Su-57 Stealth Fighter: News #5

I wonder if these serially produced su-57s will be mounted with the new izdeliye 30 engines

Russia’s Aerospace Force to get first serial-produced Su-57 fighter in 2019


http://tass.com/defense/1046407

GunshipDemocracy wrote:

Tsavo Lion wrote:Doomed to Fail: Why Russia's Stealth Su-57 Is In Serious Trouble
Is there any truth in this statement?

warisboring? wow nd how many times their "anal-ysis" was actually correct? can you name 3? I cannot.

Warisboring? Didn't they shut that turd down when Todd McFarlane wannabe David Axe moved to National Interest?

PapaDragon wrote:
Warisboring? Didn't they shut that turd down when Todd McFarlane wannabe David Axe moved to National Interest?

then we can clearly see how corrupted Putin regime is  one Kremlin journo is moving to other propaganda outlet and using his old fake news.

piotr butowski write up on Su-57 on Air International

Su-57 will be the Su-27 in years to come. We may see not Su-57 as it's current form as the main jet but a variant of it.  Su-35 is a solid jet and if they can reduce RCS even further and integrate sensor fusion with it, then reason for Su-57 reduces even more.  Russia's main goal is self defense at it's bases. Strikes will be done with long range stand off missiles on bomber platforms while the likes of Su-30, 35 and 57 are for border defenses.  Something that stealth isn't particularly needed in this case.

But eventually the demand will come for LO and VLO assets. The future is hard to tell but right now people want VLO design and Russia cannot continue to sell just older design. So UAC and RuAF will have to decide in near future.

LMFS wrote:

Tsavo Lion wrote:Doomed to Fail: Why Russia's Stealth Su-57 Is In Serious Trouble
Is there any truth in this statement?

Just wow. A 100% counterfactual smear article, appeared in War is Boring December 2017 and regurgitated now in National Interest, probably just as click bait. As it happens with trash, it stinks worse with time. Just look how well these bold statements have aged:

No matter how large or populated, a country with GDP comparable to that of Australia cannot afford to play at being a superpower, fight a protracted war in Syria and develop its own stealth fighter.

However, with few exceptions, these directors have no say. On the contrary, the entire UAC conglomerate is subject to a board of 14 directors, most of them well-known associates of Putin. Few are skilled industrial managers.

Despite bombastic reports in the Russian media, UAC turned out to be a lame duck. The conglomerate proved capable of re-launching production of types designed back in the late 1980s and early 1990s. Otherwise, UAC is incapable of innovation and adaptation

The main reason is that most of UAC’s directors are hand-picked yes-sayers — people more than happy to discuss planning, strategies and new projects, but lacking the ability to make hard decisions. Unsurprisingly, over the last 10 years UAC has made promises it cannot fulfill,

In the case of the Su-57, UAC’s crucial failure was the early decision to close its Combat Aircraft Division to foreign investors.

Direct from the landfill, no more comments. If all, only out-dumbed by the comments section... man sometimes I lose faith in mankind  

Let's compensate so much stupidity with some worthy fruit of human spirit... simply gorgeous

Interesting on stupidity. But the last comment actually gives indication what they want out of UAC - to sell itself off.

UAC has actually created solid jets that scares the west - Su-30SM and Su-35. Clearly Su-57 scares them too.

Dunno about promises they failed to follow through. They followed through most of their promises other than some delivery time on Ilyushin transport jets.  Otherwise, They followed through everything else.

Edit: oh and time of introduction of specific equipment. But let us not forget, it is mostly MoDs fault on that one.

Now UAC is mostly Rostec owned.

Read the article, here is the screaming comment that puts this whole article to shame, and ultimately, makes it worthless:

Combined with the dramatic collapse of the Russian economy in the wake of Western economic sanctions following the Russian invasion of Ukraine, the inflexibility of UAC made the Su-57 impossible to realize.

There was no economic collapse or dramatic collapse of any kind. Thus with a bold statement like that (can't believe overlooked by members here) makes the article bullshit.

But that isn't surprising. Some articles posted about Su-57 praise it and some taint it. National interest has split personality issues

miketheterrible wrote:Read the article, here is the screaming comment that puts this whole article to shame, and ultimately, makes it worthless:

Combined with the dramatic collapse of the Russian economy in the wake of Western economic sanctions following the Russian invasion of Ukraine, the inflexibility of UAC made the Su-57 impossible to realize.

There was no economic collapse or dramatic collapse of any kind.  Thus with a bold statement like that (can't believe overlooked by members here) makes the article bullshit.

But that isn't surprising. Some articles posted about Su-57 praise it and some taint it. National interest has split personality issues

You have to 'click-bait' as much as possible to drive traffic to their banner-ads. That's why the National Interest has one day articles about how "Russia is a colossal land fill trash dump of a country that's incompetent and can't get anything done right" and the next day they say "Russia is the biggest most formidable/credible/capable existential threat to free Western Civilization", they need their articles to be as bombastic, exaggerated, dramatized and hyperbolic as possible, they need that sweet, sweet click ad-banner revenue.

Is there any truth in this statement?

Oh dear god.... is that a joke?

The Su-57 is bound to fail because there are not enough non-Russian government investors... that suggests the F-35 will be the best fighter in the world because there are so many investors all over the planet... except with Turkey buying S-400s one of the investors is going to be banned from receiving their F-35s...

These people live in a bubble... they think C-17 transports were a success because they made so many and forced so many allies to buy a few... it is like someone bragging because they got a poor man to burn $100 notes in the street, but when a rival gets the poor man a bed for the night and a nice warm coat with that $100 he is doomed to fail...

No matter how large or populated, a country with GDP comparable to that of Australia cannot afford to play at being a superpower, fight a protracted war in Syria and develop its own stealth fighter.

So they can't do it because America couldn't do any one of those things for less than a trillion dollars... says more about America than it says about Russia to be honest.

I wonder how many imaginary Ticonderogas can imaginary Zircons on Leaders take out right now.

If US ships can't reliably intercept one Zircon then you have to assume perhaps two for each Zircon a Leader carriers... but then Yasens can also carry Zircons, and so can other Russian subs and ships right down to Corvettes... in fact every Russian ship which could carry a Calibr cruise missile can carry a Zircon.

The US might have enough ships to overwhelm a Leader... but America has never fought a war where it put up with those levels of casualties before... they would not front up when their ships start sinking after blurs from enormous altitude come crashing down like Thors hammer, destroying what were previously the commanders of the sea.

They had a ship in Desert Storm that got the nickname the Love boat because all the women crew suddenly got pregnant when they got their orders to sail to the Persian gulf and there was not enough crew to send it into combat... with Zircon I would expect even some male sailors will call in pregnant...

Never wondered why 30 Tu-30m3m re modernized for? i would not focus on Kinzhals IMHO this is only a stopgap. GZUR is supposed to have 1500km range (missile only) + 6 fits into bomb bay. T-160 can carry 2x6 .

Actually if the Gzur is the replacement for the Kh-15 the Tu-22M3 was supposed to carry ten... one each under the two wing pylons and one each under the two engine trunk pylons sometimes used with multiple external bomb ejector racks, plus 6 in the internal weapon bay.

If that is the case then they should be able to fit 12 in each of the weapon bays of the Tu-160, whose normal armament was going to be 12 Kh-15s and 6 Kh-101s... the Kh-15s would be launched at air bases and ground targets it flys over on its way to its missile launch point for the 5,000km range cruise missiles.

However, with few exceptions, these directors have no say. On the contrary, the entire UAC conglomerate is subject to a board of 14 directors, most of them well-known associates of Putin. Few are skilled industrial managers.

So Putins yes men came up with Poseidon and Avangard and Petrel and Zircon and Sarmat and Kinzhal and Armata and Su-57... so having yes men is not always a bad thing then...

UAC’s crucial failure was the early decision to close its Combat Aircraft Division to foreign investors

But that is the pearl... Russia hasn't farmed out the costs of developing a new stealth fighter to all of its allies and hangerons like we did with the F-35 so it must be going to fail... how do they breath with their heads so far up their asses?

That's why the National Interest has one day articles about how "Russia is a colossal land fill trash dump of a country that's incompetent and can't get anything done right" and the next day they say "Russia is the biggest most formidable/credible/capable existential threat to free Western Civilization", they need their articles to be as bombastic, exaggerated, dramatized and hyperbolic as possible, they need that sweet, sweet click ad-banner revenue.

But like NATO and the US military... they need to justify their enormous budgets so Russia is the biggest threat to humanity, yet Russia is a collapsing house of cards that they could whip with their eyes closed and their hands tied behind their backs because their economy is equal to Fiji during tourist season and their defence budget wouldn't pay for the power lunches at a decent NATO meeting... How do they get so formidable with so little money input...

Possibly look at the guy who invented the M16 and the guy who invented the AK... one is rich and living like a king and the other died relatively poor, but then why should the man who invented a rifle earn more than the man who built and maintained the road he used to go to work every day on. Or the person who emptied his rubbish bin every day...

Well, it's the same in Russia's MiC as it is in general society. They built the longest bridge in Europe; Crimea bridge, under budget and before deadline. Yet Germany cannot even build an airport within budget or on time. Actually, I'm certain the airport costs more than the entire Crimean Bridge.

What about Canada? A petrol refinery (diesel) is costing Alberta upwards to $9B dollars for it yet a petrol plant refining Euro 5/6 petrol costs Russia $356M

That says a lot right there. They can build a plant to produce much more strict fuel in Russia at a cost 1/11 the price than Canada can for Diesel which is less refined.

1) if you assume it has no propulsion and makes sharp turns

Missiles usually use propulsion to achieve certain speed and than maintain it. Propulsion is not used over the entire flight. The more extreme/more against the gravity the turns are, the more speed is lost.

3) how many other interceptors can intercept it in samey time? form 40-50km height you have  20s till boom. Try to find your missile and coordinate with others  translate to motion in 0,01 sec.

Kinzhal has a flight ceiling of 20 km, which is theoretically interceptable for SM-6 with 33 km ceiling.

Never wondered   why 30 Tu-30m3m re modernized for?

Since Kinzhals can be launched either from Migs either from Tu-22M, it demonstrates very nicely the trade off between range and speed. In a first strike scenario you would use Tupolevs and try to send to bottom as much as you can. But when you get news that your ships are being attacked you send a Mig to intervene asap. Different missions require different aircraft. I'm trying to say, what happens if you have more than one vessel attacking. There's certainly a limitation of how many Migs are rapidly deployable. So having 1 - 2 warheads or 3 - 6 warheads can make the difference.

every Russian ship which could carry a Calibr cruise missile can carry a Zircon

Since Kuznetsov has a capability of carrying Yak-38 can't wait to see them Yaks take of the deck once ship back operational.

Example: Gorch Fock, sail training ship, renovation was supposed to cost 10 Mio. now it is 165 Mio. and the yard is bankrupt!


It is russian derangement syndrome, at the same time Russia is filled with nasty, but brilliant strategists who start hybrid wars and put a orange moron into the White house, but all of them are incapable of making fact based decisions.

LMFS wrote:

Tsavo Lion wrote:Doomed to Fail: Why Russia's Stealth Su-57 Is In Serious Trouble
Is there any truth in this statement?

Just wow. A 100% counterfactual smear article, appeared in War is Boring December 2017 and regurgitated now in National Interest, probably just as click bait. As it happens with trash, it stinks worse with time. Just look how well these bold statements have aged:

No matter how large or populated, a country with GDP comparable to that of Australia cannot afford to play at being a superpower, fight a protracted war in Syria and develop its own stealth fighter.

However, with few exceptions, these directors have no say. On the contrary, the entire UAC conglomerate is subject to a board of 14 directors, most of them well-known associates of Putin. Few are skilled industrial managers.

Despite bombastic reports in the Russian media, UAC turned out to be a lame duck. The conglomerate proved capable of re-launching production of types designed back in the late 1980s and early 1990s. Otherwise, UAC is incapable of innovation and adaptation

The main reason is that most of UAC’s directors are hand-picked yes-sayers — people more than happy to discuss planning, strategies and new projects, but lacking the ability to make hard decisions. Unsurprisingly, over the last 10 years UAC has made promises it cannot fulfill,

In the case of the Su-57, UAC’s crucial failure was the early decision to close its Combat Aircraft Division to foreign investors.

Direct from the landfill, no more comments. If all, only out-dumbed by the comments section... man sometimes I lose faith in mankind  

You see the new propaganda theme aimed at Russia: not enough foreign investment. First these losers claim Russia has a collapsed
economy and then they whine that UAC is not allowing foreign shareholders. The schizophrenia of pathological liars. Why would
any investor want to invest in a failed economy? There would be no return on investment. So the real story is that Russia is
experiencing rapid growth (6.5% real growth in 2018 since voluntary debt principal payments have no impact on actual economic activity) and the chance for NATO based Trojan horses to both extract profit and destroy Russian defense industry companies is absent.

Boo. Hoo. Poor master of the universe wannabes. Run home to mommy.

Butowski writes books. From the technical point of view very good books, but he has no idea about politics and economy. He copies that shit from western presstitutes or maybe he just wirtes it to please his puplisher. What I can tell from his books it that he relies on open sources.

verkhoturye51 wrote:

1) if you assume it has no propulsion and makes sharp turns

Missiles usually use propulsion to achieve certain speed and than maintain it. Propulsion is not used over the entire flight. The more extreme/more against the gravity the turns are, the more speed is lost.

1) not really going up is decreasing your kinetic but increasing potential one, the higher you fly the less adiabatic compression affects you to dissipate energy.

2) who maneuvering has to be extreme. You just use gas rudders to deviate couple of degrees and that's enough.

3) Perhaps going down to from 30-50km could require shper maneuvering but then your kinetic energy's rather increasing.

V51 wrote:
Kinzhal has a flight ceiling of 20 km, which is theoretically interceptable for SM-6 with 33 km ceiling.

who said 20km not 30 or 40 or 50? MoD?

V51 wrote:

Never wondered   why 30 Tu-30m3m re modernized for?

Since Kinzhals can be launched either from Migs either from Tu-22M, it demonstrates very nicely the trade off between range and speed. In a first strike scenario you would use Tupolevs and try to send to bottom as much as you can. But when you get news that your ships are being attacked you send a Mig to intervene asap. Different missions require different aircraft. I'm trying to say, what happens if you have more than one vessel attacking. There's certainly a limitation of how many Migs are rapidly deployable. So having 1 - 2 warheads r 3 - 6 warheads can make the difference.

it does, tht's why Tus are being modernized to keep CSGs a bay.  MiGs can also fly in squadrons right?

V51 wrote:

every Russian ship which could carry a Calibr cruise missile can carry a Zircon

Since Kuznetsov has a capability of carrying Yak-38 can't wait to see them Yaks take of the deck once ship back operational.

[/quote]

They actually will, but not Yak family.  All OAK design bureaus are involved to build new VSTOL fighter.

MAKS is coming, isn´t it?

By the way, SM-6 is used against planes and cruise missiles. Its top speed is M3,5.

1) not really going up is decreasing your kinetic but increasing potential one, the higher you fly the less adiabatic compression affects you to dissipate energy.

Moving towards less dense air doesn't keep the speed constant. Only the acceleration is negative - the speed is decreasing more and more slowly. But moving at the same altitude (especially at 20 km) is keeping it virtually constant.

2) who maneuvering has to be extreme. You just use gas rudders to deviate couple of degrees and that's enough.

Putin's presentation video from last March shows missiles moving in quite big circles to avoid detection. The actual trajectory will probably depend on many factors, like radar positions etc. Anyway smoothing the trajectory could be a way of increasing the speed.

who said 20km not 30 or 40 or 50? MoD?

All the sources say 20 km...there's no other info.

it does, tht's why Tus are being modernized to keep CSGs a bay.  MiGs can also fly in squadrons right?

Still every aircraft will shoot its Kinzhal at a certain time and location and it will move at its own trajectory. So ship's defence will be able to focus its full attention to every single missile, one by one. Several warheads and decoys increase the chance of hit to almost 100 %.

They actually will, but not Yak family.  All OAK design bureaus are involved to build new VSTOL fighter.

Thank you!  
Btw they talked about VSTOL version of Su-57, so it shouldn't be new from scratch. Electronics should remain the same at least, and this jet is a flying computer.

By the way, SM-6 is used against planes and cruise missiles. Its top speed is M3,5.

In the beginning of last year they announced plans to install larger 21 inch engine for SM-6 to allow for greater speed. Since Mk 41 VLS diameter is limited, it will be interesting to see if it they manage to prevent decrease in range. Perhaps substituting rocket boosters with scramjet could be a solution.

In some what related news....everyone's beloved F-22 Craptor Wunder-Waffle!

In the US Air Force found problems with the F-22



The first difficulties with the F-22 began in the process of their service. The system of these fighters is more complicated than most of the aircraft represented in the American armed forces. Repair specialists of this high class are not enough, and the fighters are idle for a long time.

In addition, squadrons of F-22 regularly take part in foreign missions. As a result, there are never enough Raptors ready for departure on the territory of the States - pilots can neither perform combat tasks nor train.

Usually the fighter wing in the US Air Force consists of 3 squadrons of 24 aircraft each. The wing of the F-22 consists of one or two squadrons, in each of which from 18 to 21 fighters.

In the case of foreign air missions, squadrons are divided into small units called Unit Type Codes (UTC) . The size of the F-22 units may vary: one of the UTC consists of 6 of the 21 squadron aircraft, almost 50% of the auxiliary equipment, 40% of the technical staff and 60% of the service personnel. The remaining fighters in the squadron simply no one to serve.

To some extent, this helps the Air Force to carry out the initiative to move to a new type of accommodation abroad - to deploy a large number of small fighter groups in different locations, rather than concentrate several large groups on air bases that are becoming more vulnerable. But in the case of the current organizational structure of the F-22 it does not work very well.

Obviously, the lack of fighters has affected the training process of pilots.

“An analysis conducted in 2016 showed that pilots in the F-22 squadron with 21 aircraft must train 270 days a year while at the home airbase to maintain their skills at the required level ,” the Accounting Chamber said.

"However, pilots often cannot do this, because the bases lack F-22 fighters. For example, one of the squadrons could not carry out training activities for four years in a row."

Despite the fact that theoretically it is possible to work out the training hours of the raid on other aircraft, pilots still do not have enough time to train, since they are often busy on daily duty.

In Alaska and the Hawaiian Islands, F-22 pilots are engaged in daily duty due to lack of personnel. Of course, being in the outfit, they can not leave to train.

The Court of Accounts recognizes that a significant number of Raptors are in a state of repair for a long time. Stealth coverage on the F-22 needs to be updated every 8-10 years, but now on most fighters their skin wears out earlier because there are not enough hangars with climate control systems at the airbases, and temperature and humidity variations have a bad effect airplanes.

According to the materials Telegram channel

"Brussels snitch"

https://vpk.name/news/255930_v_vvs_ssha_obnaruzhenyi_problemyi_s_f22.html

You see?! The Wunder-Waffles like Leo2's and F-22's need their climate-controlled safe spaces to function properly!

verkhoturye51 wrote:

1) not really going up is decreasing your kinetic but increasing potential one, the higher you fly the less adiabatic compression affects you to dissipate energy.

Moving towards less dense air doesn't keep the speed constant. Only the acceleration is negative - the speed is decreasing more and more slowly. But moving at the same altitude (especially at 20 km) is keeping it virtually constant.

AFAIK 99% mass of earth's atmosphere is below 50km. Flying gin very thin layers actually helps you to loose fraction to air compression and friction. So yes, you jump and dive

V51 wrote:2) who maneuvering has to be extreme. You just use gas rudders to deviate couple of degrees and that's enough.

Putin's presentation video from last March shows missiles moving in quite big circles to avoid detection. The actual trajectory will probably depend on many factors, like radar positions etc. Anyway smoothing the trajectory could be a way of increasing the speed.
[/quote]

I would not take Putin's presentation literally.  IT is more bout principle not radius or circle, ti is bout that trajectory cn be changed in flight. Couple of degrees is not 90 to loose large prt of kinetic energy. Of course good to calculate  that . Any volunteer?      

Same with height. Why not say loose form 50km to 40 to keep speed despite manouveing?

V51 wrote:

who said 20km not 30 or 40 or 50? MoD?

All the sources say 20 km...there's no other info.

Look like  analysts didnt think bout simple things.   Tu-22 with service ceiling 12km cn use:
Kh-22  - 22-27km,  Kh-32 - 40km.  ceiling 40 km not without the reason .  AAD envelope decreases rapidly. Why Kizhal would go lower?  especially if has no airbrething engine.  MiG can fly on 20km. But missile can go up of course.


BTW from Russian Kh-32 section:Means of breakthrough missile defense
Konstantin Sivkov[ who? ] believes that the X-32 has strong Aegis- class missile-penetration weapons , equipped with Standard Missile 6 missiles , because: [3] [2] :

A) The X-32 flies to a target with a ceiling of about 40 kilometers, which is 7 km higher than the height of the most advanced US missile defense system;

B) The speed of the X-32 is twice the maximum allowed speed of the SM-6 for aerodynamic purposes: 1500 vs. 800 meters per second;

C) The X-32 on the final stage attacks the target in a steep dive (the standard means of breaking the missile defense against many radars that do not include objects in their viewing angle directly above themselves);

D) Multi-frequency radar in X-32 has a high resistance to modern EW .

it does, tht's why Tus are being modernized to keep CSGs a bay.  MiGs can also fly in squadrons right?

Still every aircraft will shoot its Kinzhal at a certain time and location and it will move at its own trajectory. So ship's defence will be able to focus its full attention to every single missile, one by one. Several warheads and decoys increase the chance of hit to almost 100 %.
[/quote]

why decoys? you loose MiG to decoy carrier? did Orlans or Anteys use Granit without warheds?

V51 wrote:]

They actually will, but not Yak family.  All OAK design bureaus are involved to build new VSTOL fighter.

Thank you!  
Btw they talked about VSTOL version of Su-57, so it shouldn't be new from scratch. Electronics should remain the same at least, and this jet is a flying computer.

1) The program was started officially in 2018 in 2018-2027. On personal order of  V.V. Putn       .  
Borisov said conceptual works actually started in 207 tho.  

2) For "aircraft carrying ships " as were described in  Red Star naval AF  commander will be developed PAK KA ( "перспективный авиационный комплекс корабельной авиации") . In my IMHO this will be notorious VSTOL.

3)  redesigning  Su-57 V to VSTOL is not really feasible. Component unification of course would help to decrease time and progrmme cost.  Su-57 is already in STOL category . Perhaps making Su-57 extreme STOL ?      

I seriously doubt about  feasibility of such approach at all

Missiles usually use propulsion to achieve certain speed and than maintain it. Propulsion is not used over the entire flight. The more extreme/more against the gravity the turns are, the more speed is lost.

That is like saying during WWI when British soldiers stood up and walked slowly toward German trenches... it was OK... British artillery would have killed all the Germans so they just have to walk over there to occupy the empty trenches... they should have walked in perfectly straight lines because that would get them to the German lines faster... except the German machine guns liked big long lines of enemy troops lined up... shoot them from the side and butcher them in their millions...

An Iskander fired at a target that does not manouver will hit the target faster, but being a simple ballistic missile likely wont get to the target because it will more than likely get shot down. An Iskander that manouvers will hit the target at a lower speed, but the odds are very very high that it will indeed hit its target because it would not be easy to shoot down because of its speed but also because of its unpredictable flight path... if you don't know where it is going to be in 10 or 20 seconds time how can you launch missiles to be there when it gets there?

Kinzhal has a flight ceiling of 20 km, which is theoretically interceptable for SM-6 with 33 km ceiling.

Who said that?

Kinzhal is a hypersonic lifting body powered by a rocket motor launched from a MiG-31 as its primary platform that can operate at up to a ceiling of 20km... do you think a hypersonic missile could not climb any higher?

I'm trying to say, what happens if you have more than one vessel attacking. There's certainly a limitation of how many Migs are rapidly deployable. So having 1 - 2 warheads or 3 - 6 warheads can make the difference.

Think of an attacking carrier group... pick the biggest 4 ships... now imagine a flight of MiG-31s with one Kinzhal each... 1,800km accelerate to mach 2.6 or faster and launching a missile from 18-20km altitude... when the 4 biggest ships in the carrier group suddenly explode and sink... what sort of effect will that have on the task force?

Imagine the British task force to the Falklands... the Hermes and the Sheffield and the Atlantic conveyer and another ship sunk in one attack 1,500km away from Argentina... I am sure they would give orders for their SSN to get some revenge, but would they continue to sail towards the islands or would they cut their losses and run?

Especially knowing they had 50 missiles still ready to go...

Since Kuznetsov has a capability of carrying Yak-38 can't wait to see them Yaks take of the deck once ship back operational.

The point is that they don't have to wait for a new Cruiser to be built to carry them... the launch tubes are already in service and operational, so as quick as they can build them they can deploy them.

PAK-FA is a remarkably well managed program and Sukhoi in general seems to work quite OK.

The attitude seems to be if they are not mass producing it there must be something wrong... well based on that view the F35 must be brilliant and the F-22 an B-2 must be crap.

The more cautious practise of the Russians makes a lot of sense... the Su-35 is a very good aircraft and for the price I don't see any obvious reason to suddenly mass produce much more expensive Su-57s, that will carry less missiles.

Russia is not the US or the west and has never committed to replace all 4th gen fighters with F-35... even the west is reconsidering that concept itself where F35s offer no real advantage over an F15 in places like Syria...

Putin's presentation video from last March shows missiles moving in quite big circles to avoid detection. The actual trajectory will probably depend on many factors, like radar positions etc. Anyway smoothing the trajectory could be a way of increasing the speed.

That was the subsonic nuclear powered cruise missile... for a hypersonic missile those circles mean nothing because of the speed it is travelling at.

All the sources say 20 km...there's no other info.

Likely the operational altitude of the MiG-31 carrier aircraft...

Btw they talked about VSTOL version of Su-57, so it shouldn't be new from scratch. Electronics should remain the same at least, and this jet is a flying computer.

Not likely... too many changes needed to make it V... they might take the Su-57 basic design and change it for V purposes but I don't see the advantage of using a fighter designed for conventional flight to take off vertically....

Kh-22 - 22-27km, Kh-32 - 40km. ceiling 40 km not without the reason . AAD envelope decreases rapidly. Why Kizhal would go lower? especially if has no airbrething engine. MiG can fly on 20km. But missile can go up of course.

Kh-22M operates at 40km altitude to overfly Standard SAMs and Phoenix missiles from F14s.

why decoys? you loose MiG to decoy carrier? did Orlans or Anteys use Granit without warheds?

The Iskander has decoys and jammers built in to its design to improve its chances of penetrating enemy air defences... it is reasonable to assume they left them in the Kinzhal design to improve its chances of penetrating enemy air defences... now and in the near future...

GarryB wrote:

Kh-22  - 22-27km,  Kh-32 - 40km.  ceiling 40 km not without the reason .  AAD envelope decreases rapidly. Why Kizhal would go lower?  especially if has no airbrething engine.  MiG can fly on 20km. But missile can go up of course.

Kh-22M operates at 40km altitude to overfly Standard SAMs and Phoenix missiles from F14s.

no, Kh-32 does

no, Kh-32 does

Why would the Kh-32 be designed to avoid F-14s and Phoenix missiles.... there are none in service now...

He meant the altitude in which the missile travels: Kh-22 20km, Kh-32 40km.

The main reason for the Kh-32 to travel at this altitude is to maximize the range of its radar against his prefered prey: aircraft carriers.