Jump to content

Su-57: Russian Stealth Strike Fighter


Recommended Posts

21 minutes ago, SUBS17 said:

 

Well you jump on DCS Spitfire fly at night and shoot some aircraft down. It was extremely difficult back then. Try it in the F86 and see how that goes. The point is that there is new technology coming for aircraft which includes AUTOLAND and is extremely simple to use. CATIII has never been as simple as this. 

Of course it's hard in the night with fighters that were not supposed to fight at night.

 

It's like saying, doing an ILS approach is hard in a VFR-only plane.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, XtraChrisP said:

 

 

Regarding whether or not the Su-57 can be considered 'in service' idk how Russia does it but in US programs they usually specify a certain quantity of production units required to declare IOC, at which point the jet is considered 'in service.'  Does anyone know if such a number exists for the Su-57?  

You might wanna Google something before writing If you have no idea what you are talking about. IOC is not about numbers, it's about the completeness of the aircraft systems. In fewer words - quality, not quantity. Su-57 is already a fully combat capable aircraft while F-35, which was rushed into production, had been in IOC stage for years. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, TotenDead said:

You might wanna Google something before writing If you have no idea what you are talking about. IOC is not about numbers, it's about the completeness of the aircraft systems.

Correct. IOC stands for "Initial Operational Capability", which actually means that development has only reached the bare minimum of requirements as opposed to FOC("Full Operational Capability"). 

 

Whether something has the status of "in service" is an administrative decision that can occur(often does) while a platform type is still only in IOC and it has nothing to do with the amount that has been built.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/4/2021 at 1:28 PM, TotenDead said:

In fewer words - quality, not quantity.

 Quantity is a relevant factor, though, especially when that quantity is zero.

 

Q(uality) ÷ 0 (number of Su-57s) = 0

 

 As we know, and can all agree on this august internet forum, anything divided by zero is zero.

 

@Subs

Where it was filmed was Kubinka (Кубинка)

Spoiler

tumblr_inline_mpv4v0zasI1rg41uj.gif

The troll formerly known as Zhukov

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, zhukov032186 said:

 Quantity is a relevant factor, though, especially when that quantity is zero.

And right now there are more then 0 Su-57s

6 hours ago, zhukov032186 said:

 

 As we know, and can all agree on this august internet forum, anything divided by zero is zero.

I guess you should take some math classes

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/4/2021 at 3:28 PM, TotenDead said:

You might wanna Google something before writing If you have no idea what you are talking about. IOC is not about numbers, it's about the completeness of the aircraft systems. In fewer words - quality, not quantity. Su-57 is already a fully combat capable aircraft while F-35, which was rushed into production, had been in IOC stage for years. 

You might want to Google something before you accuse me of having no idea what I'm talking about...

 

Link:  ACC: F-35 on track for IOC > U.S. Air Force > Article Display (af.mil)

delete me.png

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, XtraChrisP said:

You might want to Google something before you accuse me of having no idea what I'm talking about...

 

Link:  ACC: F-35 on track for IOC > U.S. Air Force > Article Display (af.mil)

 

Read the first sentence please. What US added to IOC so that its corrupted F-35 program looked better in tax payers eyes is US business. Numbers are not equal capabilities and performance of the airframe

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, there's several hundred F-35s, and they've seen combat. While some of the earliest ones didn't and possibly still don't have full capability, most the newer ones are definitely combat effective, even if lacking all the bells and whistles. It's fair to say they're in service, and operationally capable.

 

As opposed to those poor, lonely Su-57s sitting out there on the tarmac. Couple of those poor things can't even fly, they're just static test beds. Btw, technically, I believe there are *two* serial aircraft that have been produced. But that's awful close to zero...

 

F-35 : 600 built, 2,000-3,000 on order

 

Su-57 : 2 built, 76 on order? Maybe? Subject to further cuts?

 

I dunno about you guys, but...

tenor.gif

 

 

Spoiler

tumblr_inline_mpv4v0zasI1rg41uj.gif

The troll formerly known as Zhukov

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, TotenDead said:

Read the first sentence please. What US added to IOC so that its corrupted F-35 program looked better in tax payers eyes is US business. Numbers are not equal capabilities and performance of the airframe

All modern jets start with very limited capabilities, F-35 just got a lot of flak for it because the program cost so much but also because these types of programs in the US are very open to the public regarding budgets and such, but seeing as it has many customers and will be produced in great numbers, it might prove successful still. The Dassault Rafale was also very limited in capabilities when it entered service with the French Navy (F1 standard) because they rushed it to replace old obsolete aircraft, same for the Eurofighter Typhoon in Tranche 1... Look what both aircraft have become now. No doubt the F-35 will improve its capabilities over time as well.

 

As to the Su-57, it looks like a mighty impressive aircraft, but I am worried that this might not be the appropriate place to discuss it and actually get valuable, objective information about it (which I'd like to have). Some here just seem blindly pro-Russia or firmly against. I cannot believe the amount of unsubstantiated propaganda I read here in the last 2 pages alone. 

 

If I may, let me try to ask a couple of genuine questions I have to learn about this program: what is the target uses of this jet? Why does Russia believe it needs a stealth fighter, as it seems to me to be a first-strike weapon (I mean something to attack someone, to penetrate air defences for example)? What aircraft type will be replaced by the Su-57 in the Russian air force?


Edited by Qiou87
  • Like 1

AMD R5 5600X | 32GB DDR4 3000MHz | RTX 2070 SUPER | HP Reverb G2 | VKB Gunfighter Pro Mk3 | Thrustmaster TCWS

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Qiou87 said:

All modern jets start with very limited capabilities, F-35 just got a lot of flak for it because the program cost so much but also because these types of programs in the US are very open to the public regarding budgets and such, but seeing as it has many customers and will be produced in great numbers, it might prove successful still.

Not so much, listen to F-35 pilots please. F-35 was rushed into service without successfully completing its trials first. Unlike Su-57 or F-22.

3 hours ago, Qiou87 said:

No doubt the F-35 will improve its capabilities over time as well.

It definitely will, the question is how many dozens or hundreds of planes are going to be semi-capable for the rest of their times because of the rush.

3 hours ago, Qiou87 said:

what is the target uses of this jet?

Too big question to ask me. 

3 hours ago, Qiou87 said:

Why does Russia believe it needs a stealth fighter, as it seems to me to be a first-strike weapon (I mean something to attack someone, to penetrate air defences for example)?

That's what multi-role planes are designed for. Furthermore, what can attack can as well be used as a defensive weapon

3 hours ago, Qiou87 said:

What aircraft type will be replaced by the Su-57 in the Russian air force?

Su-27s, MiG-29s in the first place. Su-30SMs later. Some MiG-31 might be replaced as well IMO

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, zhukov032186 said:

Well, there's several hundred F-35s, and they've seen combat.

Just like Su-57 😏

9 hours ago, zhukov032186 said:

While some of the earliest ones didn't and possibly still don't have full capability, most the newer ones are definitely combat effective, even if lacking all the bells and whistles. It's fair to say they're in service, and operationally capable.

Sure, still, shame tax payers threw millions on unfinished garbage. But that's the price you pay when you start production before trials are fully completed.

9 hours ago, zhukov032186 said:

As opposed to those poor, lonely Su-57s sitting out there on the tarmac.

Yes, Su-57 was used in combat in Syria, successfully and fully ended its trials and is now serially produced fully combat capable right from the plane that made its maiden flight a month or so ago.

9 hours ago, zhukov032186 said:

Couple of those poor things can't even fly, they're just static test beds. Btw, technically, I believe there are *two* serial aircraft that have been produced. But that's awful close to zero...

Guess what, each aircraft type has prototypes that are used only for ground tests and never get into the air thought they are fully capable of that. You probably have n o idea why, do you?

9 hours ago, zhukov032186 said:

F-35 : 600 built, 2,000-3,000 on order

Maybe? Subject to further cuts?

9 hours ago, zhukov032186 said:

Su-57 : 2 built, 76 on order? Maybe? Subject to further cuts?

Funny, name at least one contract on fighters in Russia that wasn't fully completed in the last 10 years. There're none, so keep your foam in your mouth

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/6/2021 at 3:17 AM, zhukov032186 said:

 

 

 As we know, and can all agree on this august internet forum, anything divided by zero is zero.

 

 

This is quite quite wrong, or my calculus subjects during my engineering degree were incorrect 😕

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, TotenDead said:

Maybe? Subject to further cuts?

 Even if they don't build another, there's still gonna be a lot more F-35s than Su-57s. They're so stealthy, it's almost like they're not there!

Spoiler

tumblr_inline_mpv4v0zasI1rg41uj.gif

The troll formerly known as Zhukov

Link to post
Share on other sites

  

3 hours ago, TotenDead said:

It definitely will, the question is how many dozens or hundreds of planes are going to be semi-capable for the rest of their times because of the rush.

Why wouldn't existing F-35 not be upgraded once all systems and capabilities are available? Same happened in Europe, EF and Rafale got upgraded to newer standards, they don't throw them out and build new ones. In any case I have more interest in the Su-57 in this topic, I have little interest in "plane wars" as they are a bit pointless IMHO. I just came here to learn about that big russian jet.

 

3 hours ago, TotenDead said:

That's what multi-role planes are designed for. Furthermore, what can attack can as well be used as a defensive weapon

Su-27s, MiG-29s in the first place. Su-30SMs later. Some MiG-31 might be replaced as well IMO

 

That's just not true though: a defensive weapon is specifically done to defend. Furthermore, if you have a very expensive and complicated plane as a defense weapon, it can be very difficult to make it in large quantities if you get attacked, or even to buy it in large numbers. Sometimes it can be better to defend yourself with 200 good planes than with 20 excellent ones... And the needs in defense are not the same, protecting your airspace means intercepting for example, but in defence you probably won't have to deal with so many SAM threads. That is why I was curious about the design philosophy of this jet, it usually tells a lot about what a country projects its own role should be. The Saab Gripen is a good example of that, short landing, compact to operate on small roads, fast turnaround time to compensate for low numbers against a larger opponent, etc. Always interesting to learn about such things I find.

 

Of course, a multitool can do a bit of everything, but all of us who do some work around the house can attest that a specialized tool is usually much more effective, at the cost of versatility. So I was just curious how versatile the Su-57 was as opposed to specialized. 

So as I understand it could replace all other fighters in the Russian arsenal. What remains to be seen is the financial operating cost: procuring is only one thing, I think that's one of the reasons the F-22 was killed off, cost per flight hours was super high. It is useless to have the best jet in the world if you cannot afford your pilots to fly it at least 150-200 hours per year to stay proficient and combat-ready.

 


Edited by Qiou87

AMD R5 5600X | 32GB DDR4 3000MHz | RTX 2070 SUPER | HP Reverb G2 | VKB Gunfighter Pro Mk3 | Thrustmaster TCWS

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Qiou87 said:

  

Why wouldn't existing F-35 not be upgraded once all systems and capabilities are available? 

They would. Except the ones which have problems with construction, for example. 

3 hours ago, Qiou87 said:

That's just not true though: a defensive weapon is specifically done to defend. Furthermore, if you have a very expensive and complicated plane as a defense weapon, it can be very difficult to make it in large quantities if you get attacked, or even to buy it in large numbers..... 

Surely you understand that a huge military like russian is supposed to perform not only defensive, but also offensive operations because of the geopolitical interests of the country? Furthermore, your understanding of 

Defensive is quite wrong as even if you are defending you still need to destroy targets not only close to the front line, but further into the enemy territory. Moreover, there are naval targets like ship and carrier strike groups that still need to be taken out. For that you need huge missile. 

 

What's more, local conflicts might occur where usually only a few dozens of planes needed and more sophisticated weapons would make an edge over the enemy larger and losses lower. 

 

Finally, Russia has to keep up with nato on the same tech level as things might always go the way noone wants them to go. There are no doubts that combined Nato forces are way more numerous than russian army, but is's a well known fact that the unity between Nato isn't perfect and if some of the major nato players decide not to participate in a conflict, a coalition of military weak countries like germany+britain and other minor players must be overwhelmed both with quantity and quality. And in the air it's easirer to fight with quality, not quantity

About multitool - its cheaper to have 1 multirole plane than 2 specialized ones

Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, TotenDead said:

About multitool - its cheaper to have 1 multirole plane than 2 specialized ones

 You make some good points, but a true multirole is usually not the best at everything. Look at F-35: it is most probably weaker than F-22 for air-to-air due to slower speed, climb performance, worst manoeuvrability, weak trust-weight ratio that would be penalizing in BFM... Same for its CAS role, compared to an A10C, it carries less ordinance, has much less loiter time and is not as well armored. Those are all trade-offs they made in order to make a "jack of all trades".

 

In the end you might want to have 2 or 3 different planes in your arsenal and not just one, because if the enemy knows how to counter your only plane, they will destroy you much easier. If you have different planes with different strengths, the enemy might not always know what to expect. That's why I'm curious about the specific strengths of the Su-57, based on the video, it seems to be more geared towards air-to-air, like the F-22, with excellent manoeuvrability for example, and the air-to-ground would be more secondary (still decent but not as good as a dedicated A2G plane could be).


Edited by Qiou87

AMD R5 5600X | 32GB DDR4 3000MHz | RTX 2070 SUPER | HP Reverb G2 | VKB Gunfighter Pro Mk3 | Thrustmaster TCWS

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/7/2021 at 11:09 PM, SUBS17 said:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RGyL_NJhCWU

 

Short Landing in the SU57, looks like he popped the drag chutes early.

That was done on purpose, it's a way to decelerate faster

On 1/7/2021 at 10:52 PM, Qiou87 said:

 You make some good points, but a true multirole is usually not the best at everything. Look at F-35: it is most probably weaker than F-22 for air-to-air due to slower speed, climb performance, worst manoeuvrability, weak trust-weight ratio that would be penalizing in BFM... Same for its CAS role, compared to an A10C, it carries less ordinance, has much less loiter time and is not as well armored. Those are all trade-offs they made in order to make a "jack of all trades".

 

F-35 as a good 5th gen fighter was killed by the need to make a STOVL version of the plane. It could wery well be of a raptor of J-31 shape without any loss in terms of A2A and a2g capabilities, but since the decision to make a STOVL variant was made it had no other option then to become a somewhat sluggish brick.

Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, TotenDead said:

F-35 as a good 5th gen fighter was killed by the need to make a STOVL version of the plane. It could wery well be of a raptor of J-31 shape without any loss in terms of A2A and a2g capabilities, but since the decision to make a STOVL variant was made it had no other option then to become a somewhat sluggish brick.

 

 I fail to see how the STOVL version has any bearing on the other two versions and their handling characteristics. Also, ''sluggish brick''? Lol If it was so bad, multiple countries wouldn't be jockeying to get it lol

Spoiler

tumblr_inline_mpv4v0zasI1rg41uj.gif

The troll formerly known as Zhukov

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, zhukov032186 said:

 

 I fail to see how the STOVL version has any bearing on the other two versions and their handling characteristics. Also, ''sluggish brick''? Lol If it was so bad, multiple countries wouldn't be jockeying to get it lol

Not arguing for or against the F-35, but other countries buying it has almost nothing to do with the plane and how good it is. It is almost always a diplomatic negotiation, about localization of final assembly, or some local suppliers, and trying to ally yourself with the country selling the plane. So many NATO countries are buying the F-35 simply because this is the new F-16 basically, it can do a bit of everything and its from the USA, so for small NATO countries it can be a great way to cater some "good will" with the US.

Another example of that is Greece buying Rafales right now, when it is in a bit of a situation in the Mediterranee with Turkey ; you buy a French plane, you get more good will from France in case of escalation.

Also: it is the only 5th gen plane you can buy in the west right now. Buying a russian plane (Su-57) would send the wrong message for a European country, regardless if its a good or bad plane, and the F-22 is not for sale. Some countries might just want a future-proof plane that will be expanded upon and maintained for many years.

AMD R5 5600X | 32GB DDR4 3000MHz | RTX 2070 SUPER | HP Reverb G2 | VKB Gunfighter Pro Mk3 | Thrustmaster TCWS

Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

That was done on purpose, it's a way to decelerate faster

 

No it is unsafe to land like that, you're supposed to touchdown first and then pop the chute.

 

Quote

 I fail to see how the STOVL version has any bearing on the other two versions and their handling characteristics. Also, ''sluggish brick''? Lol If it was so bad, multiple countries wouldn't be jockeying to get it lol

 

Take a look at all of the videos on youtube, the F35 is not a sluggish brick. And soon its capabilities will be greatly increased beyond what they originally were.


Edited by SUBS17

[sIGPIC]2011subsRADM.jpg

[/sIGPIC]

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, zhukov032186 said:

 

 I fail to see how the STOVL version has any bearing on the other two versions and their handling characteristics.

У них схожая компоновка - жирный, не слишком обтекаемый фюзеляж с небольшим крылом

5 hours ago, zhukov032186 said:

Also, ''sluggish brick''? Lol If it was so bad, multiple countries wouldn't be jockeying to get it lol

Compared to other 5 gen fighters - yes, sluggish brick

1 minute ago, SUBS17 said:

 

No it is unsafe to land like that, you're supposed to touchdown first and then pop the chute.

How do you know that? 😏 IT'S not what 's usually done by regular pilots, but that was on MAKS and was performed Just to show off a little

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...