Jump to content

Su-57 was necessary when the Russians had Su-35s ?


blackadam

Recommended Posts

Vice Prime Minister Yuri Borisov sees no reason to force the mass production of the Su-57

Borisov said that such a "visor" can always be played when the aircraft of previous generations will lag behind in their characteristics from similar aircraft of the world's leading countries

 

[​IMG]

 

MOSCOW, July 2. / TASS /. Vice Prime Minister Yuri Borisov believes that to force mass production of a multifunctional fighter of the fifth generation of the Su-57 does not make sense.

 

"The plane proved to be very good, including in Syria, confirmed its performance and combat capabilities.You know that today the Su-35 is considered to be one of the best aircraft in the world. Therefore, we do not make sense to speed up work on the mass production of the fifth generation aircraft, "Borisov said on the air of the Rossiya 24 television channel.

 

"This is our" visor ", which we can always play when the aircraft of previous generations will lag behind in their characteristics from similar aircraft of the world's leading countries," he added.

 

The perspective aviation complex of front-line aviation was first launched into the air in 2010. In August 2017 it became known that the aircraft received the serial name (index) of the Su-57. December 5, 2017, he made the first flight with a new engine. Pilot design work for the Su-57 should be completed in 2019, then it is expected to begin deliveries of aircraft to the troops, it is planned that the installation lot will be 12 vehicles.

 

http://tass.ru/armiya-i-opk/5340291

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Over the past few weeks, I've read so many Western-denigrate writings, claiming that Su-57 is a failed project, personally I think, all just propaganda.

 

Remember that in the 1980s, the Su-27 was born after the F-15 a few years, during which time the Soviet Union used the MiG-29 as a main fighter. mostly with the NATO aircraft, on paper it is less than the F-15 in terms of long range attack capability, F-15 had better long-range radar, back in the 1970s, the United States had the F-14 with long-range missiles are better than the MiG-25 & MiG-23. At the time of the Vietnam War (1960s), the MiG-17/21 was much less powerful than the F-4, but the F-4 did not show a high rate of combat against the MiG-17 control by Vietnamese pilots. In this era, the F-35 and Su-35 repeat the history of the F-4 and MiG-21

 

[​IMG]

 

The F-4 Phantom was a huge beast of a plane with two powerful J79 turbojet engines that could propel it up to two times the speed of sound, and a then-powerful radar housed in its nose. The Phantom was armed with new medium-range AIM-7D and E Sparrow medium-range missiles, as well as short-range AIM-9 Sidewinders AIM-4D Falcon heat-seekers.

 

The Air Force expected the Phantom would detect aerial adversaries from dozens of miles away, swoop down towards them at supersonic speeds and take out its foes with Sparrow missiles from up to twenty-eight miles away. Short-range dogfights were simply not intended or trained for, as the Phantom was not a particularly maneuverable bird.

 

Needless to say, this was not how things played out when U.S. fighters encountered North Vietnamese MiG-17 and MiG-21 jets over Vietnam. Though the much lighter MiG-21 had only a weak radar, its pilots were guided to intercept American raids by ground controllers, per Soviet doctrine. Also, American rules of engagement forbade opening fire until enemy aircraft had been positively identified—usually within visual range.

 

 

 

 

When the U.S. fighters finally did get a chance to open fire, the faulty Falcon and Sparrow missiles achieved kill probabilities below 10 percent. The shorter-range Sidewinders were somewhat more effective with 15 percent kill rates, but getting into an advantageous position to launch the heat-seekers often involved getting into knife-fighting range with the nimble MiGs. The kill-loss ratio of the more expensive U.S. jet fighters in general fell as low as 2:1 in certain phases of the Vietnam War.

 

Over time, the U.S. Air Force and Navy adjusted by fielding improved Sparrows and Sidewinder missiles, and retiring the older AIM-4 Falcon. Later, cannon-armed F-4E Phantoms were deployed, giving pilots a backup weapon in close range fights. Meanwhile, the Navy responded by forming the Top Gun school to teach naval aviators short-range dogfighting skills—lessons which resulted in the Navy Phantom pilots scoring a superior kill-ratio.

 

While today’s F-35 is intended to operate using long-range missiles and powerful radar, it trades the Phantom’s speed (the Lightning is considerably slower, with a maximum speed of Mach 1.6 to 1.8) for a reduced radar cross section that will make it very difficult to detect and engage with long range sensors and weapons. Thus, while the Air Force concedes the F-35 is at a disadvantage in a close encounter with say an Su-35 , in theory it should detect that Su-35 from further away, launch missiles at it from dozens of miles away, and then hi-tail it.

 

Air-to-air missiles have improved enormously since their first wide-scale employment during the Vietnam War. It doesn’t follow then that today’s AIM-120D, Meteor or R-77 BVR missiles will perform as poorly as the AIM-7E did in the past.

 

However, while testing of modern BVR missiles suggests a decent hit rate (around 50 percent is a common estimate) this was also true of preceding aerial missiles. More importantly, despite the increasingly long range of new BVR missiles, the vast majority of air-to-air shootdowns since 1970 have continued to be performed within visual range using both short- and medium-range missiles, as you can see in this detailed history . Many of the BVR hits that were scored in combat were against poorly equipped and trained adversaries that lacked radar-warning receivers to alert them of incoming attacks—unlikely to be true of a clash between modern near-peer opponents.

 

Overall, the Vietnam analogy highlights potential vulnerabilities of the F-35, but also cannot definitively account for the different technologies in play when evaluating the Lightning’s adaptability to the air superiority role. Key performance parameters concerning the effective range of long-range IRST, radars and missiles used by and against an stealth jet are probably necessary for a fairer evaluation, but are likely to be kept under wraps by anybody in a position to know.

 

The Su-35 is at least equal—if not superior—to the very best Western fourth-generation fighters. The big question, is how well can it perform against a fifth-generation stealth plane such as the F-22 or F-35?

 

The maneuverability of the Su-35 makes it an unsurpassed dogfighter. However, future aerial clashes using the latest missiles (R-77s, Meteors, AIM-120s) could potentially take place over enormous ranges, while even short-range combat may involve all-aspect missiles like the AIM-9X and R-74 that don’t require pointing the aircraft at the target. Nonetheless, the Su-35’s speed (which contributes to a missile’s velocity) and large load-carrying abilities mean it can hold its own in beyond-visual-range combat. Meanwhile, the Flanker-E’s agility and electronic countermeasures may help it evade opposing missiles.

 

The more serious issue, though, is that we don’t know how effective stealth technology will be against a high-tech opponent. An F-35 stealth fighter that gets in a short-range duel with a Flanker-E will be in big trouble—but how good a chance does the faster, more-maneuverable Russian fighter have of detecting that F-35 and getting close to it in the first place?

 

As the U.S. Air Force would have it, stealth fighters will be able to unleash a hail of missiles up to one hundred miles away without the enemy having any way to return fire until they close to a (short) distance, where visual and IR scanning come into play. Proponents of the Russian fighter argue that it will be able to rely upon ground-based low-bandwidth radars, and on-board IRST sensors and PESA radar, to detect stealth planes.

 

Both parties obviously have huge economic and political incentives to advance their claims. While it is worthwhile examining the technical merits of these schools of thought in detail, the question will likely only be resolved by testing under combat conditions. Furthermore, other factors such as supporting assets, mission profile, pilot training and numbers play a large a role in determining the outcomes of aerial engagements.

 

Stealth fighters, like F-22's or F-35's, may be invisible to radar of 1970's technology but not to modern day radar. Stealth is a myth

Anything that moves through the air creates turbulence. And modern day radar can detect the air turbulence caused by either a small bird or a jumbo jet.

 

Russian airplanes are always in balance with the United States and the West, one generation apart, with no significant meanings in the sky.

 

Ex: Two Israeli F-15 and one F-4 was damaged in combat with the MiG-21 at lebanon war

 

http://www.acig.info/CMS/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=34&Itemid=47

 

In a well-known case from late afternoon of June 9, 1982, a Syrian MiG-21 pilot struck an F-15D with a single R-60/AA-8 Aphid missile. Despite severe damage, the pilot of the big U.S.-made fighter managed to fly it back to Israel for an emergency landing, and his aircraft was subsequently repaired.

 

https://aviation-safety.net/wikibase/wiki.php?id=94363

https://warisboring.com/has-anyone-ever-shot-down-an-f-15-in-air-combat/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It’s not enough to just ‘see’ an aircraft on radar. Being able to get radar returns on stealth aircraft is not impossible or even hard. It’s trying to establish a weapons quality lock long enough to get a kill (while they’re trying to kill you) that’s the problem.

 

Stealth is very real, and it gives you a huge advantage over an enemy that doesn’t have it.

DCS F/A-18C :sorcerer:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So is this just a thread where you shout into the wind about how American stealth fighters aren't that great and Russia is the best? The more you shout, the less confident you seem.

 

Playground logic. "We don't need stealth jets, we never even wanted stealth jets, stealth is a myth. We were just kidding when we spent 700 billion rubles on the Su-57."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They produced 12 already. And they are building some more at different stages.

 

We will see a limited production in the near-med future. Something around 24 including the initial 12. ( According Russian fonts )

" You must think in russian.."

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

 

Windows 7 Home Premium-Intel 2500K OC 4.6-SSD Samsung EVO 860- MSI GTX 1080 - 16G RAM - 1920x1080 27´

 

Hotas Rhino X-55-MFG Crosswind Rudder Pedals -Track IR 4

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I read saying "mass production" what can mean anything from 50 to 500. It can even mean 30 or 20.

 

But nowhere it was said that the project is cancelled or frozen (like DCS modules) and only return to development once the plane is required.

 

No. It looks like the Su-57 is kept in development and research, but only minor batches are build to test and to be kept operational conditions if the situation requires. And then the mass production can be launched in short order.

 

This is neither about Stealth vs No-Stealth, as every aircraft is "stealthy", question is just at what range and what can be done at what ranges, but every aircraft gets detected at longer ranges.

 

And this is as well about not preparing for a war, as you can now see, only one country in this world is attacking to another countries and has invaded them and used their military for even over 17 years in conflicts. As long that one doesn't threaten the Russia, it might be that Russia doesn't care about spending to mass produce Su-57 to replace all their fleets.

i7-8700k, 32GB 2666Mhz DDR4, 2x 2080S SLI 8GB, Oculus Rift S.

i7-8700k, 16GB 2666Mhz DDR4, 1080Ti 11GB, 27" 4K, 65" HDR 4K.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

but only minor batches are build to test and to be kept operational conditions if the situation requires. And then the mass production can be launched in short order.
In a modern full scale direct war between superpowers, there is a good chance that the participating airplanes would only consist of airplanes built before the bombs start dropping. If you think you might need something, it's better to have it before you need it.

 

This is neither about Stealth vs No-Stealth, as every aircraft is "stealthy", question is just at what range and what can be done at what ranges, but every aircraft gets detected at longer ranges.
Of course we can say stealth is not a binary true/false thing. Most newer airplanes have modifications that help reduce their detection range. An F-35 is more stealthy than an F/A-18E, which is more stealthy than an F/A-18C. It's not all or nothing. It's better not to think in absolutes, but I think we all agree that being detected at shorter range is usually better.

 

only one country in this world is attacking to another countries and has invaded them and used their military for even over 17 years in conflicts.

I think you will find there isn't one country on every conflict in these lists. Just like stealth is not absolute, neither is good/evil. There is not one antagonist of the world. Things usually come in shades of gray rather than black and white, and reality is always more complicated than fiction:

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_border_conflicts

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars_2011%E2%80%93present

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars_2003%E2%80%932010


Edited by VincentLaw

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In a modern full scale direct war between superpowers, there is a good chance that the participating airplanes would only consist of airplanes built before the bombs start dropping. If you think you might need something, it's better to have it before you need it.

 

Again, as I said that small set of squadrons of special fighters can be enough when you have more of the older but better than enemy.

 

Of course we can say stealth is not a binary true/false thing. Most newer airplanes have modifications that help reduce their detection range. An F-35 is more stealthy than an F/A-18E, which is more stealthy than an F/A-18C. It's not all or nothing. It's better not to think in absolutes, but I think we all agree that being detected at shorter range is usually better.

 

Question is not about detection, question is when one can engage the other. And that is the game, who get their units close enough to engage other with eliminating them. It ain't enough to detect someone, not shoot at them, but you need to down them or get them to stay away.

 

I think you will find there isn't one country on every conflict in these lists. Just like stealth is not absolute, neither is good/evil. There is not one antagonist of the world. Things usually come in shades of gray rather than black and white, and reality is always more complicated than fiction:

 

Exactly, reality is different than fiction, that those Wikipedia articles tells....

 

And there is one thats withdrawing would bring peace for most places.

 

--

I usually post from my phone so please excuse any typos, inappropriate punctuation and capitalization, missing words and general lack of cohesion and sense in my posts.....

i7-8700k, 32GB 2666Mhz DDR4, 2x 2080S SLI 8GB, Oculus Rift S.

i7-8700k, 16GB 2666Mhz DDR4, 1080Ti 11GB, 27" 4K, 65" HDR 4K.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Su-35 / 30SM and MiG-35 are still a threat to the F-15/16/18 and the F-22/35, why Russian must need the Su-57? Russia will not run expensive arms race with the United States, they will not follow the tracks of the Soviet Union

 

Those who hate the default that stealth is power, the F-22/35 has stealth and it definitely wins in the battles to fight Su-35/30, read my post above.

 

https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=3594574&postcount=2

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think they already realize, that having that few of in bay missiles in favor of stealth features right now is not a good idea. So they are full back to take the advantage of the wings stations.

 

Or maybe they need make a new design that take time, then better say is in hold.

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And this is as well about not preparing for a war, as you can now see, only one country in this world is attacking to another countries and has invaded them and used their military for even over 17 years in conflicts. As long that one doesn't threaten the Russia, it might be that Russia doesn't care about spending to mass produce Su-57 to replace all their fleets.

 

So what about Georgia and Ukraine ? USSR inners problems ?

 

Joke appart, Su-57 is an interesting fighter, with impressive sensor suit.

But no mass production means only 2 things for me:

- not ready yet (only US can afford to produce and fix later : F-35)

- not enough money to procure in large numbers.

 

No needed is now because “we are a peaceful country and Su-35 can cope with F-22/ 35” is just a cover story to stay polite, and an attempt to not hurt current Flanker sells.

Mirage fanatic !

I7-7700K/ MSI RTX3080/ RAM 64 Go/ SSD / TM Hornet stick-Virpil WarBRD + Virpil CM3 Throttle + MFG Crosswind + Reverb G2.

Flickr gallery: https://www.flickr.com/gp/71068385@N02/728Hbi

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So what about Georgia and Ukraine ? USSR inners problems ?

I am not going to say more than research politics and international laws and the each country laws as their decisions...

 

As ED forum doesn't allow other political discussions.

 

I give you a hint, didn't go like Western mainstream media says...

 

Joke appart, Su-57 is an interesting fighter, with impressive sensor suit.

But no mass production means only 2 things for me:

- not ready yet (only US can afford to produce and fix later : F-35)

- not enough money to procure in large numbers.

 

No needed is now because “we are a peaceful country and Su-35 can cope with F-22/ 35” is just a cover story to stay polite, and an attempt to not hurt current Flanker sells.

 

So F-22 was a a failure by your opinion and same is with F-35...

 

As both have same economical as mass production limitations.

 

Or we can look like F-14D vs F-15 how far more advanced super TomCat would have been, as alone TomCat was at the same time.

 

We could then apply same to many others from Eurofighter Typhoon, Gripen etc as both had/has challenging starts for mass production.

 

And how old are those, compared to Su-57? Exactly....

 

We can revisit this discussion after 10-15 years from now on to see how did it go....

 

--

I usually post from my phone so please excuse any typos, inappropriate punctuation and capitalization, missing words and general lack of cohesion and sense in my posts.....

i7-8700k, 32GB 2666Mhz DDR4, 2x 2080S SLI 8GB, Oculus Rift S.

i7-8700k, 16GB 2666Mhz DDR4, 1080Ti 11GB, 27" 4K, 65" HDR 4K.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am not going to say more than research politics and international laws and the each country laws as their decisions...

 

As ED forum doesn't allow other political discussions.

 

I give you a hint, didn't go like Western mainstream media says...

 

 

 

So F-22 was a a failure by your opinion and same is with F-35...

 

As both have same economical as mass production limitations.

 

Or we can look like F-14D vs F-15 how far more advanced super TomCat would have been, as alone TomCat was at the same time.

 

We could then apply same to many others from Eurofighter Typhoon, Gripen etc as both had/has challenging starts for mass production.

 

And how old are those, compared to Su-57? Exactly....

 

We can revisit this discussion after 10-15 years from now on to see how did it go....

 

--

I usually post from my phone so please excuse any typos, inappropriate punctuation and capitalization, missing words and general lack of cohesion and sense in my posts.....

 

The Su-35 is balanced with all NATO aircraft. Su-57 is too much for the F-15 or Rafale Even the F-22, The F-22 has absolutely can't comparison dogfight with the Su-57

 

Russia needed only a few Kirov-class and Typhoon-class to balance with the NATO Naval during the Cold War, similar to the Seawolf class. And you say Seawolf is a most worse submarine?


Edited by blackadam
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am not going to say more than research politics and international laws and the each country laws as their decisions...

 

As ED forum doesn't allow other political discussions.

 

I give you a hint, didn't go like Western mainstream media says...

 

 

 

So F-22 was a a failure by your opinion and same is with F-35...

 

As both have same economical as mass production limitations.

 

Or we can look like F-14D vs F-15 how far more advanced super TomCat would have been, as alone TomCat was at the same time.

 

We could then apply same to many others from Eurofighter Typhoon, Gripen etc as both had/has challenging starts for mass production.

 

And how old are those, compared to Su-57? Exactly....

 

We can revisit this discussion after 10-15 years from now on to see how did it go....

 

--

I usually post from my phone so please excuse any typos, inappropriate punctuation and capitalization, missing words and general lack of cohesion and sense in my posts.....

 

F-22: I would say that the decision to end F-22 production was premature and short sighted.

But they produced far more and at higher rate than Su-57 to this date.

Until now, F-35 is procured in far more higher numbers than Su-57 too.

 

Rafale/ Typhoon/ Gripen are more or less in production, in service with full strength squadron.

 

Is Su-57 more/ as efficient as F-22 ? I don’t have a clue...

 

Media: I’m aware of western mainstream media limitations, but if you believe that Russian mainstream media is the full truth...I’m sorry for you :(

Mirage fanatic !

I7-7700K/ MSI RTX3080/ RAM 64 Go/ SSD / TM Hornet stick-Virpil WarBRD + Virpil CM3 Throttle + MFG Crosswind + Reverb G2.

Flickr gallery: https://www.flickr.com/gp/71068385@N02/728Hbi

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Strikes me that the F22 is only considered so expensive because of its reduced manufacturing numbers, that being the result of no current credible threat.

If there was something even close to the F22, chances are that they’d have made more and then continued to develop it more than they have.

System: 9700, 64GB DDR4, 2070S, NVME2, Rift S, Jetseat, Thrustmaster F18 grip, VPC T50 stick base and throttle, CH Throttle, MFG crosswinds, custom button box, Logitech G502 and Marble mouse.

Server: i5 2500@3.9Ghz, 1080, 24GB DDR3, SSD.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Su-35 is balanced with all NATO aircraft. Su-57 is too much for the F-15 or Rafale Even the F-22, The F-22 has absolutely can't comparison dogfight with the Su-57?

 

Come now this is just silly. There are a grand total of what? 12 pre-production Su57s in existence and it's already king of the mountain!? Perhaps it will be one day but as it stands the jet isn't finished. Nobody here is questioning the quality of Russian ingenuity but let's have a sanity check please.

 

Money ultimately helps projects like this get over the line and the Russian derence budget isn't exactly swimming in it at the moment. I, like so many others, strongly suspect that a lack of cash is at the root of all this.


Edited by Boogieman
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Media: I’m aware of western mainstream media limitations, but if you believe that Russian mainstream media is the full truth...I’m sorry for you :(

 

Why so black and white view/attitude?

There are plenty of other sources in Western side that doesn't take the "Russian mainstream" side, but only reveals what the Western side are doing....

 

There are more than two to tango...

 

--

I usually post from my phone so please excuse any typos, inappropriate punctuation and capitalization, missing words and general lack of cohesion and sense in my posts.....

i7-8700k, 32GB 2666Mhz DDR4, 2x 2080S SLI 8GB, Oculus Rift S.

i7-8700k, 16GB 2666Mhz DDR4, 1080Ti 11GB, 27" 4K, 65" HDR 4K.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Stealth is very much a real thing and Wizard up there hit it on the head. It isn't a cloaking device that makes you invisible, it's about delaying or preventing a weapons lock. Knowing you're there is good and all, but only useful if they can actually shoot you.

 

As for the Su-57, it's my understanding the flaws are two. Regarding stealth, that it's front aspect only, meaning it is only hard to detect if it's directly facing you. This is a cost cutting measure, and tactically has some sense, but most people buying stealth jets seem to prefer ''all or nothing''.

 

The second, and far more damaging issue, is money. The Russians don't got it. If even one of their usual export partners doesn't bite, they can't afford to build it in significant numbers. Effectively, they need to sell 50 to build 50. The Indians backed out, leaving the Russians to foot the bill. All this talk about 'need this' and 'tactics that' is PR bullshit so they don't have to tell the Russian public they are broke, and furthermore, that they wasted billions of rubles designing an aircraft they can't afford.

 

It's the same thing that is apt to kill the interesting T-14 Armata. No money = no tank. Capability is irrelevant if you can't afford to buy it. A Lamborghini Diablo blows my current vehicle out of the water, sadly I do not have $1,000,000 to buy one, so this capability does not benefit me =)

 

-edit after observing some of the other discussion

 

Fanboi-isms are never a good idea on any topic. Reality doesn't care about ones preferences and political persuasions. Comparing the Su-57 and F-22 is valid, but it is ridiculous to claim the Sukhoi is in any way better, from a logical standpoint. Technically, they are theroretically equal or very similar, although the F-22s stealth is all aspect vs full frontal only. However, pretending the 57 is so much more maneuverable is false, as both have thrust vectoring and the small difference in the Russian method is not noteworthy.

 

The biggest difference is the F-22 exists. The Su-57 effectively doea not, and increasingly is unlikely it ever will. 12 prototypes does not count, as that is useless in a combat environment. 12 units, not all of which are even frontline ready, is not even enough to maintain combat readiness in the face of attrition and mechanical breakdown.


Edited by zhukov032186

Де вороги, знайдуться козаки їх перемогти.

5800x3d * 3090 * 64gb * Reverb G2

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Russians don't got it. If even one of their usual export partners doesn't bite, they can't afford to build it in significant numbers. Effectively, they need to sell 50 to build 50. The Indians backed out, leaving the Russians to foot the bill. All this talk about 'need this' and 'tactics that' is PR bullshit so they don't have to tell the Russian public they are broke, and furthermore, that they wasted billions of rubles designing an aircraft they can't afford.

 

USA economy is -$21 275 358 000 000 or 107% Dept for GDP

Russia economy is -$202 700 000 000 or 20% Dept for GDP

 

Which family you would say is broke if you would be a banker?

 

The family that has Dept it could pay off on year or two without problems, or the family that's grand children's are still paying their Grand Grand fathers Dept and still don't have money to spend for a next century?

 

A debt is one way to operate the economy to have a fluidity. But how badly USA is broke, is just a joke! Same thing is to claim that Russia is broke!

 

Lets put that to the context.

 

USA

If you lay $1 bills on top of each other they would make a pile that is equivalent 6.04 trips to the moon.

 

Russia

If you lay $1 bills on top of each other they would make a pile that is equivalent 0.06 trips to the moon.

 

Yeah, the nation that could pay its debt in a year is broke, but nation thats debt is so huge that it needs century (or two) to pay its debt is not.

 

That is like saying when a average family man debt is hundreds of millions, he ain't broke like the neighbor whom dept is like $5000....

 

The USA is too fat to die.... A experiment that can't fail by any means... The Show must go on.

 

--

I usually post from my phone so please excuse any typos, inappropriate punctuation and capitalization, missing words and general lack of cohesion and sense in my posts.....


Edited by Fri13

i7-8700k, 32GB 2666Mhz DDR4, 2x 2080S SLI 8GB, Oculus Rift S.

i7-8700k, 16GB 2666Mhz DDR4, 1080Ti 11GB, 27" 4K, 65" HDR 4K.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Come now this is just silly. There are a grand total of what? 12 pre-production Su57s in existence and it's already king of the mountain!? Perhaps it will be one day but as it stands the jet isn't finished. Nobody here is questioning the quality of Russian ingenuity but let's have a sanity check please.

 

Money ultimately helps projects like this get over the line and the Russian derence budget isn't exactly swimming in it at the moment. I, like so many others, strongly suspect that a lack of cash is at the root of all this.

 

This is obvious, but you can not deny that the Su-35 is good and balanced with the F-22. It also outperforms the F-15.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Stealth is very much a real thing and Wizard up there hit it on the head. It isn't a cloaking device that makes you invisible, it's about delaying or preventing a weapons lock. Knowing you're there is good and all, but only useful if they can actually shoot you.

 

As for the Su-57, it's my understanding the flaws are two. Regarding stealth, that it's front aspect only, meaning it is only hard to detect if it's directly facing you. This is a cost cutting measure, and tactically has some sense, but most people buying stealth jets seem to prefer ''all or nothing''.

 

The second, and far more damaging issue, is money. The Russians don't got it. If even one of their usual export partners doesn't bite, they can't afford to build it in significant numbers. Effectively, they need to sell 50 to build 50. The Indians backed out, leaving the Russians to foot the bill. All this talk about 'need this' and 'tactics that' is PR bullshit so they don't have to tell the Russian public they are broke, and furthermore, that they wasted billions of rubles designing an aircraft they can't afford.

 

It's the same thing that is apt to kill the interesting T-14 Armata. No money = no tank. Capability is irrelevant if you can't afford to buy it. A Lamborghini Diablo blows my current vehicle out of the water, sadly I do not have $1,000,000 to buy one, so this capability does not benefit me =)

 

-edit after observing some of the other discussion

 

Fanboi-isms are never a good idea on any topic. Reality doesn't care about ones preferences and political persuasions. Comparing the Su-57 and F-22 is valid, but it is ridiculous to claim the Sukhoi is in any way better, from a logical standpoint. Technically, they are theroretically equal or very similar, although the F-22s stealth is all aspect vs full frontal only. However, pretending the 57 is so much more maneuverable is false, as both have thrust vectoring and the small difference in the Russian method is not noteworthy.

 

The biggest difference is the F-22 exists. The Su-57 effectively doea not, and increasingly is unlikely it ever will. 12 prototypes does not count, as that is useless in a combat environment. 12 units, not all of which are even frontline ready, is not even enough to maintain combat readiness in the face of attrition and mechanical breakdown.

Su-57 and Su-35 rely on ECM to survive, F-22/35 based on stealth

 

ECM is better, stealth can not help you survive


Edited by blackadam
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Su-57 and Su-35 rely on ECM to survive, F-22/35 based on stealth

 

ECM is better, stealth can not help you survive

 

 

First: The Electronic Warfare suite on the F-35; The AN/ASQ-239 is very modern, compared with the L-175V in the Su-35 and comparable, if not better, then the L-402 in the Su-57.

 

Second: None of those aircraft 'rely' on any single system to survive. Your fooling yourself if you think stealth is not just as important these days as radar warning receivers.

 

Stealth is an absolute game-changer, not being able to employ your weapons until the enemy is close enough for IR senors to see them puts you at a enormous disadvantage, in a already highly contested situation (regarding Electronic Warfare).

 

If Fact its such a game-changer Its no longer a tactical problem, now its a strategic problem. 4th Generation aircraft are not effective in the face of that kind of capability.

 

I'd be like going up against a sniper in a bell tower, with a hand gun. Yeah you might have a shot at an even fight if you can get in close, but the sniper going to see you way before you see him. It's just not a fair fight. Your at an extreme disadvantage


Edited by Wizard_03

DCS F/A-18C :sorcerer:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

If Fact its such a game-changer Its no longer a tactical problem, now its a strategic problem. 4th Generation aircraft are not effective in the face of that kind of capability.

 

I'd be like going up against a sniper in a bell tower, with a hand gun. Yeah you might have a shot at an even fight if you can get in close, but the sniper going to see you way before you see him. It's just not a fair fight. Your at an extreme disadvantage

 

At strategical level it is not about can you detect them or not at long range, you can. Question is can you engage then or not at long range, you can't.

 

Stealth is not about being invisible when it is about modern warfare, it is about denying engagement to minimal range.

 

Using your analogy, you know the sniper is awake and when it is climbed to observation position, you know it's general position by accuracy of one building, bit you can't pin point is location to shoot at it unless you get close.

 

You are knowledgeable where they're, but if it takes longer time to get close for a being able to engage, it changes gameplay dramatically.

 

It is not about that none knows you are there, none sees you, none is not wiser you were there.

 

Stealth change the tactics as you need to get close, not that you need to find them.

 

The supercruise is critical for stealth because you need range and speed. As competent enemy can see you, but needs to get close to engage you, they need to have more patrols to be able intercept you as distances are shorter. So, with long range and high speed you can alter the route to avoid interception, hence keep distance to enemy and get through defenses and complete the strike.

 

The enemy knows your position, heading and all, but if in time window you can strike any target at, lets say in 100km area with just couple minute warning time, the enemy can't issue warning to ground troops as they don't know what is your strike target and can't send interceptors in time to the area.

 

And so on it doesn't matter you are seen, if enemy can't touch you nor alarm your target from your strike in time.

 

The same effect can be done with ECM, but it gets more complex as there can be more weaker points.

 

It is like you would try to slap a house fly. You can see and hear them, but they just can avoid most of your strikes just by keeping distance and maneuvering and you can't keep them away from your food.

 

 

--

I usually post from my phone so please excuse any typos, inappropriate punctuation and capitalization, missing words and general lack of cohesion and sense in my posts.....

i7-8700k, 32GB 2666Mhz DDR4, 2x 2080S SLI 8GB, Oculus Rift S.

i7-8700k, 16GB 2666Mhz DDR4, 1080Ti 11GB, 27" 4K, 65" HDR 4K.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...