Su-57 Stealth Fighter: News #5

Rodion_Romanovic wrote:So now stealth is not anymore fundamental for US?

And they are upgrading their F-15 while telling that Su-35 is a old generation plane and Su-57 is not advanced enough?...

Ahahhaah


http://smoothiex12.blogspot.com/2018/07/looks-like-f-15-will-stick-around-for.html?m=1

https://www.defenseone.com/technology/2018/07/heres-look-new-f-15x-boeing-pitching-us-air-force/150039/

Nice one

On the one hand, we know Boeing is not that happy leaving Lockheed eat the "stealth" pie alone and often downplays the benefits of LO. But on the other and as some comments from Russia suggest, US 5G is a dead branch in the history of fighter development. We know VLO is not such against modern IADs. Only a matter of time before Western force structure reflects this reality, forced also by progressively tighter procurement budgets. Probably less F-35s, more updated 4G planes and accelerated development of 6G

In a more or less normal country (like Russia) this would happen. The role of the F-35 is to drop a few guided bombs on a target, which could easily be done by a combat drone. But Amiland is controled by oligarchs, they want "their" money from the taxpayer, therefore the F-35 will never be axed.

Hole wrote:In a more or less normal country (like Russia) this would happen. The role of the F-35 is to drop a few guided bombs on a target, which could easily be done by a combat drone. But Amiland is controled by oligarchs, they want "their" money from the taxpayer, therefore the F-35 will never be axed.

Yeah, not going to be cancelled, but quite probably its numbers will be reduced. Procurement plans were overly ambitious from the very beginning, also in order to show reduced unit costs

I'm sorry Russians themselves put it on hold. So there's nothing to hope for F-35 pilots, RuAF shot themselves on the foot.

The Russians have Su-35s and will have MiG-35s and Su-30s in production... they don't need lots of new expensive stealth fighters... unlike the west who is replacing 4th gen fighters that work with expensive F-35s that like to play sex games with its pilots.

2,300 F-35s are supposed to be in service eventually, yet the only pilot to make it to target will be Quagmire because he likes suffocation sex games...

You can't be serious. Following your logic, the Soviets shouldn't have bothered with the MiG-15 because F-80 sucked and F-86A was facing issues.

You are not using a relevant example, they had an enormous fleet of now obsolete propeller driven aircraft that needed replacing... of course they needed the MiG-15.

You should be asking yourself why NATO is buying a new stealth fighter that the US is afraid Turkey might operate in its own airspace controlled by the S-400... they might see how easy the F-35 is to track and destroy and wonder why they gave up perfectly good and much cheaper 4th gen fighters for that piece of rubbish.

It's not about ''stealth''. They are not procuring any fighters in meaningful nubers, giving weak excuses. Meanwhile vintage Flankers are on their way out.

It is everything to do with stealth... it is an expensive feature... why would you want an entire fleet of such aircraft?

If you believe the marketting the stealth fighters will go in and destroy the enemy air forces and their air defences... but the job of dealing with enemy ground forces remains... why do you need expensive stealth fighters to operate over an enemy with no air defences or aircraft left to hit ground targets?

If you make money selling expensive stealthy aircraft you will demand an all stealth fleet, but why does Russia need that?

Well, I hope we'll see 12 by the end of 2020, but that is not looking too good either. They need to hurry the fuck up.

Why?

F-35s wont go near S-400 systems so NATO is fucked... they can't invade Russia if they are afraid of S-400.

Russia is not building fighters in meaningful numbers anymore and delaying Su-57 isn't helping.

Why do you think fighter aircraft matter?

Do you think having 100 Su-57s would stop a NATO attack?

Will NATO forces withdraw from the Baltic countries if Russia has 100 Su-57s?

Do you think building 100 Su-57s right now without proper testing of the serial production models will be cheaper or more expensive than building 12 and testing them in operational units and then making decisions based on that?

They are not prototypes. And I can't believe you people keep repeating that BS. But whatever, keep believing that, it clearly makes you guys feel better.

What are you basing that opinion on?

For all we know these could be MiG-23s on the inside...

China still has hundreds of J-7s and J-8 they need to replace. (Although they already have more 4th generation fighters than Russia anyway, because their fighter fleet is considerably larger, being a larger country and economy, and all that. TRIGGERED, right?)

Did you just say China was a bigger country than Russia?

on part of Su-57

https://vpk.name/news/223328_nebyudzhetnaya_nedostatochnost_perspektivyi_novoi_gosprogrammyi_vooruzhenii.html

The Fate Of The Su-57
Separate the intrigue associated with the prospects of the launch of a series of su-57.

In early July, Yuri Borisov reported no sense in forcing the production of this promising machine: "the Plane was very good, including in Syria, confirmed its flight characteristics and combat capabilities. You know we have su-35 is now considered one of the best aircraft in the world. So there's no sense in forcing work on mass production of fifth generation aircraft," — Borisov said in the TV channel "Russia 24".

From the point of view of the curator of the defense industry, su-57 will need a serial when fighters begin to fall behind in their performance characteristics from machines of a potential enemy.

This view is quite widespread, but many experts do not agree with it. According to some interviewed by the correspondent of the portal iz.ru officers VKS RF, this solution is fraught with "shrinking" capabilities of the Russian frontline aviation in the period between the identified backlog of machines such as the su-30SM and su-35 and mass flow of part of the su-57.

Of course, su-57 this view not fully comply with the requirements of the technical specifications under the program PAK FA (promising aviation complex tactical aviation), however this is the case when the Armed forces of Russia should take an example from the Western countries using the method of "block" the improvement of machines of new generation. At the start of the serial production and the French "Rafale" and the Anglo-German-Italian-Spanish "Eurofighter", and the latest us (with international cooperation) of the F-35 one way or another, lagged behind the set of parameters that improved with each subsequent production series. While subsequently the previously released fighters modifierade to the new standards, getting fresh equipment and additional letters and numbers after the main index.

This method allows you to download mass production, gradually expanding order volume and improving the already produced planes, while waiting for the launch of a series of fully adjusted machines can lead to a loss of pace update — the move to deploy full-scale production of "on call" will not succeed anyway.

It is also important that even "basic configuration", with restrictions on certain systems, the su-57 can be used for transition training of flight crews and technicians combatant regiments. However, this requires the production of at least several tens of aircraft (which subsequently can and should be upgraded), while the announced batch of 12 machines will allow a maximum of retrain pilots and specialists of the Lipetsk center of combat application and, perhaps, one of the leader of the regiments.

In light of the fact that this year customers should be transferred to 91 the F-35, and next year — more than 100 of these machines, the gap with the production of the su-57 has been threatening forms. Especially considering the fact that the production of su-35 is not a faster pace in comparison, in 2019 the US and its allies get twice as much F-35 than the total number of su-35 Russian air force.

Of course, Russia cannot and should not compete in terms of production of weapons, including aircraft, with all NATO — parity with the Alliance is provided in the first, second and third place nuclear missile potential. However, the danger of local conflicts, including advanced militarily by countries large enough to ensure that the videoconferencing equipment of modern aircraft has been a priority of the first level. Su-57 in these circumstances, you need to compare with F-35, but with bigger and heavier F-22, which, in fact, is the aircraft "power" of the U.S. air force. 200-250 su-57 in addition to the several hundred su-35 and su-30 could give the Russian air force potential, allowing you to feel confident in local conflicts, including against the United States or coalition European members of NATO — especially given the low rates of renewal and low readiness of the air force of the countries of Western Europe: production of "Rafale" not more than a half dozen cars a year, "Eurofighter" is supplied in the range of 20-30 vehicles annually.

But to preserve the potential of the domestic military aircraft in comparison with NATO need to deploy the serial production of the su-57 and to increase purchases of su-35 now.

That guy forgets the air defence. The russian doctrine is not fighter against fighter, its to use air Defence to shoot down anything that flies and doesn´t belong there.

Also he can delete the first 200 F-35´s that were delivered to the Ami Air Force, beause their OS will not be upgraded, so they can´t make much use of their radar. Or fire their gun.

For the production rate: i don´t see any panic on the side of russian officials. They seem to be satisfied with the current rates. In the end the Su-57 is, like any other new weapon system developed in Russia in the last years, or still under development, intended to be produced/used for the next two or three decades. The production run will be Long, the numbers will go up over time.

Very true about the F-35. But issue is, the Russians do not see it that way anyway. They also compare to fact that J-20 is also in larger numbers. Mind you, from what is gathered, J-20 is inferior because of various factors like lack of AESA radar (I am still ho hum about AESA benefits vs PESA), its engines, and the fact that with Canards would affect the overall RCS of the aircraft. And the suspected that Su-30MKI did indeed detect it from long distances.

Anyway, its a wait and see. So far, there has been no new orders yet for jets for RuAF and they do have to fulfill the 700 new fighters needed and 1200 overall jets (Su-34, etc).

Canards would affect the overall RCS

That argument is used by western "specialists" to say j-20 rcs is increased to 0.5-1m2 because of canards while they say a rafale or a typhoon with exernal armement and also canards achieve a rcs of 0.1-0.5m2.

That's total bullshit.

RuAF should not decide any significant buy of Su-57 until they see the end of the izd. 30 tests some time near 2023. I REALLY hope we are not going to be hearing this nonsense about cancellation of the plane and the need to immediately buy squadron after squadron all the way there, I get the creeps when I think we are only in 2018

The "problem" with the Su-57 is that the first stage (with the current engine) needed more time to develop. Pretty normal for a plane. Now the second stage, especially the new engine, did go faster than expected. That´s why the old plan (60 aircraft with the old engine until 2020) was modified to just 12 planes. The will go to Lipetsk, there qualified flying instructors will be trained, manuals will be written and tactis developed. After that the second stage plane will be ready.

Now there is talk about a sixth generation plane = mostly unmanned. It seems that a few people in leading circles want to take the Su-57 and develop a new generation fighter out of it. They claim the Su-57 is "just" a 5. gen. plane and therefore not better than the F-35 which is purchased in much larger numbers. To be superior, they want a better plane.

I hope the realists around Putin and Shoigu will be victorious. Buy 12 aircraft until 2020, after that 48 second stage planes until 2025/27 and after that… Let´s see.

Hole wrote:The "problem" with the Su-57 is that the first stage (with the current engine) needed more time to develop. Pretty normal for a plane. Now the second stage, especially the new engine, did go faster than expected. That´s why the old plan (60 aircraft with the old engine until 2020) was modified to just 12 planes. The will go to Lipetsk, there qualified flying instructors will be trained, manuals will be written and tactis developed. After that the second stage plane will be ready.

Now there is talk about a sixth generation plane = mostly unmanned. It seems that a few people in leading circles want to take the Su-57 and develop a new generation fighter out of it. They claim the Su-57 is "just" a 5. gen. plane and therefore not better than the F-35 which is purchased in much larger numbers. To be superior, they want a better plane.

I hope the realists around Putin and Shoigu will be victorious. Buy 12 aircraft until 2020, after that 48 second stage planes until 2025/27 and after that… Let´s see.

Well, in normal conditions the second stage engine would have started development much earlier than the plane itself as it is customary for fighter development. In the Russia of late 90's and early 2000's this was of course out of question and therefore we have this mismatch between the airframe being ready and the engines needing some years more. But I agree probably they didn't see the need to buy more 1st stage airframes that would later need retrofit, once the bench tests of izd. 30 apparently went according to plans

The issue with the 6G is that aircraft generations are, maybe with exception of the "stealth" component, progressively more related to avionics and engines than to airframe and aerodynamics and so the borders between them gets blurry and devaluated, often used rather as means of PR. Add to this the fact that F-22 remained for almost 15 years as the only 5G plane so everything that comes now is already half step into 6G just by matter of technological advance in the time since then. Even on top of that, increasing costs make new plane generations longer and longer. So there is no problem in developing the Su-57 into 6G I think. For instance if you take the "Tempest" proposal there is no big external or conceptual difference to PAK-FA that would make the UK model a worthy 6G fighter and prevent the Russian one from becoming one. Or at least I don't see such difference.

I think there is some merit in saying that PAK-FA is not urgent since F-22 line was closed (while the F-15 remains open, interestingly), F-35 has been somehow rushed into operation before cleaning the many existing problems and as you said many of the delivered frames may not be fully operational even in the future. Besides this and given the scarce relevance Russia seems to attribute to VLO when dealing with their existing and prospective AD assets together with F-35 kinetic limitations, it is possible that the Su-35 is considered more than enough at least as deterrent against possible proxies and low intensity conflicts that could be waged against it in near future. As I said, I very much doubt any sane Western planer considers a conventional war  with Russia in the European theatre as an option, so the threat is not that big as many make of it, insisting in turning Russian military procurement in some kind of ego issue. Military expense is a liability forced upon a country by foreign threats, not something that should be incurred in, out of lust for prestige... even when prestige is a good deterrent too, which is also IMO not a small factor in PAK-FA program overall.

That being said, holding the Su-57 much longer after the izd. 30 is ready would be also difficult to explain and essentially would lose useful years of the design. AF should be allowed to gain experience with it and the developers analyse long term reliability etc. So I broadly share your expectations regarding state orders.

That´s why they ordered 12 pieces.

Isos wrote:

Canards would affect the overall RCS

That argument is used by western "specialists" to say j-20 rcs is increased to 0.5-1m2 because of canards while they say a rafale or a typhoon with exernal armement and also canards achieve a rcs of 0.1-0.5m2.

That's total bullshit.

Even in clean config the Rafale is 0.3m^2 and the Typhoon is 0.5m^2. The Su-57 clean is 0.5m^2 if they remember to shave the bolts off. The Rafale with conformal fuel tanks is anywhere from 0.5m^2 to 1m^2 depending on the loadout. The Typhoon has no conformal fuel tanks so it probably twice those numbers. The J-20 is LO from the front but its other aspects are not even LO.

The canards depend on what flight mode the aircraft is in, if it is in cruise level flight they have little impact on RCS, if they are showing more face to the aspect then it increases. The Rafale has the smallest canard, the Typhoon second and the J-20s are massive.

Vladimir79 wrote:

Isos wrote:

Canards would affect the overall RCS

That argument is used by western "specialists" to say j-20 rcs is increased to 0.5-1m2 because of canards while they say a rafale or a typhoon with exernal armement and also canards achieve a rcs of 0.1-0.5m2.

That's total bullshit.

Even in clean config the Rafale is 0.3m^2 and the Typhoon is 0.5m^2. The Su-57 clean is 0.5m^2 if they remember to shave the bolts off.  The Rafale with conformal fuel tanks is anywhere from 0.5m^2 to 1m^2 depending on the loadout.  The Typhoon has no conformal fuel tanks so it probably twice those numbers.  The J-20 is LO from the front but its other aspects are not even LO.  

The canards depend on what flight mode the aircraft is in, if it is in cruise level flight they have little impact on RCS, if they are showing more face to the aspect then it increases.  The Rafale has the smallest canard, the Typhoon second and the J-20s are massive.  

Judging by available open references about LO design, there should be no practical way the Eurocanards can have the same RCS than the PAK-FA, at least in the aspects of biggest interest. Their design and surface alignment is not even disciplined to make think their RCS is managed beyond application of RAM and avoidance of some hotspots, so I don't think it is justified to put them on the same ball park than the Su-57.

Consistently with that, the values of reduced RCS you mention are related AFAIK to the frontal aspect while those values between 0,3 and 0,5 m2 for the PAK-FA were stated as average values and coincidental with equivalent values of the F-22. The fact that this can be true or a lie is something we will have to live with

LMFS wrote:
Judging by available open references about LO design, there should be no practical way the Eurocanards can have the same RCS than the PAK-FA, at least in the aspects of biggest interest. Their design and surface alignment is not even disciplined to make think their RCS is managed beyond application of RAM and avoidance of some hotspots, so I don't think it is justified to put them on the same ball park than the Su-57.

Consistently with that, the values of reduced RCS you mention are related AFAIK to the frontal aspect while those values between 0,3 and 0,5 m2 for the PAK-FA were stated as average values and coincidental with equivalent values of the F-22. The fact that this can be true or a lie is something we will have to live with

According to the Indians that reviewed and cancelled the cooperation on FGFA the work was so shoddy there were bolts sticking out that made the radar signature spike even higher than the baseline 0.5m^2. The Euros make aircraft to very tight tolerances, it is apparently something we are not on par with. It doesn't really surprise me when you look at how our aircraft are made and how the French do it, the production technique is decades apart.

Vladimir79 wrote:

Isos wrote:

Canards would affect the overall RCS

That argument is used by western "specialists" to say j-20 rcs is increased to 0.5-1m2 because of canards while they say a rafale or a typhoon with exernal armement and also canards achieve a rcs of 0.1-0.5m2.

That's total bullshit.

Even in clean config the Rafale is 0.3m^2 and the Typhoon is 0.5m^2. The Su-57 clean is 0.5m^2 if they remember to shave the bolts off.  The Rafale with conformal fuel tanks is anywhere from 0.5m^2 to 1m^2 depending on the loadout.  The Typhoon has no conformal fuel tanks so it probably twice those numbers.  The J-20 is LO from the front but its other aspects are not even LO.  

The canards depend on what flight mode the aircraft is in, if it is in cruise level flight they have little impact on RCS, if they are showing more face to the aspect then it increases.  The Rafale has the smallest canard, the Typhoon second and the J-20s are massive.  

You mix numbers from west and numbers from russia. Sukhoi engineers said f-22 is 0.2m2 while US say it is 0.000000..0001m2.

No one cares about clean rcs.

There was a guy on indian or pakistani def forum that was close to officials in charge of testing rafale before they bought them, he said su-30mki was better. Only rafales OLS was better due to the huge engines of MKI. In terms of manoeuvrability and dogfight MKI was better.

Rafale and typhoon have no shapes for stealth, no internal bays, and no stealth paint. Su-57 has all of that.

Rafale doesn't have confirmal fuel tanks. It can be equiped but is not.

Just look what a rafale looks when carrying air to ground, air to air missiles and fuel tanks and you will see with your eyes it can be 1m2.

Indian pilots said their mig are better than mirages btw. Su27 even better than both.

Vladimir79 wrote:

LMFS wrote:
Judging by available open references about LO design, there should be no practical way the Eurocanards can have the same RCS than the PAK-FA, at least in the aspects of biggest interest. Their design and surface alignment is not even disciplined to make think their RCS is managed beyond application of RAM and avoidance of some hotspots, so I don't think it is justified to put them on the same ball park than the Su-57.

Consistently with that, the values of reduced RCS you mention are related AFAIK to the frontal aspect while those values between 0,3 and 0,5 m2 for the PAK-FA were stated as average values and coincidental with equivalent values of the F-22. The fact that this can be true or a lie is something we will have to live with

According to the Indians that reviewed and cancelled the cooperation on FGFA the work was so shoddy there were bolts sticking out that made the radar signature spike even higher than the baseline 0.5m^2.  The Euros make aircraft to very tight tolerances, it is apparently something we are not on par with.  It doesn't really surprise me when you look at how our aircraft are made and how the French do it, the production technique is decades apart.    

I understand it does not make a good impression to see a plane with bumps and gaps between panels but function defines the manufacturing technique used, obviously the simplest you can manufacture the plane while it still flies as intended, the better. If Russia was not capable of manufacturing to tight tolerances there would be no Russian jet engines for instance, and much less with comparable SFCs to Western ones. High res pictures of say a SSJ100 show no different level of finish to Western models. So if the spec is to have a manufacturing tolerance "x" to meet a defined RCS then it will need to be manufactured like that. It makes no sense to develop the plane and then manufacture something different. This is my understanding as mere outsider but see no rationale to doing things differently. This can of course have a big effect in manufacturing costs and stand behind the claims of Su-57 being much more expensive than previous planes.

Ultra-tight manufacturing tolerances are damn good for PR and most probably for RCS but are they good for military capability, if they force to reduce the size and availability of the fleet and the pilot's training because of extreme costs?

Vladimir79 wrote:

LMFS wrote:
Judging by available open references about LO design, there should be no practical way the Eurocanards can have the same RCS than the PAK-FA, at least in the aspects of biggest interest. Their design and surface alignment is not even disciplined to make think their RCS is managed beyond application of RAM and avoidance of some hotspots, so I don't think it is justified to put them on the same ball park than the Su-57.

Consistently with that, the values of reduced RCS you mention are related AFAIK to the frontal aspect while those values between 0,3 and 0,5 m2 for the PAK-FA were stated as average values and coincidental with equivalent values of the F-22. The fact that this can be true or a lie is something we will have to live with

According to the Indians that reviewed and cancelled the cooperation on FGFA the work was so shoddy there were bolts sticking out that made the radar signature spike even higher than the baseline 0.5m^2.  The Euros make aircraft to very tight tolerances, it is apparently something we are not on par with.  It doesn't really surprise me when you look at how our aircraft are made and how the French do it, the production technique is decades apart.    

According to the Indians.... Nope, not sure why we want to pay much attention these clowns who can't manage to maintain their existing aircraft, or prevent new submarines exploding at the quayside, or frigates capsizing, or even complete the development of their own paltry Tejas light fighter. Indian smearing of the proposed FGFA was solely due to their pique that Moscow isn't about to hand over the IP of the new technologies for a song and give India a free-ride to a 5th gen fighter. Indians have only had access to developmental prototypes of PAK FA built to demonstrate structural and flight performance, and they think that such testbeds are going to be indicative of service aircraft?

I think its fair to say that serial production airframes will be a different beast than development testbeds, and judging the penultimate performance of Su-57 on such interim units is foolhardy at best.

LMFS wrote:If Russia was not capable of manufacturing to tight tolerances there would be no Russian jet engines for instance, and much less with comparable SFCs to Western ones.

..or high-performance reliable closed-cycle rocket engines, which US "experts" had long maintained were impractical.

Yep, Russians must be incompetent because they don't know to "shave the heads of rivets"... I'm at a loss for words.

Isos wrote:You mix numbers from west and numbers from russia. Sukhoi engineers said f-22 is 0.2m2 while US say it is 0.000000..0001m2.

Values like this are utterly useless, and are simply a normal part of Western corporations indulging in shameless mis-information in their quest to promote their own products fro commercial gain.

This "0.001 m3" is simply the sweet spot of the F-22 from 0 degree perspective, at the optimal frequency for radar attenuation, and with RAM coatings freshly applied, all performed in a laboratory condition where the aircraft can be tweaked to guarantee maximal results. In real-world service conditions, this performance simply cannot be met.

Big_Gazza wrote:

Vladimir79 wrote:

LMFS wrote:
Judging by available open references about LO design, there should be no practical way the Eurocanards can have the same RCS than the PAK-FA, at least in the aspects of biggest interest. Their design and surface alignment is not even disciplined to make think their RCS is managed beyond application of RAM and avoidance of some hotspots, so I don't think it is justified to put them on the same ball park than the Su-57.

Consistently with that, the values of reduced RCS you mention are related AFAIK to the frontal aspect while those values between 0,3 and 0,5 m2 for the PAK-FA were stated as average values and coincidental with equivalent values of the F-22. The fact that this can be true or a lie is something we will have to live with

According to the Indians that reviewed and cancelled the cooperation on FGFA the work was so shoddy there were bolts sticking out that made the radar signature spike even higher than the baseline 0.5m^2.  The Euros make aircraft to very tight tolerances, it is apparently something we are not on par with.  It doesn't really surprise me when you look at how our aircraft are made and how the French do it, the production technique is decades apart.    

According to the Indians....    Nope, not sure why we want to pay much attention these clowns who can't manage to maintain their existing aircraft, or prevent new submarines exploding at the quayside, or frigates capsizing, or even complete the development of their own paltry Tejas light fighter.  Indian smearing of the proposed FGFA was solely due to their pique that Moscow isn't about to hand over the IP of the new technologies for a song and give India a free-ride to a 5th gen fighter.  Indians have only had access to developmental prototypes of PAK FA built to demonstrate structural and flight performance, and they think that such testbeds are going to be indicative of service aircraft?  

I think its fair to say that serial production airframes will be a different beast than development testbeds, and judging the penultimate performance of Su-57 on such interim units is foolhardy at best.

In that respect the Indians learned a lot from their british rulers.

The Indians were blaming Russia for years for engine failures on their Sukhois....till they found out someone was stealing components and replacing it with cheaper knockoffs.

I'll say this - Indians don't trust their own military equipment. And they praised their systems quite often yet never purchase it or looks for replacement (Insas rifle and Arjun tank). Why is that? Answer is obvious.

Not saying they are incompetent or incapable. It's just that they tend to run their mouths a lot. And reason for FGFA failure is quite simple - they are now trying to gain browny points with west to counter China. Russia won't counter China. So like middle East, they purchase influence through weapon procurements.

Rafale is a great jet no doubt. It's capabilities though are overblown and price ended up being way more than they could afford.

And as said, guaranteed India only saw a non flyable stand of Pak Fa. We saw in later variants the Su-57 was quite different structurally than previous models. But as said - India believed they funded the entire Su-57 program with less than $300M. It was a sad joke and even now they keep dancing around it saying "it isn't over yet. We may just purchase Su-57 instead".

The funny thing about the Rafale is the fixed IFR probe. As if they had designed the jet and than… Damn! We did forget something!

Hole wrote:The funny thing about the Rafale is the fixed IFR probe. As if they had designed the jet and than… Damn! We did forget something!

There were several reasons for it; cost, weight, reliability, ease of maintenance, longer probe means less accidents.

Vladimir79 wrote:
There were several reasons for it; cost, weight, reliability, ease of maintenance, longer probe means less accidents.

yes, tho this add doubts into 0.3 sqm. as it introduce surface discontinuities. Plus i believe outer pylons also introduce discontinuities due to different materials.
-----------

Anyway, so how many Su-57 will likely fielded now ? Just 12 or 12 but with further purchase in upcoming years.

Despite any apparent flaws etc, introducing Su-57 would give newer and good opportunity for low RCS target which really resemble aircraft and introduce Russia to new maintenance and tactics procedure. Basically same reason as why Chinese rushing their J-20's.