LMFS wrote:76 are under contract and recently they said they would buy more, as it was clear in advance. This year it should be 4, next 4 again, then 7 then 12 per year, that is what we saw in a table visible during a MoD visit to KnAAZ. By 2022 the second stage should be ready for tests, those should be finished in 2024, as well as the modernization of the production line.
As to China, they have their 5G fighter already, I don't know if it makes any sense for Russia to sell of for China to buy.
BTW, the first serial production unit has already been delivered to GLITs...
76 is a pretty decent number to start with and then increase on that. The new production line should increase capacity by quite a bit. So 010 has been delivered already? Isn't that the one that had the mishap last year? If it was, and they were able to recondition it to full flying status and even make it the first delivered aircraft, that's pretty incredible and maybe it wasn't that bad of a "crash" like much of the media made it sound.
I shared the same view about China as you did. With their J-20 in full production mode and several aircraft in service already, you would think they wouldn't need the Su-57. But it's interesting to hear the opposite opinion by a few of the members. That's actually a difficult decision for Russia to make, considering how China has copied and done whatever it wanted with Russian aircraft. At least they made them by 20+ Su-35s for the engines they wanted. Showing some leverage is a good thing.
I wish they painted them in this scheme. This is my favorite one because of the uniqueness. It's totally Russian and more interesting than that digital pattern, but that's just me. I still don't understand how they applied RAM in their case. Is it applied as a clear coat after the paint? Or is it pre-mixed with these paint colors already? With the western fighters, it's pretty much understood that it's that shiny, grey metallic color they throw on the F-22 and F-35. But in this case with the Su-57, difficult to figure out how they applied it.
The other thing I've noticed for a while now on this aircraft that is some pretty neat and unique design features is how they've incorporated the horizontal stabilizers into the plains of the wings. How they cut into them at the corner of the flaps makes them kind of integrated as part of the wings. An all in one sort of feature that I don't think is seen on any other aircraft. If you take away the H-stabs, it leaves the wings with a very interesting pattern.
thegopnik wrote:The export Su-57s for all we know can be 1st stage only.
The phase 1 su 57 is a 5th gen fighter. A superior fighter in every way compared to any 4th gen. It would be different if it was bigger and heavier than a 4th gen like the J-20 is. Then you'd need to make up for it with a better engine. But it's the opposite. The su 57 is smaller and lighter with better aerodynamics and kinimatics.
Anyone who imports the phase 1 su 57 will have more plane than they can handle as it is.
Gomig-21 wrote:So 010 has been delivered already? Isn't that the one that had the mishap last year? If it was, and they were able to recondition it to full flying status and even make it the first delivered aircraft, that's pretty incredible and maybe it wasn't that bad of a "crash" like much of the media made it sound.
That one was lost, so the first VKS plane is actually the second serial unit produced at KnAAZ.
I shared the same view about China as you did. With their J-20 in full production mode and several aircraft in service already, you would think they wouldn't need the Su-57. But it's interesting to hear the opposite opinion by a few of the members. That's actually a difficult decision for Russia to make, considering how China has copied and done whatever it wanted with Russian aircraft. At least they made them by 20+ Su-35s for the engines they wanted. Showing some leverage is a good thing.
Of course China would be interested in analysing the Su-57 to be last bit, specially if id. 30 is included, and also for Russia it is good that a 5G fighter producing nation like China is still interested in their planes, specially if they pay a premium for them and buy a decent amount and not just one odd unit to disassemble it. But I very much doubt Russia would allow their last technology to be exported and it is also questionable that China would be interested in anything else than that...
I wish they painted them in this scheme. This is my favorite one because of the uniqueness. It's totally Russian and more interesting than that digital pattern, but that's just me. I still don't understand how they applied RAM in their case. Is it applied as a clear coat after the paint? Or is it pre-mixed with these paint colors already? With the western fighters, it's pretty much understood that it's that shiny, grey metallic color they throw on the F-22 and F-35. But in this case with the Su-57, difficult to figure out how they applied it.
The RAM is not a paint, is a coating with varying thicknesses, compositions and functions depending on the spot to be treated, sometimes it is RAS or structural RAM where the composites are already manufactured containing RF attenuating compounds. It takes on month to apply them on the Su-57, and the paint goes on top of them. So there is no relation between the colour of the plane and the RAM.
The other thing I've noticed for a while now on this aircraft that is some pretty neat and unique design features is how they've incorporated the horizontal stabilizers into the plains of the wings. How they cut into them at the corner of the flaps makes them kind of integrated as part of the wings. An all in one sort of feature that I don't think is seen on any other aircraft. If you take away the H-stabs, it leaves the wings with a very interesting pattern.
This is done to increase the lifting surface without making the plane bigger and to keep the aspect ratio of the wing as high as possible without increasing drag. It is exactly the same layout found in the F-22, BTW. It would be interesting analysing the influence of the wing on the tail in level flight and turning and how the plane's instability plays a role there, conventional planes of previous generation like F-15 and Su-27 all have the tails at a lower plane compared to the wing.
Thinking about the weapons bays of the Su-57 and how to maximize their carrying capability for AAM, I realize we have not commented the possibilities that a new multi-missile like MFRK-DP could have.
The fact is that the bays of the Su-57 are very deep, and using up that depth with medium range missiles of the current form factors and configuration can be problematic, even if it is eventually possible. But imagine a square section missile of dimensions 40x40x420 cm, where the rear 1.7 m is a booster (maybe ramjet?) and the forward 2.5 m are four missiles with triangular section and 2.5 m long, placed in parallel and arranged to form a square section shape. The missiles could fold three fins in a very compact way, parallel to the three sides, if I have the time I will do a drawing.
The first stage booster would send the whole missile up into very thin air and high speeds, when it was depleted, the four missiles could detach and follow their flight to their target(s).
There are MANY advantages of such an approach, so many that I just wonder why we did not discuss this before:
> The square shape uses the space available inside the bays optimally, like the Kh-69. That means more fuel, bigger range and bigger warheads ultimately. The extra cost is compensated because of the high value of the whole assembly, capable of hitting four targets. > The amount of potential long range kills inside the bays would amount to 16 (!) targets, 4 per multi-missile, 4 missiles in the internal bays in total > The presence of 4 smaller missiles per long-range multi-missile means that against difficult targets where pk is going to be intrinsically low, you have many more chances, this makes sense when confronting very advanced fighters of advanced kinematics / EW equipment /future self defence missiles/DEW and high military and economic value. In the future this may be in fact necessary because targets will be much harder to hit due to advanced self defence weapons. > Big targets can be reliably downed due to the four missiles increasing extent and likelihood of critical damages, > Multiple targets like CMs are optimally addressed due to the high number of kills in storage and independent, log range warheads, this can be actually critical against massive attacks > It enables to use the same missile against ISR/tankers, against fighters and against CMs and therefore makes loadout of the planes much simpler / allows the planes to tackle different missions in one sortie or even change them on the go. > Range can be optimized, since the first stage of the booster is spent taking the four smaller missiles to high speed and high altitude and then discarded, where a low thrust sustain engine can be used to keep speed for extended distances. This is an advantage compared to for instance R-37M, where the weight and bulk of the whole missile is going to be carried for the whole flight. > Kinematics for the end-game phase are also probably much better, since the engine in each second stage missile does not need to be even started upon release from the main body, the missile can coast and only engage engine when closer to the target. So it can be used either for very long range (final approach to target is coasting like current missiles) or for very high pk at closer ranges, leaving the ignition of the engine for the end game. This is not possible with current missiles with rocket engines that are started upon launch, depleted mostly during boost phase and then keep burning even in the best case, leaving no thrust for the terminal phase. > The triangular section of the second stage missiles would not only provide better lift and range / avoid the need for strakes, but would be also beneficial for reducing the RCS of the missile and making it more difficult for the opposing force to actively detect it before the terminal phase starts and the onboard seeker activates
So with this weapon the current high-load ejectors could be used without further complications, the bays' space would be maxed and the number of potential stored kills taken to a staggering number that no rival could match
GarryB wrote:I would think at the end of the day if four missiles are not enough then you probably need more planes.
They do have Su-35s and of course ground based S series SAMs from 300, 350, 400, and soon 500 series to support them too.
I don't know that I have ever read about a fighter aircraft getting 12 kills in one mission with AAMs.
In fact stories from Vietnam tended to be more like 8 missiles launched and one or no kills.
Low pk means more missiles are needed, so these 4 multi-missile would in the end (against advanced adversaries) mean 4 stored kills instead of 4 "non-kills" with current missiles...
But surely logic dictates that a low PK weapon is the problem and increasing the PK makes more sense than just carrying more missiles.
With its self defence suite and DIRCMS air combat between an American fighter and an Su-57 might come down to cannon fire... which I would think is to the advantage of the Su-57.
The performance of their ground launched anti aircraft missiles actually seems rather good... which also is a good thing for Russian Air Power that will likely be operating above that too.
GarryB wrote:But surely logic dictates that a low PK weapon is the problem and increasing the PK makes more sense than just carrying more missiles.
This is exactly what you get with the multi-missile, since you get four independent warheads on the target at the same time, possibly even from different directions. Self defence missiles are going to be deployed and you will need to overwhelm them somehow. And that has a second effect, that part of the payload and space used until now for BVR missiles will turn into space for self defence weapons, which means that you will have even less offensive payload available. So you need to optimize the use of the available internal volume on the bays, there is no way around this.
In any case, the amount of stored kills/salvos is a key parameter of a fighter, especially if it is a long range / long persistence air superiority platform like the Su-57, this is critical. Having such huge bays for just 4 MRAAM is a total waste as far as I see it, and I doubt the VKS and Sukhoi do not perceive that fact.
BTW I had not realized, but the fact that the engine in the smaller missiles can be started at the end of the engagement means that they could be steered with TVC instead or additionally to fins, one further advantage, they could be almost as agile as SRAAM in the endgame.
With its self defence suite and DIRCMS air combat between an American fighter and an Su-57 might come down to cannon fire... which I would think is to the advantage of the Su-57.
Maybe, that cannot be dismissed, but carrying just 150 rounds in the Russian fighters does not indicate they plan doing this routinely. In any case, missiles are using tactically to take away the initiative of the enemy, to break an offensive formation etc, so you indeed need as many of them onboard as possible.
The performance of their ground launched anti aircraft missiles actually seems rather good... which also is a good thing for Russian Air Power that will likely be operating above that too.
That can change relatively soon, too, if the self-defence missiles are deployed as planed. You will launch a very expensive 400 km range 40N6 and it may be intercepted by one or more cheap, very short range self defence ones. That is going to place a substantial burden on SAMs, even when it will also reduce the useful payload of attacking fighters.
I think the application of the multi-missile to the PAK-FA is simply extraordinary in its possibilities. One further detail that can be thought is that there can be some sleeve holding the four missiles together and shaping an intake for a ramjet or ducted rocket for the main engine. The reason this space exists in the first place is that the noses of those small missiles cannot form the pointy nose of the overall long range multi-missile, because it would demand them to be too curved to work properly. I know a drawing would be better than 1000 words, but I don't have anyone that can be published yet.
This is exactly what you get with the multi-missile, since you get four independent warheads on the target at the same time, possibly even from different directions.
I don't think you do. If one IIR guided missile is defeated by the targets DIRCMS, then there is a good chance the next five you launch will be defeated by the same system leading to a PK of zero... and the target wont be doing nothing while you are firing off all these missiles...
Newer missile technology changes things too, for example the Sparrow missile from the Vietnam era had a rather low PK of something like 4%.... well the evolved and upgraded Sparrow is currently used by the US Navy as the ESSM or something with all new digital systems and improved guidance etc and they seem to think that it is rather effective defending ships.
Obviously it got a bad rap because it was originally intended to hit bombers and heavy aircraft rather than manouverable small fighter aircraft so it would obviously be much better suited to hitting anti ship weapons of all types, but you have to acknowledge that missile technology and performance improvements are an unknown quantity.
The R-73 was always rated as being rather good and was seen as a bit of a benchmark through the 90s, but BVR missiles in general are not considered great against aware and capable targets. Even with unaware targets the AMRAAM had a PK of 40%, which is not that shabby, but not practical against peer enemies.
So you need to optimize the use of the available internal volume on the bays, there is no way around this.
An obviously solution was used on the American Hustler bomber... a super sonic bomber... obviously limited internal space, so it carried an enormous centreline pod containing a bomb load and extra fuel... the fuel was used up on the way to the target, the bombs were released and the pod was jettisonned and the plane returned home...
Perhaps a large centreline pod that totally fills the gap between the engines and contains fuel and conformal air to air missiles along its lower surface and also filled with several tons of extra fuel. Once empty and the weapons have been launched you can jettison it and you have large portion of fuel on board and full weapons...
Or you cycle 4th gen fighters with external weapons to launch at the enemy targets using your superior sensors and electronics while your own weapon bays are full of fuel to increase your effective time on station...
Or your S-70 drones could carry the weapons and act as refuelling drones to top you up before they go and land are refuel and rearm...
In any case, the amount of stored kills/salvos is a key parameter of a fighter, especially if it is a long range / long persistence air superiority platform like the Su-57, this is critical. Having such huge bays for just 4 MRAAM is a total waste as far as I see it, and I doubt the VKS and Sukhoi do not perceive that fact.
I would think most of the time for long range use it would have 4 LRAAMs and might carry some on external weapon points along with weapons carried in supporting S-70s.
BTW I had not realized, but the fact that the engine in the smaller missiles can be started at the end of the engagement means that they could be steered with TVC instead or additionally to fins, one further advantage, they could be almost as agile as SRAAM in the endgame.
Yes, the R-77M is supposed to have a three stage rocket motor so attacking its target it will be powered. If they are getting rid of the gridfins then TVC nozzle would be needed to make that useful...
Maybe, that cannot be dismissed, but carrying just 150 rounds in the Russian fighters does not indicate they plan doing this routinely. In any case, missiles are using tactically to take away the initiative of the enemy, to break an offensive formation etc, so you indeed need as many of them onboard as possible.
With the precision of radar and EO systems for tracking targets in a dogfight along with precision gyros and accelerometers and laser range finder equipment, the Su-57 would be even better than the MiG-29 and the MiG-29 is deadly in air to air cannon combat...
The ballistics of the weapon are calculated in real time so the pilot with the target marked will manouver to put his aim point over the target. When the system calculates the target is line up for the kill it will fire a controlled burst. During testing against all sorts of target the gun would shut down after 4-5 rounds had been fired and the targets were being destroyed. It was famously mentioned by a designer that had they known the gun would be so accurate and effective that they would have reduced the number of rounds to half (75).
If the Su-57s system is as good that means 150 round should be enough for about 30 targets of the fighter type and lighter.
That can change relatively soon, too, if the self-defence missiles are deployed as planed. You will launch a very expensive 400 km range 40N6 and it may be intercepted by one or more cheap, very short range self defence ones. That is going to place a substantial burden on SAMs, even when it will also reduce the useful payload of attacking fighters.
Do you think Russian plans for R-37M type missiles with a single launch a cruise motor and multiple terminal missiles to engage multiple targets at long range with just one missile is only for AAMs?
We have already seen four Pantsir missiles to a missile tube for small light short range target drones, and the S-350 were mounted four to a tube on the S-400 system and are replacing obsolete S-300 systems, where former TELs with four missiles are replaced by TELs that can carry 12 S-350 9M96 missiles or 48 9M100 missiles.
Considering the 9M100 is a lock on after launch two way data link IIR guided missile that fits four missiles into a single 9M96 tube where one model has a 60km range and the other a 150km range... could it be possible to combine them and have four 9M100 missiles sitting on the biggest 9M96 missile motor in a 9M96 missile tube that can be launched to 120-140km range and then engage four different separate targets... those 9M100 missiles wont be released at ground level at 120 or 140km... they will likely be on a lofted trajectory so at 30km altitude at maybe mach 3-4 they will be released to look for and lock on to four different targets....
I think the application of the multi-missile to the PAK-FA is simply extraordinary in its possibilities. One further detail that can be thought is that there can be some sleeve holding the four missiles together and shaping an intake for a ramjet or ducted rocket for the main engine. The reason this space exists in the first place is that the noses of those small missiles cannot form the pointy nose of the overall long range multi-missile, because it would demand them to be too curved to work properly. I know a drawing would be better than 1000 words, but I don't have anyone that can be published yet.
That would be interesting, but imagine the long range missile has a circle of 5 or 6 long thin missiles like MANPADS wrapped around it... sunk in semi conformally and can be ejected sideways in flight... the core missile can have a pointy nose with an IIR sensor that is looking for targets during the entire flight and as it spots targets it can eject one missile to fall and intercept that target using its own IIR seeker and datalink... the long range missile will be flying very high and very fast already so these MANPAD like missiles really don't need a lot of fuel... just low energy long burn sustainer rocket motors and larger glide fins to steer down from altitude to swoop on the target from above... most missile defence systems don't look vertically up or vertically down...
The core missile having its own guidance means you can crash that into a large slow target like an AWACS or JSTARS or even a B-2 or inflight refuelling platform...
Rocket ejectors could deploy the mini missiles but pneumatic arms that spring out and then retract could be used in the terminal phase to deploy like those sword blades on that US assassin Hellfire missile they have to rip a huge hole in the target plane along with a fragmenting high speed missile...
LMFS wrote: This is exactly what you get with the multi-missile, since you get four independent warheads on the target at the same time, possibly even from different directions. Self defence missiles are going to be deployed and you will need to overwhelm them somehow. And that has a second effect, that part of the payload and space used until now for BVR missiles will turn into space for self defence weapons, which means that you will have even less offensive payload available. So you need to optimize the use of the available internal volume on the bays, there is no way around this.
The mathematics of multiple round missile engagements are unambiguous - the size of a missile salvo launched is a stronger driver of success than the actual kill probability of the individual missiles.
That's one reason why Flankers were equipped to carry between 8 and 12 BVR missiles. So that they can fire more than 1, 3 or 4 round BVR missile salvo during the opening phases of an engagement. In this fashion the aircraft being targeted has a difficult problem as it must jam, decoy and/or outmanoeuvre three or four tightly spaced inbound missiles.
Fighters almost never fire enormous salvos of missiles.
The Soviets were an exception in the sense that they often trained to launch two missiles to improve PK by launching an IR guided and a SARH guided missile.
The main problem there is that it often costs you any range advantage because the IR missiles need a lock before launch and by the time you get an IR missile lock the enemy aircraft will be very very close
Of course with their interceptors being directed to intercept enemy aircraft they would often be vectored to attack them from behind which greatly extends the effective range of IR guided missiles while a retreating target is actually a much harder target for a radar guided missile.
During the cold war late model Soviet aircraft would generally have a choice of BVR missiles to launch at a hostile aircraft... usually IR, SARH and sometimes passive radar homing (ARH), where the SARH and IR homing missiles will be launched at targets while aircraft that return fire with SARH can be attacked with ARH missiles.
Flankers were equipped for large numbers of AAM because one of their roles is bomber escort so they might need to fight off waves of enemy fighter aircraft.
Their other role of long range fighter means their operational base might be a good distance away so for combat persistence they carry extra missiles.
In actual fact their normal payload would be 6 heavy BVR missiles like the R-27E series and four R-73 WVR dogfight missiles and two wing tip self defence pods.
GarryB wrote:With its self defence suite and DIRCMS air combat between an American fighter and an Su-57 might come down to cannon fire... which I would think is to the advantage of the Su-57.
Well in terms of maneuvers yes, but not so mutch when it runs out of its few 30mm rounds.
GarryB wrote:I don't think you do. If one IIR guided missile is defeated by the targets DIRCMS, then there is a good chance the next five you launch will be defeated by the same system leading to a PK of zero... and the target wont be doing nothing while you are firing off all these missiles...
I don't know what DIRCM has to do with radar guided missiles, but I assume you mean any kind of countermeasures. The four missiles are reaching the target at the same time, complicating very seriously to fool all of them. One can be using the ARH, other can be homing on jam, this is exactly the same VKS does now with 2-3 strong salvos and possibly different seekers as R-27 allows. The salvo principle applies and will continue applying as with any other defended target. You cannot count on having a total technological superiority to get 100% pk against your rival, the same way VMF planned to overcome the AD of USN with stronger salvos, not by refusing to launch any missile at all...
but you have to acknowledge that missile technology and performance improvements are an unknown quantity.
Sure, and that is the reason why you need a serious magazine depth, because you don't know what the ultimate pk of your missiles is going to be...
The R-73 was always rated as being rather good and was seen as a bit of a benchmark through the 90s, but BVR missiles in general are not considered great against aware and capable targets. Even with unaware targets the AMRAAM had a PK of 40%, which is not that shabby, but not practical against peer enemies.
Yes, because at long ranges they are kinematically easy to defeat by anything but an unaware target. This multimissile in contrast can preserve the thrust for the endgame, raising even more its pk
This helps notably with both magazine depth and pk at the same time, I don't know what problem you can find in this proposal
An obviously solution was used on the American Hustler bomber... a super sonic bomber... obviously limited internal space, so it carried an enormous centreline pod containing a bomb load and extra fuel... the fuel was used up on the way to the target, the bombs were released and the pod was jettisonned and the plane returned home...
That is terribly inflexible strategy for a fighter that nobody is applying. Why should it be better than making a smart layout for internal bays and the corresponding weapons? The PAK-FA is an equivalent to the Flanker with internal weapons but it is not bigger...
Perhaps a large centreline pod that totally fills the gap between the engines and contains fuel and conformal air to air missiles along its lower surface and also filled with several tons of extra fuel. Once empty and the weapons have been launched you can jettison it and you have large portion of fuel on board and full weapons...
Or you cycle 4th gen fighters with external weapons to launch at the enemy targets using your superior sensors and electronics while your own weapon bays are full of fuel to increase your effective time on station...
Or your S-70 drones could carry the weapons and act as refuelling drones to top you up before they go and land are refuel and rearm...
Anything but using the plane as it is?
I would think most of the time for long range use it would have 4 LRAAMs and might carry some on external weapon points along with weapons carried in supporting S-70s.
The point is making the most of the plane with low RCS and intact aero, not to saddle the design forcing it to carry external storages. And S-70 is not going to do the job of the Su-57 in A2A, it can support and self defend to a certain extent but the air superiority asset is the -57.
With the precision of radar and EO systems for tracking targets in a dogfight along with precision gyros and accelerometers and laser range finder equipment, the Su-57 would be even better than the MiG-29 and the MiG-29 is deadly in air to air cannon combat...
Those guns fire an insane amount of rounds per second, in terms of firing time and stored salvos they are pretty limited. I know the targeting is very good but still they carry missiles, also WVR ones.
Do you think Russian plans for R-37M type missiles with a single launch a cruise motor and multiple terminal missiles to engage multiple targets at long range with just one missile is only for AAMs?
It would apply very well to SAMs too, sure...
That would be interesting, but imagine the long range missile has a circle of 5 or 6 long thin missiles like MANPADS wrapped around it... sunk in semi conformally and can be ejected sideways in flight... the core missile can have a pointy nose with an IIR sensor that is looking for targets during the entire flight and as it spots targets it can eject one missile to fall and intercept that target using its own IIR seeker and datalink... the long range missile will be flying very high and very fast already so these MANPAD like missiles really don't need a lot of fuel... just low energy long burn sustainer rocket motors and larger glide fins to steer down from altitude to swoop on the target from above... most missile defence systems don't look vertically up or vertically down...
Of course, that is one step beyond, where the core missile is almost an UCAV. In the case above there is no core missile, just a booster.
Fighters almost never fire enormous salvos of missiles.
On the one hand we talk about the low pk of "miss-iles" as you call them, but now we say fighters do not need to carry many of them... obviously the amount of stored kills or salvos is a fundamental parameter of a fighter, sorry, there is no way around this, for the reasons given above. The same way you try to drive your pk upwards the enemy tries to make it lower, so the brute force approach of carrying many missiles still applies. And then as said, the further demand of carrying self defence missiles leaves even less space for even more offensive missiles that will be needed to overwhelm the enemy defences...
GarryB wrote:Yes, the R-77M is supposed to have a three stage rocket motor so attacking its target it will be powered. If they are getting rid of the gridfins then TVC nozzle would be needed to make that useful...
Three stage rocket sounds promising. Given the small size of air to air missiles they cannot be designed as hypersonic missiles anytime soon. Unless of course the size of a ramjet/scramjet can be brought down drastically.
IR homing missiles are good but you need to get close to fire these missiles. BVR shots with IR missiles is not possible.
Perhaps a satellite guided air to air missile can be developed that can be fired from BVR.
GarryB wrote:Yes, the R-77M is supposed to have a three stage rocket motor so attacking its target it will be powered. If they are getting rid of the gridfins then TVC nozzle would be needed to make that useful...
Three stage rocket sounds promising. Given the small size of air to air missiles they cannot be designed as hypersonic missiles anytime soon. Unless of course the size of a ramjet/scramjet can be brought down drastically.
IR homing missiles are good but you need to get close to fire these missiles. BVR shots with IR missiles is not possible.
Perhaps a satellite guided air to air missile can be developed that can be fired from BVR.
Actually new missiles will be IIR which instead of tracking a heat source will track the aircraft by recognizing its shapes just like you smartphone recognizes your face on pictures.
And you don't need satelittes. Datalink with the missiles and tracking through radar. Same way as with active radar seaker missiles but this will be replaced by a lock after launch IIR seaker.
Well in terms of maneuvers yes, but not so mutch when it runs out of its few 30mm rounds.
Even when it has no ammo on board it can provide target data for any SAM operating in its vicinity... so you might not get hit by 30mm cannon shells or AAMs, but a nearby S-350 battery might loose off a missile from 120km away to hit you from behind based on target data from the Su-57 in front of you...
Or an S-70 operating with the Su-57 might start launching missiles...
Of course weapons and ammo is managed and aircraft cycled so they can maintain fuel and weapons during operations...
I don't know what DIRCM has to do with radar guided missiles, but I assume you mean any kind of countermeasures.
I clearly stated that DIRCMs were for IIR missiles, and there are digital jamming pods for radar guided missiles too which I assumed you know about... there are even towed decoy jammers...
The four missiles are reaching the target at the same time, complicating very seriously to fool all of them.
Are you suggesting all four missiles will follow slightly different flight profiles to arrive and start scanning for targets from different locations so that no matter what manouver the target takes there will be a missile lined up optimised to engage them?
The datalink for most missiles means that during flight to the target area updates on target speed and location can be sent so the one missile you do fire is in that ideal interception position when it starts looking for the target.
One can be using the ARH, other can be homing on jam,
Surely they can be the same missile... a missile equipped with a radar seeker should be able to passively detect and track an active jammer source, so launching one missile that starts scanning for targets... if the enemy start actively jamming it can switch to home on jam mode... why send an extra missile on the off chance they might start jamming?
this is exactly the same VKS does now with 2-3 strong salvos and possibly different seekers as R-27 allows.
There are essentially three types of R-27 seeker in use... IR, using the same very good seeker as used on the R-73 but with a wider field of view, the SARH model and the ARH model.
The IR model needs a lock before launch, and has no datalink. The SARH can be launched in the direction of the target flying on autopilot.... when it reaches a certain distance from the target the launch aircraft illuminates the target with a radar beam and the missile switches to SARH and chases down the target.
The ARH missile requires the launch aircraft to be targeted by an SARH illumination beam before launch because that is what it chases.
Standard procedure would be to be flown to an intercept point behind the target... lock the IR model of the R-27 and launch it, and then launch the SARH guided model. That way the IR model wont be distracted by having a rocket motor in front of it all the way to the target.
For the target to engage the launch aircraft with a SPARROW or SKYFLASH it would have to be facing the other way.
The ARH missile is mainly used for self defence rather than interception.
You cannot count on having a total technological superiority to get 100% pk against your rival
Of course not, and sometimes a kill is just luck... the target turned the wrong way...
But launching 4 missiles against one target is just wasteful and does not happen. Two at a time would be the most you would expect where each missile has a different guidance system.
If the target has already launched a Sparrow or Skyflash at you, your ARH model is bigger and faster and has better range and is totally fire and forget so you can fire your missile directly back at the target and then turn and climb and accelerate away... your missile is faster than his and your are free to manouver. He wont see your missile coming till it is too late because he is guiding his missile at your aircraft.
the same way VMF planned to overcome the AD of USN with stronger salvos, not by refusing to launch any missile at all...
That is different... most ships require multiple hits to ensure they sink... generally one good hit from an AAM will do the job most of the time because aircraft are fragile and the ground is hard.
Sure, and that is the reason why you need a serious magazine depth, because you don't know what the ultimate pk of your missiles is going to be...
You don't, but losing stealth to carry 6 extra missiles is a huge penalty in some situations. In places where stealth is not so important or even where it is there are non stealthy platforms that can act as bomb trucks or missile trucks and there are also ground based missile systems that can be used too.
The Hermes ground to ground missile has a 100km range and can be used against air targets. Improved missiles will have powered second stages to improve manouver performance and likely effective range.... having a few of these batteries sitting near borders could allow these missiles to be directed towards enemy air power, which would be something a stealth fighter should be rather good at... using its sensors to find targets for other platforms to engage.
Yes, because at long ranges they are kinematically easy to defeat by anything but an unaware target. This multimissile in contrast can preserve the thrust for the endgame, raising even more its pk
Except that as far as I know AMRAAM has never been used at extreme range... certainly nothing like the ranges claimed by fanboys, it always seems to have been launched inside its high probability kill range... 20-30km... really the border between WVR and BVR, and its performance is still pretty ordinary.
Certainly not the no escape zone some makers of missiles sometimes talk about.
The AIM-9X is particularly telling in that sense... its super IIR seeker was supposed to make it jam proof, yet an Su-22 evaded it in Syria...
That is terribly inflexible strategy for a fighter that nobody is applying. Why should it be better than making a smart layout for internal bays and the corresponding weapons?
Imagine a rectangular pod designed to fit between the nacceles of the Su-57... reaching up to just behind the front centre wheel and extending back perhaps even past the tail.
The rear end could contain 4-5 towed decoys and active jammers, which can be jettisoned when hit and destroyed and replaced in flight so you get 4-5 towed decoys in addition to any carried in the aircraft itself. The lower surface of the pod could have 5-6 R-77Ms semi recessed into the body... ejected downwards on launch... you could have perhaps three rows... so 15-18 medium range AAMs with side mounts for short range missiles... three each side, so 6 short range self defence missiles we well as the ones in the wing roots which can still be used. The volume of the pod above the semi conformally located missiles can carry 6,000 litres of fuel and the two main internal bays can carry some missiles too.
Or the lower pod could be used for the R-37M the way it is carried on the MiG-31M with four missiles side by side... three rows would be 12 missiles.
When the fuel and missiles are used up it can be released and folding wings can deploy and it can glide back to base... a small simple ramjet motor could be fitted and fuel left in the pod to allow it to fly back to base for refilling while the aircraft carrying it will likely have been launching at targets at standoff distance and therefore have all internal weapons still available and near full fuel...
The decoys for dealing with incoming enemy missiles and the standoff missiles and extra fuel for climbs and high altitude and high speed launches would suit the way the aircraft is used initially, while after the pod is released it will be better able to turn and burn and engage targets at closer range.
The PAK-FA is an equivalent to the Flanker with internal weapons but it is not bigger...
The pod offers a significant increase in fuel and armament without a radical increase in RCS.
With conformal missile locations drag and RCS will be kept minimised.
The point is making the most of the plane with low RCS and intact aero, not to saddle the design forcing it to carry external storages. And S-70 is not going to do the job of the Su-57 in A2A, it can support and self defend to a certain extent but the air superiority asset is the -57.
The S-70 can fly high and launch long range missiles all day long. It wont be ideal for turning fights, but that is what the Su-57 is there for... the S-70 can thin the numbers of enemy targets needing to be engaged by the Su-57, which is useful because there wont be enormous numbers of Su-57... but it will be operating over an IADS.
Those guns fire an insane amount of rounds per second, in terms of firing time and stored salvos they are pretty limited. I know the targeting is very good but still they carry missiles, also WVR ones.
The cannon is fully computer controlled on the MiG-29, and the computer would shut the gun off when it had determined enough rounds had been fired.
Essentially the pilot would lock the target aircraft and pull the trigger to fire the cannon. The IRST and radar would lock the target and using radar or laser rangefinder determine the precise distance and angular speeds and accelerations of the aircraft and the target. The computer would open fire with the gun when it calculated a hit was guaranteed, but would also shut the gun down when it had determined enough rounds had been fired or the target was no longer aligned.
The gun was firing bursts of 4-7 rounds per target (targets included enemy aircraft and cruise missile like targets). The targets were destroyed.
A designer said later if they had known the gun was going to be this effective and accurate they would have halved the number of rounds carried.
I believe the current model MiGs have 100 rounds instead of 150.
The laser is already there in the IRST EO system so for new aircraft laser fired air burst ammo become options too... to make every round count.
On the one hand we talk about the low pk of "miss-iles" as you call them, but now we say fighters do not need to carry many of them... obviously the amount of stored kills or salvos is a fundamental parameter of a fighter, sorry, there is no way around this, for the reasons given above. The same way you try to drive your pk upwards the enemy tries to make it lower, so the brute force approach of carrying many missiles still applies. And then as said, the further demand of carrying self defence missiles leaves even less space for even more offensive missiles that will be needed to overwhelm the enemy defences...
Ironically the idea of carrying lots of missiles really only makes sense if you intend to carry a lot of self defence missiles... because for a self defence missile its target is pretty dull and not particularly smart like a fighter is.
For instance the Russians should already have R-27 and R-27E versions of their ARMs for use against F-15s launching and illuminating targets for Sparrow missiles. Well the illumination beam from the F-15 is what it homes in on, but they don't carry Sparrows now, the carry AMRAAMs but AMRAAMs illuminate their own targets with a radar beam so those R-27 and R-27E model missiles could be launched at AMRAAMs illuminating your aircraft.
The Smaller lighter R-27 model would make more sense because the AMRAAM will light up its target at 5-10km range so having a 35km range makes little sense.
Perhaps the radar seeker used could be fitted to a much smaller missile like an R-60 and it could be used to defend the aircraft from enemy missiles...
A bundle of half a dozen might be carried connected to the self defence suite of the aircraft so that when the system detects it is being painted by an AMRAAMs radar one of these missiles could be automatically launched... perhaps with TVC to head in any direction on launch to intercept the incoming missile.
It wont need to worry about jamming or flares or the target missile trying to evade it...
Three stage rocket sounds promising. Given the small size of air to air missiles they cannot be designed as hypersonic missiles anytime soon. Unless of course the size of a ramjet/scramjet can be brought down drastically.
They can use scramjet engines on artillery shells... there is no need for them to be huge... just a modest speed of mach 5 or so would be fine... its advantage would be endurance and powered flight all the way to the target so it wont need lots of control surfaces, which reduces drag of course...
IR homing missiles are good but you need to get close to fire these missiles. BVR shots with IR missiles is not possible.
That is not true. There are lock on after launch missiles in development like the 9M100 missile... an IIR seeker can detect all sorts of targets and identify them by their shape.... it is totally passive so you could launch a missile like the R-37M with a 400km range to fly deep into enemy territory with its IIR seeker on scanning for targets. It wont be emitting energy like an active radar... and when it finds a target it might transmit the information to the launch aircraft and ask to engage... sending it a signal to attack and it could engage the target, or if it spots a stealth bomber B-2 or F-22 it might prioritise those itself.
You could launch a volley of 10-20 missiles towards an enemy airbase or aircraft carrier for instance and get a few fighters or helicopters or drones...
Perhaps a satellite guided air to air missile can be developed that can be fired from BVR.
Satellite uplink time is expensive and not widely available... a two way datalink should be fine.
The new Russian LMURS missile seems to have an IIR seeker and a two way datalink for lock on after launch engagement of ground targets.
GarryB wrote:Are you suggesting all four missiles will follow slightly different flight profiles to arrive and start scanning for targets from different locations so that no matter what manouver the target takes there will be a missile lined up optimised to engage them?
Yes that is a possibility. They can approach from directions where the most RCS return is expected, or cover a possible turning / change in altitude / use blind spots in the radar. Or one missile can initiate a pursuit while the other waits to see the outcome, once the plane has bled energy turning. It depends. But for high value targets (and a $100 million stealth fighter with a heavily trained pilot inside is definitely one) it makes sense to have a secured kill. If every sortie means four enemy less in the sky you can be pretty sure the fight is going to be brief.
The "wolf pack" technologies for cooperative engagement were developed long time ago and today they can be used by much smaller missiles. Considering planes rarely operate alone, you could use the same missile against two targets, with two warheads each.
The datalink for most missiles means that during flight to the target area updates on target speed and location can be sent so the one missile you do fire is in that ideal interception position when it starts looking for the target.
Yeah you complain about low pk but then don't see improvements to pk as necessary, I think I don't get you.
Surely they can be the same missile... a missile equipped with a radar seeker should be able to passively detect and track an active jammer source, so launching one missile that starts scanning for targets... if the enemy start actively jamming it can switch to home on jam mode... why send an extra missile on the off chance they might start jamming?
The catch is that if you are emitting you cannot know if you are receiving the echo of your emission or a smart form of deception. But if you are not emitting you will detect the jammer without problems.
There are essentially three types of R-27 seeker in use... IR, using the same very good seeker as used on the R-73 but with a wider field of view, the SARH model and the ARH model.
Yes, I know. The issue is that the salvo is used as a way of increasing the likelihood of taking down the enemy.
But launching 4 missiles against one target is just wasteful and does not happen. Two at a time would be the most you would expect where each missile has a different guidance system.
I am not sure at all of that, what I find wasteful is to launch BVRM just to "scare" the enemy to get them defensive due to ridiculously low pk, but one big expensive missile for an almost sure F-22 kill seems a very nice exchange to me. Even more if you take out / disassemble a whole wing of several fighters with one or two missiles from a stand-off range.
That is different... most ships require multiple hits to ensure they sink... generally one good hit from an AAM will do the job most of the time because aircraft are fragile and the ground is hard.
I doubt a Kh-22 (or Moskit or Oniks for that matter) needs many hits to score a mission kill. And steel is heavier than water so nature works on favour of the missiles in naval combat too. The issue is the AD needs to be overwhelmed and at least one missile needs to get through. Salvo size is the trivial way to manage the likelihood of an attack being successful, and it remains and will remain valid as far as pk lays between 0 and 1.
You don't, but losing stealth to carry 6 extra missiles is a huge penalty in some situations. In places where stealth is not so important or even where it is there are non stealthy platforms that can act as bomb trucks or missile trucks and there are also ground based missile systems that can be used too.
You see the Su-57 as a boutique plane and not as a substitute of the Su-27 so I understand what you mean, but I differ. The Su-57 can and should be developed in the way that it can take care of defending the Russian airspace and for that it will use its advantages, namely stealth and supercruise. Both are defeated with external stores. To develop such a plane and make its employment contingent on keeping the Flankers operational for the next n decades simply makes no sense. Especially when internal weapons can be developed that solve the existing needs.
The Hermes ground to ground missile has a 100km range and can be used against air targets. Improved missiles will have powered second stages to improve manouver performance and likely effective range.... having a few of these batteries sitting near borders could allow these missiles to be directed towards enemy air power, which would be something a stealth fighter should be rather good at... using its sensors to find targets for other platforms to engage.
First, you cannot fill Russia with SAMs, they already have more than anyone else and still they need the VKS. And second, are you expected to be limited to your territory, will not dare to go 200 km inside of the enemy air space because you are not covered? What way of trying t win a war is that?
Except that as far as I know AMRAAM has never been used at extreme range... certainly nothing like the ranges claimed by fanboys, it always seems to have been launched inside its high probability kill range... 20-30km... really the border between WVR and BVR, and its performance is still pretty ordinary.
Used with success, not often, true. That is why the multimissile with increased long range pk makes sense...
Imagine a rectangular pod designed to fit between the nacceles of the Su-57... reaching up to just behind the front centre wheel and extending back perhaps even past the tail.
The rear end could contain 4-5 towed decoys and active jammers, which can be jettisoned when hit and destroyed and replaced in flight so you get 4-5 towed decoys in addition to any carried in the aircraft itself. The lower surface of the pod could have 5-6 R-77Ms semi recessed into the body... ejected downwards on launch... you could have perhaps three rows... so 15-18 medium range AAMs with side mounts for short range missiles... three each side, so 6 short range self defence missiles we well as the ones in the wing roots which can still be used. The volume of the pod above the semi conformally located missiles can carry 6,000 litres of fuel and the two main internal bays can carry some missiles too.
Or the lower pod could be used for the R-37M the way it is carried on the MiG-31M with four missiles side by side... three rows would be 12 missiles.
When the fuel and missiles are used up it can be released and folding wings can deploy and it can glide back to base... a small simple ramjet motor could be fitted and fuel left in the pod to allow it to fly back to base for refilling while the aircraft carrying it will likely have been launching at targets at standoff distance and therefore have all internal weapons still available and near full fuel...
The decoys for dealing with incoming enemy missiles and the standoff missiles and extra fuel for climbs and high altitude and high speed launches would suit the way the aircraft is used initially, while after the pod is released it will be better able to turn and burn and engage targets at closer range.
Wow, by the way you describe it, the pod will practically carry the Su-57 and not the other way around, but the multimissile is supposed to be overkill. You have gone too far with this "dairy pig with wool that lays eggs" kind of invention
> CFTs are not droppable > No space in the given location for all what you say (unless you think of a zeppelin size pod) > Ruining aero > Massive weight > Massive complexity / cost alien tech way above that on the fighter > 18 MRAAM??
In general, why to create the Su-57 at all, when it is such a crap compared to the ramjet pod with 6 t fuel, decoys and 18 missiles??? The description seems like taken from an Iron Man film, basically.
The gun was firing bursts of 4-7 rounds per target (targets included enemy aircraft and cruise missile like targets). The targets were destroyed.
A designer said later if they had known the gun was going to be this effective and accurate they would have halved the number of rounds carried.
I believe the current model MiGs have 100 rounds instead of 150.
The laser is already there in the IRST EO system so for new aircraft laser fired air burst ammo become options too... to make every round count.
Great, no need for offensive missiles and no worries with incoming ones, shoot all down with the gun.
A bundle of half a dozen might be carried connected to the self defence suite of the aircraft so that when the system detects it is being painted by an AMRAAMs radar one of these missiles could be automatically launched... perhaps with TVC to head in any direction on launch to intercept the incoming missile.
It wont need to worry about jamming or flares or the target missile trying to evade it...
That is the idea. (I)IR will probably be used, incoming missiles at high M will be easy to see, plus datalink can help with initial cueing. LOAL is already a known technology.
Last edited by LMFS on Wed Jan 27, 2021 11:23 pm; edited 1 time in total
They can just put a radar reflector on the missile and track it with the radar with command orders in one way datalink. A bit like tor/pantsir systems.
Satelitte will the first items to be attacked/jamed in a war.
If your aircraft can't work alone it's will become useless pretty fast.
Is it possible that the RuAF will put some of its later Su-57 prototypes into service, similar to how they did with the Su-34? They need more aircraft for group training sessions. I wonder if by this time regular fighter pilots have flown them, not just creme of the crop test pilots.
BTW how is it possible for the first operational Su-57 to have crashed because of total control failure? this doesn't make sense. i thought these aircraft have a huge amount of system redundancies that prevents them from just dropping out of the sky.
Yes that is a possibility. They can approach from directions where the most RCS return is expected, or cover a possible turning / change in altitude / use blind spots in the radar. Or one missile can initiate a pursuit while the other waits to see the outcome, once the plane has bled energy turning. It depends. But for high value targets (and a $100 million stealth fighter with a heavily trained pilot inside is definitely one) it makes sense to have a secured kill. If every sortie means four enemy less in the sky you can be pretty sure the fight is going to be brief.
But you are doing the opposite of that you are firing four missiles at every target, so every sortie means you waste the entire current loadout of medium or long range air to air missiles carried by the Su-57 on the potential to kill one enemy fighter... and even then you have no secured anything... missiles can't wait... the missile either gets a kill or it does not.
The "wolf pack" technologies for cooperative engagement were developed long time ago and today they can be used by much smaller missiles. Considering planes rarely operate alone, you could use the same missile against two targets, with two warheads each.
So the enemy can just launch a drone, which your wolf pack is drawn to and attacks... an entire volley of missiles wasted.
Yeah you complain about low pk but then don't see improvements to pk as necessary, I think I don't get you.
You complain about low PK and then suggest planes fire off their entire load of air to air missiles at the first target they see in the hopes of getting a single kill.
Launching one missile will tell you if the target is well defended or not... a follow up missile could be required, or not, but launching what equates to your entire load of medium range missiles for most stealth fighters currently in service while still remaining stealthy doesn't sound like a great tactic... and it is not my opinion... most air forces fire missiles one at a time.
The catch is that if you are emitting you cannot know if you are receiving the echo of your emission or a smart form of deception. But if you are not emitting you will detect the jammer without problems.
If there is no emission there will be nothing to jam... if your ARH missile is not using its radar to find the target it wont hit anything and there will be no need to jam it. Home on Jam missiles have the home on jam option as a backup in case jamming renders their primary guidance ineffective... if the missile starts scanning close to the actual target and gets a lock even if a jammer starts emitting if the missile retains its lock and can still differentiate the target there is no need for home on jam alternatives... the missile should just continue and hit its target. If however the jammer blinds the missile then as a plan B the missile normally switches to hit the jammer it can now see instead of the target that it now can't see.
Launch two missiles and odds are the jammer will mean both missiles can only see the jammer... if the radar in the active radar homing missile is so amazing it can still see the target then you don't need the anti jammer missile because the jammer is probably a towed or expendable decoy that there is no value in destroying anyway.
What would be useful is a combined IIR and passive radar sensor that can detect a jammer but look around the jammer to see if there is a cable and an aircraft in front towing the jammer, because hitting that aircraft makes more sense that hitting the jammer because it will kill the aircraft and stop the jammer from being effective in one shot.
Yes, I know. The issue is that the salvo is used as a way of increasing the likelihood of taking down the enemy.
That is right, but the main reason it increases the likelihood of a kill is because a target aircraft who uses a radar jammer or chaff or flares or accelerates and manouvers in full AB... each of these responses is effective against one type of missile but often not both and manouvering to avoid the first reduces energy and makes the aircraft less well positioned to deal with the second missile that perhaps be arriving while the pilot is trying to recover.
I am not sure at all of that, what I find wasteful is to launch BVRM just to "scare" the enemy to get them defensive due to ridiculously low pk, but one big expensive missile for an almost sure F-22 kill seems a very nice exchange to me.
You think it is wasteful to launch one so your solution is to launch 4?
Enemy aircraft are threats... your job might involve protecting an area or target from enemy threat, so detecting an incoming aircraft and launching a long range air to air missile and forcing that target enemy aircraft to ditch its heavy air to ground weapons and manouver to evade your missile is essentially a mission kill.
A small group of enemy aircraft wouldn't know which was being targeted so they would all need to dump ordinance, meaning a mission kill most of the time... any follow up attack would now have to take into account an aware enemy with long range missiles, so some sort of high volume stand off weapon strike perhaps.
Even a chance of getting a kill on something as valuable as an F-22 is worth taking a long range shot, because at long range there wont be that much it can do in return to hurt you while it is AMRAAM armed at best.
Even more if you take out / disassemble a whole wing of several fighters with one or two missiles from a stand-off range.
Hang on, you have gone from launching four missiles at one target to one or two missiles taking down a whole wing of fighters...
I doubt a Kh-22 (or Moskit or Oniks for that matter) needs many hits to score a mission kill.
That is very true, but the air defences around a US aircraft carrier group are the strongest in the west and some of those missiles are expected to be intercepted or fooled by air defences. It is like the swarm concept... by working in a group they become more effective than they could ever be on their own.
In nature it also forces predators to work in groups too but the group of food animals is always enormous and the group of hunters is small or the hunters will starve.
A forest full of tigers means starvation.
And steel is heavier than water so nature works on favour of the missiles in naval combat too.
Steel is heavier than water, but ships are mostly empty space which is lighter than water.
The issue is the AD needs to be overwhelmed and at least one missile needs to get through. Salvo size is the trivial way to manage the likelihood of an attack being successful, and it remains and will remain valid as far as pk lays between 0 and 1.
Hypersonic manouvering missiles will have a much higher PK and might even be used singly against some targets in some situations, but the converse is true too, subsonic missiles used against a defence designed for much more formidable threats means no level of subsonic missile attack might be effective against some attacks because the number of missiles needed exceed the number that can be produced and the number that can be carried in to battle.
Hense talk of arsenal ships and the like.
When in actual fact upgrading the missiles to be more potent reduces the number needed to defeat the defences.
You see the Su-57 as a boutique plane and not as a substitute of the Su-27 so I understand what you mean, but I differ.
Russia can't afford and should not afford to buy 1,000 Su-57s and LMFSs so that their fighter air fleet is all stealthy...
The Su-57 can and should be developed in the way that it can take care of defending the Russian airspace and for that it will use its advantages, namely stealth and supercruise.
Integrating their fighter aircraft with their ground based SAM system there is no need for them to convert their stealth fighters to arsenal aircraft... even their S-70 show that it is intended for their stealth aircraft to remain stealthy and for other platforms to take risky missions and carry the extra weapons needed to get the job done.
Both are defeated with external stores. To develop such a plane and make its employment contingent on keeping the Flankers operational for the next n decades simply makes no sense. Especially when internal weapons can be developed that solve the existing needs.
Non stealthy fighters can carry larger numbers of weapons externally without problem and will be cheaper to operate, and you could even argue act as a deterrent... in the sense that they are like the red coloured red baron fighter plane... not hiding and not running away from the enemy.
Certainly operating over the most powerful IADS on the planet would also give them confidence, with HATO attempts to chip away that defence by attacking the edges leading to hypersonic nuclear strikes deep inside HATO territory where their non existent IADS makes them terribly vulnerable to any sort of attack.
First, you cannot fill Russia with SAMs, they already have more than anyone else and still they need the VKS.
The ground forces and their air forces and their navy already have plenty of their own air defence...
And second, are you expected to be limited to your territory, will not dare to go 200 km inside of the enemy air space because you are not covered?
The only reason to enter enemy airspace is to destroy something and a hypersonic missile can do that better than any fighter could any day.
What way of trying t win a war is that?
The enemy must be under no illusion that if they attack Russia they are dead... nothing says that like an Iskander strike to their main military HQ and government buildings.
That is why the multimissile with increased long range pk makes sense...
Does it? Now you are suggesting the long range multi missile is for increasing PK... I would suggest it is actually to allow a long range missile to take down more than just one target at a time after travelling all that way and burning all that energy to get there.
I really don't think the Russians plan to design a long range R-37M replacement with 6 terminal phase missiles so that it can hit one cruise missile target 6 times to ensure it takes it down.
> CFTs are not droppable
Currently used American CFTs are not droppable because they were not designed to be droppable.
> No space in the given location for all what you say (unless you think of a zeppelin size pod)
Conformal missile locations require half the width of the missiles loaded, which means these need to be nothing like the size of an airship... three times the thickness of a missile would have two and a half thicknesses of the missile internal volume for fuel... not thick at all but running 3/4ths the length of the aircraft from front wheel to tail means enormous volume for fuel and missiles.
> Ruining aero
For long range shots blunting a HATO cruise missile and stand off missile barrage intended to defeat your SAMs and fighter air missile resources it wont need to be dog fighting... and not every aircraft needs to be fitted with them.
> Massive weight
Huge excess energy from big powerful jet engines... and after fuel burned and missiles launched performance recovered and more internal missiles ready to use.
Once airborne and wheels retracted the glide wings could deploy to create lift if needed too.
> Massive complexity / cost alien tech way above that on the fighter
It is a large external pod for carrying extra weapons and fuel... there is nothing complicated or advanced on it...
> 18 MRAAM??
Why not?
The US equivalent plan was a C-130 that follows F-35s around carrying AAMs and stand off air to ground weapons...
In general, why to create the Su-57 at all, when it is such a crap compared to the ramjet pod with 6 t fuel, decoys and 18 missiles???
It is a simple way of adding fuel and weapons to an aircraft without destroying its stealth and manouverability when it needs it... when it needs it the pod can be dumped.
They are developing three different specialised external pods for the Su-34M to allow it to be used for specialised missions... why not do the same for a fighter...
Great, no need for offensive missiles and no worries with incoming ones, shoot all down with the gun.
Yeah, you sound like the Americans and British... missiles will destroy everything so we don't need a gun on a Phantom from the Americans... and from the British... missiles will do everything... we don't need guns in fighter planes... we don't even need the fighter planes... ground launched missiles will do everything.
Both were terribly wrong.
The gun is for when the self defence suite defeats all the missiles and the enemy aircraft has to get close because all they have left is their gun.
If you don't have a gun then you are reduced to ramming the target, which was once a Soviet technique when there was no ammo left but still enemy bombers attacking your country.
A satellite guided missile will be impervious to any jamming.
Hard to say because I actually don't know of any operational or planned satellite guided missile or weapon... except GPS/GLONASS guided bombs and missiles and they can certainly be jammed...
Russia already has a dense satellite network. Uplinking should not be expensive. Moreover, cost of launching satellites has nosedived in recent years.
Satellites are not an ideal way of detecting individual targets on a battlefield... if you want to track ships they are OK, but would be useless against planes and drones and things.
Is it possible that the RuAF will put some of its later Su-57 prototypes into service, similar to how they did with the Su-34?
Hard to say... they might just produce all new aircraft, and keep the late model prototypes for testing new stuff.
They need more aircraft for group training sessions. I wonder if by this time regular fighter pilots have flown them, not just creme of the crop test pilots.
I would think there would be competition to fly the new bird... but flight simulators should enable most pilots to have a go... to at least get a taste.
BTW how is it possible for the first operational Su-57 to have crashed because of total control failure? this doesn't make sense. i thought these aircraft have a huge amount of system redundancies that prevents them from just dropping out of the sky.
Cause brand new planes are the safest planes out there...
Big_Gazza, Backman and Rasisuki Nebia like this post
GarryB wrote:But you are doing the opposite of that you are firing four missiles at every target
No, you carry four multimissile with four independent warheads each. You have the flexibility to use them either one multimissile per target, in case it is very difficult or well protected, to increase pk, or one warhead per target, in case it is easier. Combinations of both are possible too.
The obvious advantage is that you have 4 times as many stored kills as in the current configuration (!)
missiles can't wait... the missile either gets a kill or it does not.
Well, these actually can, since their rocket engine is not started upon launch. Once the multiple warheads detach, they can continue to coast until it is determined that the best moment for starting their own engine has been reached.
So the enemy can just launch a drone, which your wolf pack is drawn to and attacks... an entire volley of missiles wasted.
The only way to avoid that is not launching any missile at all, a wining strategy indeed.
You complain about low PK and then suggest planes fire off their entire load of air to air missiles at the first target they see in the hopes of getting a single kill.
Not the whole load but 1/4 of it, just like currently, with the difference of getting massively higher pk at way longer ranges... what a crazy idea
Launching one missile will tell you if the target is well defended or not... a follow up missile could be required, or not, but launching what equates to your entire load of medium range missiles for most stealth fighters currently in service while still remaining stealthy doesn't sound like a great tactic
That is given by the low pk of current MRAAM, and in your case you would simply waste 1/2 of the load of the fighter just to test the waters. Not a great tactic indeed.
... and it is not my opinion... most air forces fire missiles one at a time.
No, VKS has a tradition of using salvos, because they actually want the enemy killed
If there is no emission there will be nothing to jam... if your ARH missile is not using its radar to find the target it wont hit anything and there will be no need to jam it.
We are supposing that you actually want to hit the target aren't we?
Launch two missiles and odds are the jammer will mean both missiles can only see the jammer... if the radar in the active radar homing missile is so amazing it can still see the target then you don't need the anti jammer missile because the jammer is probably a towed or expendable decoy that there is no value in destroying anyway.
Long explanation for not finding nothing of worth against having two missiles complementing each other.
That is right, but the main reason it increases the likelihood of a kill is because a target aircraft who uses a radar jammer or chaff or flares or accelerates and manouvers in full AB... each of these responses is effective against one type of missile but often not both and manouvering to avoid the first reduces energy and makes the aircraft less well positioned to deal with the second missile that perhaps be arriving while the pilot is trying to recover.
Yes I knew the salvo works, that is my position form the beginning.
You think it is wasteful to launch one so your solution is to launch 4?
Yes, it is wasteful to launch one to not hit anything while the enemy is in range and can kill you, while launching a bigger one for an almost sure stand-off kill makes complete sense.
Enemy aircraft are threats... your job might involve protecting an area or target from enemy threat, so detecting an incoming aircraft and launching a long range air to air missile and forcing that target enemy aircraft to ditch its heavy air to ground weapons and manouver to evade your missile is essentially a mission kill.
Call me a bad person, but I would prefer that the bastard does not come back tomorrow...
As said above such tactics are demanded by low pk of current AAM. If your bays allow you for way bigger, longer range, higher pk weapons, only a retard would not try to make use of that and attack the enemy with high kill probability and while out of range, and go for either losing millions in "warning shots" or go to the merge where you can get easily killed.
Even a chance of getting a kill on something as valuable as an F-22 is worth taking a long range shot, because at long range there wont be that much it can do in return to hurt you while it is AMRAAM armed at best.
You talk as if Su-57 would only carry R-37M, while that missile does not fit the bays. Izd. 180 will have roughly the same range as AIM-120D so the chances you are attacked too are quite big actually.
A bigger longer ranged higher pk missile like the multiple warhead one would render the current US stealth fleet almost useless, since they don't have the bays to carry similar weapons and would need to carry them externally to avoid being shot down at stand-off ranges...
Hang on, you have gone from launching four missiles at one target to one or two missiles taking down a whole wing of fighters...
Four missiles no, the four warheads on one missile. They are independent, you can use them as it fits you best, one, two or more per target.
It is like the swarm concept... by working in a group they become more effective than they could ever be on their own.
You are making the case for the multimissile again
Steel is heavier than water, but ships are mostly empty space which is lighter than water
.
Depends on the amount of holes they have in the hull...
Hypersonic manouvering missiles will have a much higher PK and might even be used singly against some targets in some situations, but the converse is true too, subsonic missiles used against a defence designed for much more formidable threats means no level of subsonic missile attack might be effective against some attacks because the number of missiles needed exceed the number that can be produced and the number that can be carried in to battle.
Again making the case for the multiple warhead as a way of increasing pk... I am saying nothing different.
When in actual fact upgrading the missiles to be more potent reduces the number needed to defeat the defences.
I think you would like to have scramjet AAMs and therefore are rejecting the idea. I think scramjet AAM will be expensive when they are available, in the mean time I think a solution with more conventional technology is needed.
Russia can't afford and should not afford to buy 1,000 Su-57s and LMFSs so that their fighter air fleet is all stealthy...
When someone starts with "Russia can't afford", you know what follows is most probably unproven gut feelings at best. All planes today are "stealthy" in varying degrees since all have signature reduction measures. And that trend will only increase in the future.
Integrating their fighter aircraft with their ground based SAM system there is no need for them to convert their stealth fighters to arsenal aircraft...
They are no arsenal aircraft, just using the space that designers put in the bays
Non stealthy fighters can carry larger numbers of weapons externally without problem and will be cheaper to operate, and you could even argue act as a deterrent... in the sense that they are like the red coloured red baron fighter plane... not hiding and not running away from the enemy.
I proved before the amount of weapons a Su-57 can carry is roughly the same as Flankers...
The only reason to enter enemy airspace is to destroy something and a hypersonic missile can do that better than any fighter could any day.
Some hundreds of dedicated bombers and strike planes plus newly developed S-70 beg to differ. Hypersonic missiles are there to strike vital facilities and enable that strike aircraft do the job of actually hitting the bulk of enemy forces and infrastructure, you cannot shut down NATO with hypersonic missiles unless they are nuclear tipped.
Does it? Now you are suggesting the long range multi missile is for increasing PK...
I have been saying that from the beginning...
I would suggest it is actually to allow a long range missile to take down more than just one target at a time after travelling all that way and burning all that energy to get there.
That too, that is what happens with good ideas, they produce synergistic effects.
I really don't think the Russians plan to design a long range R-37M replacement with 6 terminal phase missiles so that it can hit one cruise missile target 6 times to ensure it takes it down.
They are indeed creating such missile and they will use the different warheads as needed depending on the target.
Sorry for not discussing the ultrapod further, but it does not make any sense to me.
Yeah, you sound like the Americans and British... missiles will destroy everything so we don't need a gun on a Phantom from the Americans... and from the British... missiles will do everything... we don't need guns in fighter planes... we don't even need the fighter planes... ground launched missiles will do everything.
No, I don't sound like that, because I defend the cannon must be there, and I know it is not fired on naked eye, but I see that 90% in volume and weight of the weaponry the plane carries are missiles and bombs. So the cannon is reserved for certain very specific engagements and as last resort weapon. What will happen when self defence weapons are deployed is an interesting topic indeed.
Home
Latest images
Register
Log in
LMFS
