 meter diameter N001 radar.

Post-Soviet Russia has better access to Western electronics, they also lost a decade of development time and are definitely still far behind.

[swiss]

I found this graphic on two Russian websites.



https://cont.ws/@andrejknyazev/275684

https://pikabu.ru/story/su57__panatseya ... ey_5892243

When i got this right, you can see on the bottom right of the picture the RCS from the Su-30 and Su-57. So that would also confirm, that the Su-57 has a RCS of 0.5m2

[popcorn]

I found this graphic on two Russian websites.



https://cont.ws/@andrejknyazev/275684

https://pikabu.ru/story/su57__panatseya ... ey_5892243

When i got this right, you can see on the bottom right of the picture the RCS from the Su-30 and Su-57. So that would also confirm, that the Su-57 has a RCS of 0.5m2

In their dreams maybe. Wasn't there speculation in The Russian press that the US 5gens had a 0.5m RCS? They never explained how they knew. Lol

[juretrn]

Yeah, it was 0.5 m2 RCS "average" which is supposedly a similar "average" to the F-22.
How they performed that "averaging" was not explained. I can think of at least 3594043 ways to "average" such a value out.
Statistics can take a lot of abuse if needed.

[fidgetspinner]

Jesus Christ as much as I love new sources both of these when using google translate sounds like some Russian copied Wikipedia since most of this stuff as well is old information. I am just wondering what those circles on those images indicate(the circle on the wing and the circle on the body of the su-30) when stating 0,5 and 20 for the SU-57 and su-30. Anyone feel like helping my lazy a$$ out translating those Cyrillic alphabets?

[hythelday]

It says "low RF, optical and IR observability" and the second line is "area of radio reflecting surface" (0,5 vs 20 m2). I think the silhouettes with circles are supposed to represent that "T-50" has only 1/40 of relative radar reflection size of Su-30 - they criss-crossed the whole Flanker but only a small portion PAK FA. My guess is that is graphic designer's understanding of what the RCS is - quite poor may I say

Given that they call it "T-50", it is probably from some years back. BTW " TV zvezda" is Russian MoD outlet, so expect them to be as honest and truthful as any other Russian MoD source (hint: they are not)

I also enjoy immensly that they proudly advertise 117 engines as having " fully digital control system" (thats the line with 1s and 0s in the brackets) and also "plazma ignition system". Brace yourselves for fanbois who say 117 is superior to F119 because of that. Also I suppose that ignition system is connected to flux capacitor that generates plazma for stealth and will propell Su-57 forwstd in time 30 years to catch up with the rest of the world.

[swiss]

It says "low RF, optical and IR observability" and the second line is "area of radio reflecting surface" (0,5 vs 20 m2). I think the silhouettes with circles are supposed to represent that "T-50" has only 1/40 of relative radar reflection size of Su-30 - they criss-crossed the whole Flanker but only a small portion PAK FA. My guess is that is graphic designer's understanding of what the RCS is - quite poor may I say

Thanks for the translation. This is in line, with the statements of the Indian Ministry of Defense. So it's very likely, that the statements about the RCS for Su-57 and Su-30 are correct.

. BTW " TV zvezda" is Russian MoD outlet, so expect them to be as honest and truthful as any other Russian MoD source (hint: they are not)

Interesting to know. So lets say 20m2 and 0.5m2 for this Fighters are the best possible values.

[milosh]

In their dreams maybe. Wasn't there speculation in The Russian press that the US 5gens had a 0.5m RCS? They never explained how they knew. Lol

You can find on net that study it is median frontal RCS.

Same thing as Chinese academical PAK-FA study from 2016, where they calculated PAK-FA median frontal RCS as 0.5m2 but lowest possible RCS they got was -40dBms and they conculded PAK-FA is VLO design but only if Russians use intake radar blocker (they concluded one in study) and develop stealthy nozzle, new nozzle design was seen in first flight of type-30 engine.

BTW speed data isn't right, it isn't 2600km/h or 2.6M (high altitude). Butowski was told on MAKS they lower max speed to 2.1M because or RAM and composites.

[mixelflick]

Let's give them the benefit of the doubt. Let's say they get the RCS down to something on the order of a SH, slightly less. Let's also give them the benefit of the doubt on engines. The new ones allow it to super-cruise at mach 1.8. And say they get the radar, other sensors and ECM/ECCM working.

How many do you figure they can afford?

I don't see how they're able to make this thing (with all of the aforementioned capabilities) for under $100 million. Even $80 million.

How many can they build, and what constitutes the minimum effective force?

I say 100 airframes, organized into..

1.) 3 Front Line squadrons of 48 aircraft
2.) 2 training squadrons of 36 aircraft
3.) Remaining birds are for test, evaluation and cannibalization

Thoughts?

[charlielima223]

How many do you figure they can afford?

The reality that I've shown many Russian trolls that I have encountered is that Russia CAN NOT afford the PAKFA in any meaningful numbers at any meaningful rate of production. All their hype and talk about new things and they can't afford it. Take for example their T-14 Armata

https://thediplomat.com/2018/08/russia- ... ttle-tank/

https://russiabusinesstoday.com/manufac ... expensive/

https://www.businessinsider.com/russias ... 018-7?r=UK

Many detractors of the F-22 claim that the F-22 was cut short because of its high cost yet we produced 187 units at a rate of 2 units per month and could very well accommodate (the desired) 339. Though I will partially agree with them I would however also point out that when the F-22 was being mass produced there was a shift in military and political necessities; which to me was the main driver and factor to the F-22's substandard numbers. On the other hand Russian military knows that certain areas (air power) they have dramatically fallen behind and the reality is they do not have the economy and funds to catch up let alone keep up.

[tomcooper]

How many do you figure they can afford?

The reality that I've shown many Russian trolls that I have encountered is that Russia CAN NOT afford the PAKFA in any meaningful numbers at any meaningful rate of production. All their hype and talk about new things and they can't afford it.

Not only that they can't afford it, but they do not even have the necessary know-how.

Russian aviation industry suffered an irrecoverable 'brain-drain' over the last 20 years: in many disciplines they can't make anything new - which in turn is the reason why all they're really rolling out is rehashed stuff from 20+ years ago.

For one good example, see this: New Russian VTOL Aircraft

...considered a highly promising design by Soviet and Western observers, the Yak-141 program was canceled after the collapse of the Soviet Union. Lockheed Corporation entered into a partnership with Yakovlev with the official aim of funding the program. Years later, many Russian observers suggested that Lockheed, already working on its X-35 F-35 prototype, effectively bought out the Yak-141's technical documentation for about $400 million.

Actually, Lockheed - i.e. Lockheed-Martin - not only bought all the R+D documentation but also the know-how from Yakovlev - in form of dozens of involved Russian engineers that were hired and re-settled in the USA.

This resulted in the following situation:

At the same time, according to Panteleev, the specially-designed engine may prove to be the new plane's biggest problem. "The developer of the engine for the Yak-38 has ceased to exist. While the technical documentation about the Yak's thrust nozzles, including its afterburner, is probably still around, the specialists with the practical experience to create these components probably aren't around anymore. Here, we've probably lost our expertise."

I.e. directors supposed to be in charge of such projects can't even say if they still have the necessary, 20+ years old documentation, to re-start the work. And they openly admit, they do not have the people necessary to do the job.

[mixelflick]

So... 50, maybe 100 aircraft?

Their "silver bullet" squadrons will be even leaner than the Raptor's, and I'm guessing everything from the per unit cost, to the logistics to cost per flight hour are going to be ugly. There really is no comparison to the Raptor, nevermind the F-35.

Someone really needs to do the autopsy on this to see where it all went wrong. Was it too ambitious a program, for their first crack at stealth? Did they err insofar as building a big, heavy stealth fighter vs. something smaller? Was it simply a question of rubles or lack of expertise?

It's worth noting that the SU-57 was the first "new" aircraft program put in motion after the fall of the Soviet Union. It may be that they lacked the infrastructure to bang it out from concept to operational, front line examples. For my money, its the fact that 1.) They don't have the money 2.) They lack some expertise 3.) They should have developed the LMFS.

Looking back, I think the Russians will realize PAK FA is where everything really went south. Sad, sad day given Sukhoi's success with the Flanker series...

[marsavian]

Was it too ambitious a program, for their first crack at stealth?

Not remotely ambitious enough. They basically went for a super maneuverabe evolved Flanker with enclosed weapons bay and worried about sorting out the stealth later. The Europeans had a similar approach with their Euro-Canards which were designed around getting the best aerodynamics out of canard deltas and stealth was then worried about afterwards. The Su-57 lies in between genuine all aspect VLO aircraft like F-22/F-35 and the Euro-Canards/Super Hornets which are only LO front on and in a clean configuration. Don't be surprised if the Russians double down and eventually produce an even bigger but stealthier variant and call it Su-67. Obviously they need to get rid of the exposed engine faces in such a variant so will need a wider fuselage. Russians are all about evolution not revolution in their aircraft designs.