Su-57 Stealth Fighter: News #7

Amazing. A decade of test flights. Not a single valid criticism against the RCS of the plane.
All of it is MK1 eye ball nonesense.

The rafale and hornet stuff is bafflingly stup. But i heared worse.

Isos wrote:Quality of manufacturing of serial build su-57 compare to prototypes. I guess they will have a nice surprise concerning the RCS.

Does the IRST have any shield or something, looks like a metalic cover?

What about the gun exit, have been any pic with it open?

GarryB wrote:Well you can have all sorts of definitions of a fighter... an interceptor is a type of fighter and does very little dogfighting, but shoots down enemy planes which is the core of what a fighter is for... were Hurricanes not fighters because they shot down bombers during the Battle of Britain, while the Spitfires focussed on the enemy fighters?

I actually think it is very clear what kind of plane is a fighter. High agility, speed and T/W, optimized for air combat. It needs to outperform all other aircraft types in terms of mobility, because it "preys" on them. A moving barrier composed of AAM carrying planes (i.e. Okhotnik) is useful to restrain the enemy but is vulnerable to enemy fighters. Hence why Su-57 is backing it.

A reduced size Iskander makes little sense... air or ground launched. A tactical Zircon might be interesting... much like the modifications of Brahmos they keep talking about for tactical fighters to carry in numbers...

Iskander is still the best tactical ballistic missile and Kinzhal essentially unstoppable and unmatched, I don't know what is so wrong with them. A highly supersonic Su-57 armed with 4 of those, with long range and covered with Russian EW, could wreck havoc in the enemy's strategic rear, even if the missiles are not scramjet powered. For the future they will be, but as of now I see no problem with a rocket powered weapon.

DerWolf wrote:
Does the IRST have any shield or something, looks like a metalic cover?
...

When not in use it's turned inwards and rear part with stealth cover is on the outside

I actually think it is very clear what kind of plane is a fighter.

Impressive, but what is clear to one person is not so clear to others...

High agility, speed and T/W, optimized for air combat.

So the F-35 is not a fighter because its design is not optimised for air combat?

How about the version of the Tornado optimised as an interceptor or F-4 Phantom... the early model with no gun?

It needs to outperform all other aircraft types in terms of mobility, because it "preys" on them.

Therefore there can only be one Fighter, or do you think all aircraft outperform other aircraft in different ways?

A moving barrier composed of AAM carrying planes (i.e. Okhotnik) is useful to restrain the enemy but is vulnerable to enemy fighters. Hence why Su-57 is backing it.

So a fighter by your definition is not vulnerable to enemy fighters... interesting.

But when the enemy launches a strike on your country with thousands of cruise missiles a fighter can be anything that can carry a Verba or R-73... and that would include drones and helicopters and indeed even lead in fighter trainers and a wide variety of aircraft including Su-25s and Su-34s and Su-30s etc etc that are not dedicated fighters.

When the target is a drone or a cruise missile exactly what level of dogfighting prowess is needed?

More importantly how many enemy missiles would get through if you only send up Su-57s to intercept them?


Aircraft are tools to do jobs and when an enemy fighter force is attacking with long range missiles like Meteor trying to thin Russian fighter numbers before closing in to engage them then having three or more S-70s per Su-57 and Su-35 that can shoot down those missiles and the next wave of shorter range missiles like AMRAAM is a valuable fighter that contributes to the fight.

Being able to direct ground based SAMS will also be useful too.

Iskander is still the best tactical ballistic missile and Kinzhal essentially unstoppable and unmatched, I don't know what is so wrong with them.

They are limited by their solid rocket propulsion systems and arms agreements that no longer apply.

A highly supersonic Su-57 armed with 4 of those, with long range and covered with Russian EW, could wreck havoc in the enemy's strategic rear, even if the missiles are not scramjet powered. For the future they will be, but as of now I see no problem with a rocket powered weapon.

What is wrong with them is that they would need enormous modifications to be even nearly considered for internal weapons carriage and that such dramatic revisions of size and shape could also encompass propulsion to improve range and speed and all round performance against a range of targets and different flight ranges.

What about the gun exit, have been any pic with it open?

Pretty normal for such things to open only during firing and for a few seconds afterwards to cool the gun and ensure all explosive gasses are purged from the system before closing again and restoring stealth levels.

There are clear differences in treatment. The one large piece upper body with (under) dielectric treatment of the joints is remarkable.

On the various forums (rightly) they point out that the two photos have a difference in optical resolution of shooting. And that therefore a 100% comparison would not be correct.

So (rightly) even the photos of the various F-22's we have seen since the 90's (with even less detail resolution) should not be considered for comparison.

A real journalist (or analyst) takes these things for granted. Otherwise (here in Italy) we say that you are a "Cazzaro".

GarryB wrote:Impressive, but what is clear to one person is not so clear to others...

That is always the case. Currently since the fighters have evolved into multi-role aircraft there can be some confusion, but the origin and intent of what is called a fighter is fairly clear, or should be.

So the F-35 is not a fighter because its design is not optimised for air combat?

It is a strike fighter per definition (JSF), so it is not as potent in the A2A role as other platforms. But it remains a +9/-3 g aircraft.

How about the version of the Tornado optimised as an interceptor or F-4 Phantom... the early model with no gun?

Interceptors and fighters are not exactly the same.

Therefore there can only be one Fighter, or do you think all aircraft outperform other aircraft in different ways?

I said aircraft types, like bombers, tankers, strike aircraft etc.

So a fighter by your definition is not vulnerable to enemy fighters... interesting.

It should have the same resources and chances the enemy fighter has, a subsonic low TWR platform does not fulfil that.

But when the enemy launches a strike on your country with thousands of cruise missiles a fighter can be anything that can carry a Verba or R-73... and that would include drones and helicopters and indeed even lead in fighter trainers and a wide variety of aircraft including Su-25s and Su-34s and Su-30s etc etc that are not dedicated fighters.

That would not be a fighter mission to start with... a soldier on the ground with a MANPADS is not a "fighter" either and will contribute in that situation.

When the target is a drone or a cruise missile exactly what level of dogfighting prowess is needed?

Yes, you don't need a fighter for that.

More importantly how many enemy missiles would get through if you only send up Su-57s to intercept them?

I find the Russian strategy quite ok, if only I think Sukhoi is trying to push as much as possible the roles of the Okhotnik, to displace other proposals from MiG, namely the light fighter, and other possible UCAV platforms, like SKAT or the one from Kronshtadt. They have a position to protect after all.

Aircraft are tools to do jobs and when an enemy fighter force is attacking with long range missiles like Meteor trying to thin Russian fighter numbers before closing in to engage them then having three or more S-70s per Su-57 and Su-35 that can shoot down those missiles and the next wave of shorter range missiles like AMRAAM is a valuable fighter that contributes to the fight.

US is also trying to use low cost UCAVs in that role to save their expensive and valuable manned fighters. But what will happen (and quite quickly I think) is obvious and is the same armaments race that happened with manned aircraft, in the sense that high performance platforms will de developed to counter the cheap, small and subsonic ones. Soon enough it will be clear that you need UCAVs with the same capabilities, if not more since they are not limited by the pilot, than manned fighters.

They are limited by their solid rocket propulsion systems and arms agreements that no longer apply.

They are also cheap and simple, and a small bay carried tactical missile should not be exceedingly expensive.

What is wrong with them is that they would need enormous modifications to be even nearly considered for internal weapons carriage and that such dramatic revisions of size and shape could also encompass propulsion to improve range and speed and all round performance against a range of targets and different flight ranges.

Scale them down, make guidance as small as possible based on existing experience and improved technology, smaller warhead, smaller range, maybe smaller max speed. That is, a fast, relatively easy job compared to making a bay carried Tsirkon. Which, again, will come. But the first step should not be that ambitious, you know Russians are very fond of progressing in small steps, and they are fully right on that.

It is a strike fighter per definition (JSF), so it is not as potent in the A2A role as other platforms. But it remains a +9/-3 g aircraft.

So now the g forces it can sustain make it a fighter... interesting... because it certainly passes your test regarding TW ratio but fails in terms of speed and manouver performance...

Interceptors and fighters are not exactly the same.

They are both used against enemy aircraft as opposed to ground targets or other roles like recon or jamming.

The problem is that modern aircraft are becoming omnirole aircraft...

It should have the same resources and chances the enemy fighter has, a subsonic low TWR platform does not fulfil that.

I would disagree... how often do dogfights take place at supersonic speed?

A T-38 is a subsonic low TWR platform and in the hands of expert pilots normally shamed rookies in much heavier much more powerful aircraft during Top Gun training...

That would not be a fighter mission to start with... a soldier on the ground with a MANPADS is not a "fighter" either and will contribute in that situation.

Of course it would be... or in your universe a large number of enemy platforms approaching your airspace... I guess you send out your bombers and transport planes perhaps?


Fighters on CAP would engage as many targets as they could and all available fighters would be loaded up with as many AAMs as they can carry to continue to deal with the incoming threats...

The fact that LIFT and CAS aircraft might also be used, well there is a reason the Su-25 is an odd number...

Yes, you don't need a fighter for that.

No, obviously you would send a guy on a bicycle...

When it was civilian airliners I believe they did send fighters... what would you suggest they send for a few cruise missiles mixed in... especially in the US which does not actually have any dedicated interceptors any more.

I find the Russian strategy quite ok, if only I think Sukhoi is trying to push as much as possible the roles of the Okhotnik, to displace other proposals from MiG, namely the light fighter, and other possible UCAV platforms, like SKAT or the one from Kronshtadt. They have a position to protect after all.

S-70 wont be replacing the cheaper light aircraft any time soon...

US is also trying to use low cost UCAVs in that role to save their expensive and valuable manned fighters.

The US does not know the meaning of the word low cost... and does everything they can to eliminate such words from their vocabulary.

But what will happen (and quite quickly I think) is obvious and is the same armaments race that happened with manned aircraft, in the sense that high performance platforms will de developed to counter the cheap, small and subsonic ones. Soon enough it will be clear that you need UCAVs with the same capabilities, if not more since they are not limited by the pilot, than manned fighters.

The west went for low flying and stealthy cruise missiles to bankrupt the Soviets and the Russians and that has not worked and resulted in a very well protected Russia and potent air defence systems that are leaking out to countries all round the world that undermines the wests ability to pillage and steal like it normally does. The western solution is ironically just a copy of what the Soviet Navy was doing in the mid 1970s with a mixture of high speed missiles that communicate and work together to defeat an aware and well defended target. The swarm. The problem is that the west can't make enough to create a swarm, and the real kick in the balls is that their air defence is atrophied and can't defend from ordinary subsonic cruise missiles let alone anything the Russians might be launching at them right now. The further kick in the nuts is that the Russias are still using swarm technology in their anti ship missiles so we are talking hypersonic anti ship and land attack swarms that will likely be rather affordable too.

They are also cheap and simple, and a small bay carried tactical missile should not be exceedingly expensive.

They have not got one and if they are going to the expense of modifying an existing missile to the available space it makes much more sense to make a scramjet powered missile with twice the flight speed.... and much better range, with ultimately lower costs because solid rocket fuel is not cheap.

Scale them down, make guidance as small as possible based on existing experience and improved technology, smaller warhead, smaller range, maybe smaller max speed. That is, a fast, relatively easy job compared to making a bay carried Tsirkon.

The complications and cost of scaling down a Zircon would be less than the problems and cost of scaling down an Iskander, but a scaled down Zircon would be much more use on land, at sea, and in the air. A scaled down Zircon will be faster and more useful and likely also cheaper and simpler.

But having said that it seems the Gzur is likely close to testing which will be a 4.2m long missile with mach 6 speed and 1,500km range that can be used by all sorts of aircraft in internal rotary launchers... guidance options would need to include against radar (ie ARM) as well as ground and air targets (ARH) and likely also with IIR sensors too (passive attacks).

In time Hermes will be added in teh form of a 100km + range missile with a ramjet or scramjet propulsion and manouver capability to evade enemy air defences to hit targets.

LMURS should also be useful in a similar role too.

GarryB wrote:So now the g forces it can sustain make it a fighter... interesting... because it certainly passes your test regarding TW ratio but fails in terms of speed and manouver performance..

Tell me of planes which are not fighters than can sustain such overloads...

Fails in terms of speed... compared to more powerful fighters. Vs any other type of plane it will be substantially faster and with much better acceleration. And I don't think the F-35 is specially poor in terms of maneuvering, the wing load is roughly the same of F-16, which is admittedly not superb but allows the plane to lose little speed when turning, it has very good nose pointing abilities and better AoA handling than any previous 4G US fighter. Maybe it is ultimately no match for a Su-35 or for a Su-57, but would crush any non-fighter type of plane, and most previous generations fighters too

They are both used against enemy aircraft as opposed to ground targets or other roles like recon or jamming.

You don't need me to discuss with you about the differences between fighters and interceptors...

I would disagree... how often do dogfights take place at supersonic speed?

Never. But it does not matter one bit. Fighters profit from high speed, acceleration, climb and maneouverability. A fighter vs. am Okhotnik would be able to shoot much sooner and turn away, remaining  safe unless disproportionately outgunned in terms of missile range. It would never need to come close to take down the Okhotnik, which would be equally easy given the big differences in TWR. Other parameters of the S-70 in terms of maneuvering look very questionable at best, like AoA capability or even worse, roll rate. We are still to see a subsonic flying wing strike platform carrying a gun, to put it briefly.

A T-38 is a subsonic low TWR platform and in the hands of expert pilots normally shamed rookies in much heavier much more powerful aircraft during Top Gun training...

Pointless comparison. A T-38 vs a proper fighter would be dead before knowing what is going on.

Of course it would be... or in your universe a large number of enemy platforms approaching your airspace... I guess you send out your bombers and transport planes perhaps?

Fighters on CAP would engage as many targets as they could and all available fighters would be loaded up with as many AAMs as they can carry to continue to deal with the incoming threats...

This is an interception mission where you have to take down incoming missiles, not one where you have to actually battle enemy fighters. The difference should be easy to spot.

No, obviously you would send a guy on a bicycle...

Of course, as far as he can carry a MANPADS with him  

When it was civilian airliners I believe they did send fighters... what would you suggest they send for a few cruise missiles mixed in... especially in the US which does not actually have any dedicated interceptors any more.

Easy, you send what you have, everything carrying AAMs or SAMs is useful in such situations. But fighters are shaped according to other purposes.

S-70 wont be replacing the cheaper light aircraft any time soon...

None of the planes I mention are cheap. The Su-34 is also not cheap. Okhotnik is composite built, with only one engine (and no A/B), subsonic, apparently simple in terms of sensors and without life support systems. MAture production should not be very expensive, it would not make sense that it is, being a strike platform for high risk missions.

The US does not know the meaning of the word low cost... and does everything they can to eliminate such words from their vocabulary.

At least they need to use those words at the beginning of the program when they have to dupe congressmen...

The west went for low flying and stealthy cruise missiles to bankrupt the Soviets and the Russians and that has not worked and resulted in a very well protected Russia and potent air defence systems that are leaking out to countries all round the world that undermines the wests ability to pillage and steal like it normally does.  The western solution is ironically just a copy of what the Soviet Navy was doing in the mid 1970s with a mixture of high speed missiles that communicate and work together to defeat an aware and well defended target. The swarm. The problem is that the west can't make enough to create a swarm, and the real kick in the balls is that their air defence is atrophied and can't defend from ordinary subsonic cruise missiles let alone anything the Russians might be launching at them right now. The further kick in the nuts is that the Russias are still using swarm technology in their anti ship missiles so we are talking hypersonic anti ship and land attack swarms that will likely be rather affordable too.

Too many kicks in the nuts I agree. Still my points stands, at first rudimentary UCAVs can do the trick ten years down the road all kinds of counter-UAV drones will exist, which will be much higher performance themselves. Unavoidable.

They have not got one and if they are going to the expense of modifying an existing missile to the available space it makes much more sense to make a scramjet powered missile with twice the flight speed.... and much better range, with ultimately lower costs because solid rocket fuel is not cheap.

I have no data about prices of scramjets, but given they are not yet operational, while hypersonic rockets have existed since the WWII, I would be ready to bet the second are the cheapest. Kinzhal is faster than Tsirkon for what we know. But we will see, I don't have any more info than yourself. What I am sure is that they will develop whole new families of supersonic and hypersonic missiles based on different technologies for different platforms and applications.

Tell me of planes which are not fighters than can sustain such overloads...

Aerobatic trainer aircraft.

it has very good nose pointing abilities and better AoA handling than any previous 4G US fighter. Maybe it is ultimately no match for a Su-35 or for a Su-57, but would crush any non-fighter type of plane, and most previous generations fighters too

Have not seen much footage of F-35s defeating US 4th gen fighters in air to air... there are only previous generation fighters in service except for two Su-57s.

A fighter vs. am Okhotnik would be able to shoot much sooner and turn away, remaining safe unless disproportionately outgunned in terms of missile range.

Based on what exactly? S-70 could be carrying new replacement missiles for the R-37M, which means no conventional fighter known could outrange it in air to air...

Pointless comparison. A T-38 vs a proper fighter would be dead before knowing what is going on.

In a heavy jamming environment an F-5 could kill almost any fighter if flown well.

This is an interception mission where you have to take down incoming missiles, not one where you have to actually battle enemy fighters. The difference should be easy to spot.

An enemy strike mission to attack a base or target you are defending means you have to stop the strike aircraft and defeat their stand off munitions too... the enemy fighters are something you will have to deal with too, but primary targets are the strike aircraft and launched standoff munitions.

You would try to avoid getting in to dogfights because with modern high off boresight AAMs that is suicide.

But fighters are shaped according to other purposes.

A fighter is an aircraft intended to deal with enemy air power and air threats.

Even the M-17 anti balloon "fighter".

Still my points stands, at first rudimentary UCAVs can do the trick ten years down the road all kinds of counter-UAV drones will exist, which will be much higher performance themselves. Unavoidable.

Lets delay final judgement till they actually have an autonomous system that works on its own... S-70 is intended to work with other platforms to help them do their job... it is not intended to be sent instead of an Su-57 for example.

I have no data about prices of scramjets, but given they are not yet operational, while hypersonic rockets have existed since the WWII, I would be ready to bet the second are the cheapest.

A ramjet is just a largely fixed tube shape that compresses incoming air where fuel is added and burned and expelled...

A scramjet is the same thing but the shape and design is optimised to allow the fuel to be burned in a supersonic airflow.

Precision of design and precision of manufacture... it could probably be mass produced on a 3D printer.

Kinzhal is faster than Tsirkon for what we know.

The ground launched Iskander weighs about 4.5 tons and when ground launched it has a flight range of less than 500km and a flight speed of mach 6 to mach 7...

The Zircon is probably less than 3 tons and has a flight range of over 1,000km at mach 10.

The Kinzhal only gets an enormous performance boost by being lifted to 18km altitude and being launched at mach 2.4... such a performance boost would not effect the Zircon quite so much because it can use its throttle to avoid wasting fuel and it can use its fuel much more efficiently.

What I am sure is that they will develop whole new families of supersonic and hypersonic missiles based on different technologies for different platforms and applications.

I agree they tend to keep families of missiles so despite the Onyx being rather similar to the Kh-22M they still made the Kh-32 which is a totally different design.

However scramjet propulsion is a breakthrough that will transform most missile technologies in Russia because of the engine efficiency of a motor you can throttle up or down or even shut down when needed makes it far more flexible than a solid rocket motor of fixed burning characteristics.

Multi stage rockets like terminal phase rocket motors for AAMs are clever but still not as efficient as air breathing jets.

GarryB wrote:Aerobatic trainer aircraft.

Aha...

Have not seen much footage of F-35s defeating US 4th gen fighters in air to air... there are only previous generation fighters in service except for two Su-57s.

Enough metrics are available to know the rough subsonic performance is more than decent. They more or less merged the AoA ability of the F-18 with the acceleration of the F-16, thanks to the F135 and low wing area. It is not a world beater but it is definitively a solid fighter in terms of manoeuvrability.

Based on what exactly? S-70 could be carrying new replacement missiles for the R-37M, which means no conventional fighter known could outrange it in air to air...

Any conventional fighter carrying the same missile, to make the comparison easy. Actually and given the extreme difference in terms of acceleration and max speed they could carry smaller and less expensive missiles and match a R-37M-like missile carried by a platform like Okhotnik. This is pure kinematics, not any big mystery. This is the reason why fighters did not get substituted by missile-loaded Jumbos.

An enemy strike mission to attack a base or target you are defending means you have to stop the strike aircraft and defeat their stand off munitions too... the enemy fighters are something you will have to deal with too, but primary targets are the strike aircraft and launched standoff munitions.

Of course, but you can't ignore the enemy's OCA missions destined to destroy you. So in the end, fighters evolve as a plane capable not only of downing defenceless targets but also dangerous peers with highest performance, be it in BVR or WVR combat. Those attributes define clearly the mission of the fighter and its characteristics.

You would try to avoid getting in to dogfights because with modern high off boresight AAMs that is suicide.

Yes and no. A fighter like Su-57 with DIRCM and superior manoeuvrability will always have advantages and shoot faster in short range combat than other planes.

Lets delay final judgement till they actually have an autonomous system that works on its own... S-70 is intended to work with other platforms to help them do their job... it is not intended to be sent instead of an Su-57 for example.

This applies even if they are remotely commanded, I am talking mainly about kinematics and armament.

A ramjet is just a largely fixed tube shape that compresses incoming air where fuel is added and burned and expelled...

A scramjet is the same thing but the shape and design is optimised to allow the fuel to be burned in a supersonic airflow.

Precision of design and precision of manufacture... it could probably be mass produced on a 3D printer.

And a Kinzhal is a big firecracker. If it was so simple, kids would be playing with scramjets long time ago. The new missile for the Su-57 bays may be a scramjet, they are hinting it may be air breathing. I don't have way of knowing, so I will just wait and see.

The Zircon is probably less than 3 tons and has a flight range of over 1,000km at mach 10.

Mach 9

The Kinzhal only gets an enormous performance boost by being lifted to 18km altitude and being launched at mach 2.4... such a performance boost would not effect the Zircon quite so much because it can use its throttle to avoid wasting fuel and it can use its fuel much more efficiently.

I assume an scramjet engine is more dependent on airflow speed than a rocket propelled one, so those 9 M may be the final speed the propulsion works at, and the first version of the GZUR was supposed to fly 6 M, which is marginally faster than a ramjet would be capable of. Kinzhal is 10 M from what we know. The point with a hypersonic missile like those the Su-57 could be carrying is that it will hit critical targets like important AD nodes, where the main attributes of the weapon are precision and ability to evade defences, not a massive warhead. So a 4.2 m long missile launched at high speed and altitude could still have significant range and effectiveness.

However scramjet propulsion is a breakthrough that will transform most missile technologies in Russia because of the engine efficiency of a motor you can throttle up or down or even shut down when needed makes it far more flexible than a solid rocket motor of fixed burning characteristics.

Yeah that is for sure, specially not needing to carry the oxidizer is a massive advantage.

Enough metrics are available to know the rough subsonic performance is more than decent. They more or less merged the AoA ability of the F-18 with the acceleration of the F-16, thanks to the F135 and low wing area. It is not a world beater but it is definitively a solid fighter in terms of manoeuvrability.

Which makes it obsolete compared with the better AoA performance of Russian and Soviet fighters... it puts the dog in dogfighter in a bad way.

A British pilot once described it as being supposed to be a 5th gen stealthy F-16, but what it actually is is a 5th gen not so stealthy Buccaneer... a good strike platform but not a fighter.

But then I am the one saying putting AAMs on an aircraft makes it a sort of fighter...

Any conventional fighter carrying the same missile, to make the comparison easy.

Not true at all... facing an S-70 the other conventional fighter is bigger and most often will have a bigger RCS... the F-35 does not carry this missile and neither does the F-22... the closest western equivalent would probably be a Rafale with meteor, which the S-70s missile will outrange.

The S-70 can launch its missile and turn 180 degrees... the enemy target will need to continue to close... perhaps using its speed advantage... to get close enough to launch its missile, but while the enemy fighter is slowly getting closer and closer to the S-70 in the hopes of launching an attack it is also accelerating towards a very high speed incoming missile the S-70 launched minutes ago...

Actually and given the extreme difference in terms of acceleration and max speed they could carry smaller and less expensive missiles and match a R-37M-like missile carried by a platform like Okhotnik. This is pure kinematics, not any big mystery.

Love how you make shit up... 300km flight range to hit a target in tests... which western equivalent can match that? And we are talking about the longer ranged replacement missile for that weapon...

Altitude is just as important as launch speed...

This is the reason why fighters did not get substituted by missile-loaded Jumbos.

You mean ego. No fighter pilot who has risen to run the air force will sign off on an Il-96M "fighter" variant with 30 long range AAMs, 50 medium range AAMs and 100 small self defence missiles...

So in the end, fighters evolve as a plane capable not only of downing defenceless targets but also dangerous peers with highest performance, be it in BVR or WVR combat. Those attributes define clearly the mission of the fighter and its characteristics.

Flight performance does not mean much in BVR roles... in fact altitude and actual flight speed mean more than anything else... missiles were expected to do everything so the first F-4s didn't even have guns.

Honestly these days the F-4 would be fine again if it had helmet mounted sights and R-73 missiles or there more modern equivalent...

Yes and no. A fighter like Su-57 with DIRCM and superior manoeuvrability will always have advantages and shoot faster in short range combat than other planes.

And do you think HATO forces will fight "fair" and line up one at a time to fight them one on one? The Sword fight in the Princess Bride springs to mind...

This applies even if they are remotely commanded, I am talking mainly about kinematics and armament.

But it is the kinematics and capabilities of the missiles that is more important.... I rather suspect the 7th fighter is going to be the upgraded A-60 with a 2 gigawatt laser able to destroy fighters and drones and missiles from hundreds of kms in a flash...

And a Kinzhal is a big firecracker.

The shell is just a heat resistant rocket.... the engine is not really very big at all...its power comes from its exhaust velocity which does not need to be reduced to subsonic speeds to burn the fuel so it can be much smaller than a conventional jet engine.... the scramjet on the nose of teh SA-5 missile tested in the 1990s was not that much bigger than about two large tins of paint...

If it was so simple, kids would be playing with scramjets long time ago.

Kids today have cellphones more powerful than all the computers that got us into the space age... but most of them can't even wash themselves regularly or cook a meal on their own.

The new missile for the Su-57 bays may be a scramjet, they are hinting it may be air breathing. I don't have way of knowing, so I will just wait and see.

Air breathing it might be a nuclear scramjet.... but then ramjet and scramjet mean nothing with a nuclear furnace providing the heat source as no combustion is required...

Mach 9

Putin said Mach 9, but perhaps he was being conservative...

I assume an scramjet engine is more dependent on airflow speed than a rocket propelled one, so those 9 M may be the final speed the propulsion works at,

I rather suspect they gave him an average speed and that being a sort of weapon that starts out mostly being fuel by weight and operating necessarily at high altitude because there is no chance it could fly at mach 9 at sea level, then we can assume a terminal dive on the target makes the most likely attack method... which would also benefit from the fact that few air defence radars can point vertically upwards... in which case its speed on impact could be mach 12 or more...

Kinzhal is 10 M from what we know.

But it has a 50 ton first stage with two 15 ton thrust engines to get it to altitude and speed before launch...

So a 4.2 m long missile launched at high speed and altitude could still have significant range and effectiveness.

A critical part you are missing is that a scramjet powered missile is less effected in terms of top speed and flight range by the speed and altitude of the launch platform.... the Zircon essentially matches the flight speed from a ground launch... the performance of an air launched Zircon is totally unknown, though I agree it wont get the range and speed boost that a solid rocket missile would get it would certainly be able to go faster and further being launched from above the thickest part of the atmosphere and already moving towards the target at speed.

GarryB wrote:But then I am the one saying putting AAMs on an aircraft makes it a sort of fighter...

Exactly...

Not true at all... facing an S-70 the other conventional fighter is bigger and most often will have a bigger RCS... the F-35 does not carry this missile and neither does the F-22... the closest western equivalent would probably be a Rafale with meteor, which the S-70s missile will outrange.

It is not clear that the R-37M will outrange a Meteor, much less in the engagement configuration you propose. You actually are talking about some complex calculations there, but you see no need to even consider them. And the fighter is always in condition to dodge or shoot down missiles and re-engage with the Okhotnik.

BTW you are disregarding new missiles in development essentially everywhere, why is it an universal constant that Russian missiles are and will be longer ranged for the next decades?

Love how you make shit up... 300km flight range to hit a target in tests... which western equivalent can match that? And we are talking about the longer ranged replacement missile for that weapon...

Meteor range is classified. And it is a ramjet, should it not be so much superior to rocket propelled R-37?

Altitude is just as important as launch speed...

Who says a slow plane like Okhotnik can fly higher than fast fighters?

You mean ego. No fighter pilot who has risen to run the air force will sign off on an Il-96M "fighter" variant with 30 long range AAMs, 50 medium range AAMs and 100 small self defence missiles...

Sure they are the ones to decide strategy in the air forces of the world despite of performance.

Flight performance does not mean much in BVR roles...

This hurts...

But it is the kinematics and capabilities of the missiles that is more important....

The missile and the platform that launches it are a system that competes with the enemy platform and missile.

Putin said Mach 9, but perhaps he was being conservative...

That is the figure we have.

A critical part you are missing is that a scramjet powered missile is less effected in terms of top speed and flight range by the speed and altitude of the launch platform....

Performance depends on the total impulse available, not on what technology produces it.

Exactly...[

Would you not agree there are pretty clear and obvious differences between an Su-24M with R-60MK missiles or more recently R-73 missiles (ie two of either plus a war load of weapons and jammers and external fuel tanks) and an Su-34 with R-73s and R-77s and R-27E missiles and no air to ground weapons or fuel tanks but jammer pods etc etc.

When used as a fighter an aircraft does not benefit from amazing manouver performance when launching medium and long range AAMs... altitude and flight speed do matter but are not exactly critical.

It is not clear that the R-37M will outrange a Meteor, much less in the engagement configuration you propose. You actually are talking about some complex calculations there, but you see no need to even consider them. And the fighter is always in condition to dodge or shoot down missiles and re-engage with the Okhotnik.

S-70 is a high flying stealthy flying wing, how many western fighters have Meteor right now?

R-37M is operational on MiG-31s and its replacement is slated for entry into service about he same time the S-70 is supposed to be ready.

BTW you are disregarding new missiles in development essentially everywhere, why is it an universal constant that Russian missiles are and will be longer ranged for the next decades?

Russia has an indepth fully integrated IADS with overlaps and redundancies... HATO has AWACS planes and JSTARS...

The aircraft long range AAMs will be most effective against will be such large aircraft.

Meteor range is classified. And it is a ramjet, should it not be so much superior to rocket propelled R-37?

No. Ramjets don't offer superior speeds, just better flexibility with fuel use... scramjets on the other hand offer both better speeds and flexibility in fuel efficiency.

That was the reason the SA-6 KUG with rocket ramjet propulsion was replaced with all rocket SA-11 and then SA-17 and now whatever they are calling the current model BUK.

With scramjet propulsion the increase in speed, or more accurately the removal of the limitation of subsonic fuel burn massively expands its potential operating envelope.

Who says a slow plane like Okhotnik can fly higher than fast fighters?

It is a flying wing and it is intended to fly high and forward scanning for targets and distracting enemy attention while the Su-57 follows behind listening and watching...

This hurts...

Yup, the truth hurts...

The missile and the platform that launches it are a system that competes with the enemy platform and missile.

The missile is the kill mechanism... the plane is the delivery platform...

That is the figure we have.

From the first generation of a new weapon system... by the time it enters service they will likely already have a faster model with improvements in testing.

Performance depends on the total impulse available, not on what technology produces it.

That is not true... impulse is mass times acceleration... a huge turboprop might generate the same impulse but it is never going to be supersonic let alone as fast as these need to be.

GarryB wrote:Would you not agree there are pretty clear and obvious differences between an Su-24M with R-60MK missiles or more recently R-73 missiles (ie two of either plus a war load of weapons and jammers and external fuel tanks) and an Su-34 with R-73s and R-77s and R-27E missiles and no air to ground weapons or fuel tanks but jammer pods etc etc.

Both are supersonic tactical bombers, the second developed on the basis of a high performance fighter, with much better awareness and general A2A performance. Yes I see the difference. None of them is a dedicated fighter and would be at a disadvantage facing one, that is why the air combat capability on those is considered for self defence mainly. But they have some capability, specially the Su-34. Not sure what you try to prove, since I am not denying that other aircraft than pure fighter can be used for AD.

When used as a fighter an aircraft does not benefit from amazing manouver performance when launching medium and long range AAMs... altitude and flight speed do matter but are not exactly critical.

When battling another plane it actually does, it depends on how fast and high it can go that it will be in conditions to launch first, and the supersonic high altitude manoeuvrability determines whether it can disengage in time or be hit. This is a duel, not duck shooting, and you need to be aware of what the other side can do. If their missiles reach longer because they are flying faster and higher and they can determine the engagement dynamics because of superior manoeuvrability and kinematics, odds are that you will get killed.

S-70 is a high flying stealthy flying wing, how many western fighters have Meteor right now?

More than operational Okhotnik, for sure.

R-37M is operational on MiG-31s and its replacement is slated for entry into service about he same time the S-70 is supposed to be ready.

There are quite a few new AAM programs in development in the West too. You cannot make your future fleet survivability dependent on whether US makes a missile that matches the R-37, because it is perfectly doable and could easily fit the bays of the F-35. For planes like F-15EX, carrying many of those would be trivial.

No. Ramjets don't offer superior speeds, just better flexibility with fuel use... scramjets on the other hand offer both better speeds and flexibility in fuel efficiency.

They take the oxygen from the air and therefore have big advantages in terms of range. NEZ of a Meteor is said to be at least twice as big as that of a rocket propelled missile. It is not obvious to calculate which missile is better, depending on the engagement configuration.

It is a flying wing and it is intended to fly high and forward scanning for targets and distracting enemy attention while the Su-57 follows behind listening and watching...

The MiG-31 has much smaller wings and flies higher. IIRC it was 18 km for the Okhotnik, which is a lot, but nevertheless the same as MiG-29 or Su-27. Typhoon, F-15 and 5G fighters fly higher, and interceptors even higher.

Yup, the truth hurts...

No, the sadness for an otherwise knowledgeable forum fellow

As a summary: the Okhotnik can be used for AD, but that the Su-57 has its back is not a mere coincidence

I forgot to mention above that a good part of the missile's energy is spent pushing it through the transonic area of its flight envelope, that is serious reason why fighters spend very valuable fuel resources in the A/B needed for dashing before launching. This is extremely relevant when calculating the range available to a missile.

Meteor is more than 2 million euros piece. It also has a rocket engine for the start. French are working on a new Mica which means they can't have that much meteors in service.

With dual pulse engine, rocket missiles can do better for cheaper by keeping the last trust for the final engagement.

Ramjet also uses fuel to heat the air and once it run out of fuel it will go ballistic but the entry of the ramjet will create lot of drag and it's range in ballistic mode will be much smaller than that of a rocket missile.

It has an advantage of NEZ at optimal ranges against older r-77 and amraams. But now russian will come with r-77M and US are working also on a new missile.

Both are supersonic tactical bombers, the second developed on the basis of a high performance fighter, with much better awareness and general A2A performance.

Not strictly true... the Su-24 can carry air to air missiles but strictly as a self defence measure. The Su-34 are fully multirole and could easily be used as an interceptor for some missions... certainly it could carry rather more AAMs than any other Russian aircraft and its inflight refuelled endurance is also unequalled...

In a sense you could argue that the Su-57 is the Su-34s replacement but it is so specialised and expensive they will be used together.... much the same that the Su-35 and Su-57 will be used together too.

None of them is a dedicated fighter and would be at a disadvantage facing one, that is why the air combat capability on those is considered for self defence mainly.

Even America can't afford a dedicated fighter (F-15C)... Typhoon is a dedicated fighter because it has no air to ground capacity yet... but all aircraft are becoming multirole... even the MiG-31 got multirole capabilities in the BM model.

Not sure what you try to prove, since I am not denying that other aircraft than pure fighter can be used for AD.

But you are... you are saying the S-70 can't shoot down enemy planes because it lacks speed and manouverability and all the features that would make it a FIGHTER.

I am arguing that it is a multirole drone that operates with FIGHTERS and part of its role will be to launch air to air missiles at incoming threats... making them force multipliers and also fighters because the definition of a fighter is a plane that is dedicated to shooting down other aircraft... fighter is a definition that includes interceptors and dogfighters.

When battling another plane it actually does,

In most cases kills are achieved in situations where the target pilot did not know they were under attack till it was too late for them to do anything to defend themselves... how is acceleration and manouver important in that regard?

Most HATO interceptions involve a big AWACS aircraft detecting enemy aircraft and directing friendly aircraft to sneak up behind them and fire on them from behind and without warning... what sort of manouver and acceleration is critical in that situation?

Manouver and acceleration is nice but if it was critical the MiG-23 would be the most potent fighter of its generation.

it depends on how fast and high it can go that it will be in conditions to launch first, and the supersonic high altitude manoeuvrability determines whether it can disengage in time or be hit. This is a duel, not duck shooting, and you need to be aware of what the other side can do.

No.

If it becomes a duel you fucked up. This is supposed to be duck shooting.

If their missiles reach longer because they are flying faster and higher and they can determine the engagement dynamics because of superior manoeuvrability and kinematics, odds are that you will get killed.

So they did really well in the Vietnam war because small light nimble fighters that were slower and less powerful than the bigger heavier Phantoms with missiles with vastly superior flight range actually didn't do too bad at all.

More than operational Okhotnik, for sure.

What is Meteors effective range against stealthy targets?

There are quite a few new AAM programs in development in the West too. You cannot make your future fleet survivability dependent on whether US makes a missile that matches the R-37, because it is perfectly doable and could easily fit the bays of the F-35. For planes like F-15EX, carrying many of those would be trivial.

R-37M is a real thing in operational service, and a heavier longer ranged replacement has been developed specifically for internal weapon bay carriage... when they made the S-70 they knew about the new missile they were making for internal carriage... why would they not make it compatible...

Who gives a shit what the west does, that is not a reason not to deploy a new long range missile on every platform they can.

Extreme long range gives them the option to launch but is no assurance of a kill.

The new multi warhead missiles they are developing too will be another factor as well.

They take the oxygen from the air and therefore have big advantages in terms of range.

They lose lots of the advantages by needing intakes and exhausts and air flow management structures that leaves a lot of empty space inside their structure, and limiting their top speed to a similar speed to rockets also limits their performance too.

NEZ of a Meteor is said to be at least twice as big as that of a rocket propelled missile.

That is actually not true. The new R-77M with its three stage rocket motor with high energy launch and low energy drag compensation cruise motor and then a terminal attack rocket motor that can be started as the missile approaches the target should give it a large NEZ range too because with TVC and the rocket motor operating during the terminal phase its ability to manouver should be dramatically improved over just using conventional control surfaces and being unpoowered.

It is not obvious to calculate which missile is better, depending on the engagement configuration.

A powered missile has better performance even without TVC, but greatly more so with a running motor and TVC is a huge advantage and can be for either type of missile as I mentioned.

For a scramjet powered missile the increased speed gives rather less chance to evade or even realise it is under attack...

The MiG-31 has much smaller wings and flies higher. IIRC it was 18 km for the Okhotnik, which is a lot, but nevertheless the same as MiG-29 or Su-27. Typhoon, F-15 and 5G fighters fly higher, and interceptors even higher.

The key is not the altitude or the speed, but the low RCS and being closer to the target that is distracted by the Su-57 or other fighter operating with it.

In much the same way that an Su-30M was supposed to use its larger superior radar to scan for targets while smaller lighter MiG-29s would be operating closer to the target waiting for target data to be provided to them on which targets to attack so the platform operating closer can operate in silent mode but still engage targets.

Obviously the low RCS of the S-70 counts in its favour and it is more expendable too.

As a summary: the Okhotnik can be used for AD, but that the Su-57 has its back is not a mere coincidence

Have you given it this permission or does it need proof in writing from its mommy?

I forgot to mention above that a good part of the missile's energy is spent pushing it through the transonic area of its flight envelope, that is serious reason why fighters spend very valuable fuel resources in the A/B needed for dashing before launching.

Yes, in my boys big book of battles I read page after page of air to air clashes in the Falklands war and the Middle East and south east asia about fighters leaving dogfights to climb and accelerate to super sonic speeds to launch their missiles at enemy target aircraft.

Most of the time in real combat they didn't open fire at BVR because they needed positive ID, and they were carrying short range missiles only anyway.

None of the fighter aircraft in the Falklands war had BVR AAMs.

The fuel in an air to air missile is fixed burning... if you launch from low altitude most air to air missiles have dramatically shorter flight ranges and fly directly at the target.

It is only a few dedicated long range missiles that climb and fly a lofted trajectory to increase range... (R-27E missiles and R-33 and R-37 for instance).

With dual pulse engine, rocket missiles can do better for cheaper by keeping the last trust for the final engagement.

New missiles have three rocket motor phases with the last phase able to be fired when it is deemed most useful... the equivalent of being able to conserve ramjet fuel for the terminal phase of the attack.

Ramjet also uses fuel to heat the air and once it run out of fuel it will go ballistic but the entry of the ramjet will create lot of drag and it's range in ballistic mode will be much smaller than that of a rocket missile.

No moving blades or disks in a ramjet so the air could be allowed to flow through but you are right, drag should be higher with no fuel being burned.

The accompanying article to the above video.

Su-57 conducted the first "air battle" with the Su-35

The two best fighters of recent times, developed by PJSC "Company" Sukhoi ", Su-57 and Su-35, conducted the first training" air battle ". The corresponding story was shown on February 23, 2021 in the Vremya program on Channel One .

The flights were made by the Su-35S (tail number 12, red), the factory prototype of the Su-57 (tail number 510, blue) and the first serial Su-57 (tail number 01, blue), which was transferred to the troops in December 2020.

It is clarified that the video was filmed near the Akhtubinsk airfield in the Astrakhan region in February this year. It belongs to the 929th GLITs of the Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation named after V.P. Chkalov and is used for training flights of military aviation. Not far from it, just 20 km away, is the largest aviation training ground in Russia - Groshevo.

In addition, the participation of the aforementioned prototype in flights indicates that Russian developers and the military could conduct concomitant testing of some new systems, programs, assemblies, sensors or assemblies. Thus, the matter was not limited to one colorful "air battle" and elements of aerobatics.

The improvement of combat aviation is an ongoing process. At the same time, one of the fighters could well imitate some side of our probable "partners" who tirelessly move their military infrastructure closer to the borders of Russia.

GarryB wrote:In a sense you could argue that the Su-57 is the Su-34s replacement but it is so specialised and expensive they will be used together.... much the same that the Su-35 and Su-57 will be used together too.

In all honesty we don't know how expensive the Su-57 will be to procure and operate, but the parallel operation of the Su-34 and Su-57 is what I have been talking about above. The M version is being developed now and will be in operation for at least 25 years.

but all aircraft are becoming multirole...

Avionics-wise, of course. Still the platforms have their pros and cons for different missions

But you are... you are saying the S-70 can't shoot down enemy planes because it lacks speed and manouverability and all the features that would make it a FIGHTER.

The disagreement is that you say any plane circumstantially working in AD roles is a fighter, which I don't see like that.

In most cases kills are achieved in situations where the target pilot did not know they were under attack till it was too late for them to do anything to defend themselves... how is acceleration and manouver important in that regard?

No.

If it becomes a duel you fucked up. This is supposed to be duck shooting.

Looking for loopholes is logical, not being ready for a frontal battle with another fighter is a different thing. I mean, not even needed to argue this, facts speak for themselves. Fighters keep being developed and they keep improving TWR, ITR, STR, excess power and all attributes normally associated to manoeuvring combat. A fighter is not a plane that will be excused with launching a BVR missile and if it does not work, turn and run away. It will take the fight to close quarters if needed and be used to push the enemy, be it armed or unarmed foes.

What is Meteors effective range against stealthy targets?

You mean the range of the ARH seeker? Or the detection range at which it can be used? I assume the West will be able to detect "Russian" stealth targets as Russia can do the same with Western models. At least, you cannot count on invisibility, that is irresponsible optimism.

R-37M is a real thing in operational service, and a heavier longer ranged replacement has been developed specifically for internal weapon bay carriage... when they made the S-70 they knew about the new missile they were making for internal carriage... why would they not make it compatible...

Not saying it will not be able to carry it, just that opponents can carry similar weapons too, which will have a big advantage due to the launching characteristics of the platform.

Who gives a shit what the west does, that is not a reason not to deploy a new long range missile on every platform they can.

Russia needs to care about what they do, since they want them deleted from the map.

They lose lots of the advantages by needing intakes and exhausts and air flow management structures that leaves a lot of empty space inside their structure, and limiting their top speed to a similar speed to rockets also limits their performance too.

You are advocating for air breathing missiles in the other discussion...

That is actually not true. The new R-77M with its three stage rocket motor with high energy launch and low energy drag compensation cruise motor and then a terminal attack rocket motor that can be started as the missile approaches the target should give it a large NEZ range too because with TVC and the rocket motor operating during the terminal phase its ability to manouver should be dramatically improved over just using conventional control surfaces and being unpoowered.

Source? The three stage rocket is not clear to me at all.

Obviously the low RCS of the S-70 counts in its favour and it is more expendable too.

We agree on that.

None of the fighter aircraft in the Falklands war had BVR AAMs.

Aha... so what? We cannot be stuck forever in Vietnam or Falklands. Things are a bit different now.

The U.S. Air Force Just Admitted The F-35 Stealth Fighter Has Failed

The U.S. Air Force’s top officer wants the service to develop an affordable, lightweight fighter to replace hundreds of Cold War-vintage F-16s and complement a small fleet of sophisticated—but costly and unreliable—stealth fighters.

The result would be a high-low mix of expensive “fifth-generation” F-22s and F-35s and inexpensive “fifth-generation-minus” jets, explained Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. Charles Brown Jr.

In his last interview before leaving his post in January, Will Roper, the Air Force’s top acquisition official, floated the idea of new F-16 orders. But Brown shot down the idea, saying he doesn’t want more of the classic planes.

The 17-ton, non-stealthy F-16 is too difficult to upgrade with the latest software, Brown explained. Instead of ordering fresh F-16s, he said, the Air Force should initiate a “clean-sheet design” for a new low-end fighter.

Brown’s comments are a tacit admission that the F-35 has failed.

source

First they restart F-15 production and now they want a cheap F-16 equivalent!!           Kinda puts a crimp in their wet dreams about fielding 6G any time soon or in numbers!!!

This made me grin like a Cheshire frigging cat, and its so rare that Dave Axe writes anything that I agree with    If even Forbes is prepared to admit what we at RDF have known for years then its a wonderful moral victory that we can all enjoy!  

I'd like to think that this will mean an end to the stupid Murican fan-boi faggots sneering about Russian warplanes and shit-canning the imminently sensible concept of running a mixed fighter fleet of a small(ish) number of 5G along with a large contingent of modernised 4++, but who am I kidding?  These morons won't be convinced by anything as they are too emotionally invested in US aerospace supremacy and their belief in the backwardness of Ruski Slavs living in poverty in their mud huts        

Avionics-wise, of course. Still the platforms have their pros and cons for different missions

That is true but an Su-34 on a strike mission detects a group of dangerous fighters... say F-35s flying low and fast but still some distance away, and the Su-34 is on an attack mission but has four R-77s because the air threat is high, or perhaps even a multi warhead missile would you order the Su-34 to launch a potshot at the group of F-35s and then continue on its mission, or tell it that it is not a fighter and that is none of its business and continue its own mission and not to attract attention to itself?

Is your answer immediately no it is not a fighter? ... because of what you have been saying? or would you be more like me and ask for more details of the situation... will it increase the risk for the Su-34 but with no chance of being effective... will it actually be a clever ploy distracting the F-35s from a real and vulnerable target and change their attention from something they might be able to catch and kill to the Su-34 which is already too far away and getting further away with each second...

What I am saying is that you seem to forget weapons of war are just tools... and while poor use of your tools is a bad thing sometimes you don't need a specialist paint tin opening device... most of the time a spoon will do, or a flat head screwdriver is also good enough just to quickly pop the lid open. You don't have to go back out to the truck and find the special tin opening device...

When you are leaving your truck first thing in the morning and think... hey, I am definitely going to need to open a lot of tins of paint today I will make sure I have my paint tin opener... then take the opener with you...

   
The disagreement is that you say any plane circumstantially working in AD roles is a fighter, which I don't see like that.

I would say the disagreement is more of a nature that a UCAV drone that operates with and supports an aircraft we both agree is a fighter, and that will be supporting that fighter in its roles over the battlefield including providing air support but likely also air superiority missions to defeat enemy air power should in my opinion be capable of shooting down aircraft while under the control of said fighter it is supporting, while you say it does not have the flight speed for launching BVR missiles nor the TWR to dogfight in close in combat... in the case of the former I will have to break the bad news to the AV-8II that it is not fast enough for BVR combat and it should retire its AMRAAM missiles and just stick to Sidewinders.

A fighter is not a plane that will be excused with launching a BVR missile and if it does not work, turn and run away.

There are a variety of fighter types including some that carry BVR missiles as standard and often a couple of WVR missiles for self defence where the intention is to use the BVR missiles for the kills and WVR missiles if surprised or as self defence as it retires to its aircraft to rearm with its BVR primary weapon.

I assume the West will be able to detect "Russian" stealth targets as Russia can do the same with Western models.

You assume the west will instantly be able to do what the Russians worked hard over the last 30 odd years to achieve with no effort or expense?

OK.

At least, you cannot count on invisibility, that is irresponsible optimism.

They don't need to be invisible to the enemy fighters... just less visible and attractive to their missiles than the decoys and jammers they deploy.

Remember the S-70 will be operating with Su-57s so not just attack but also defence can be coordinated so they have the advantage of working together as a team.

Not saying it will not be able to carry it, just that opponents can carry similar weapons too, which will have a big advantage due to the launching characteristics of the platform.

And I am saying that the S-70 is a semi expendable drone so enemy fighters burning fuel and launching BVR missiles against S-70s instead of Su-57s is fundamentally a good thing... enemy fighters distracted fighting Russian drones become more vulnerable to the SAMs below them and the Su-57s operating further back who can accelerate to super sonic speeds and better launch altitudes.

Russia needs to care about what they do, since they want them deleted from the map.

Which is a different tool set from S-70s.

You are advocating for air breathing missiles in the other discussion...

Scramjets have clear advantages in terms of flight speed and endurance and "efficiency"... for the fundamentally slower ramjet powered missiles the differences are not so clear cut...

It is like talking about low speed short range flight making turboprop propulsion sometimes a better choice, but longer range higher speed flight makes turbofan engines a better choice just because of the nature of the flight envelope.... I don't think anyone would consider rocket power in either case for subsonic flight with a reusable aircraft.

Source? The three stage rocket is not clear to me at all.

A final rocket stage that is not automatically fired... the missile has the first stage rocket fuel for acceleration and climb and then a much longer stage of low energy burn to improve flight range by compensating drag and better maintaining speed... the last stage can be fired any time needed by the missile when energy is needed to attack the target or to extend range and will probably be something between the first high energy fuel and the sustainer low energy fuel to allow turning and acceleration performance but for more than 2 seconds...

Aha... so what? We cannot be stuck forever in Vietnam or Falklands. Things are a bit different now.

But are they?

Missiles have improved but so have missile defences and situational awareness... the latter being the most critical factor in long range air attacks... if they know it is coming it will probably miss...

The 17-ton, non-stealthy F-16 is too difficult to upgrade with the latest software, Brown explained. Instead of ordering fresh F-16s, he said, the Air Force should initiate a “clean-sheet design” for a new low-end fighter.

Hahahahaha... obviously Windows 11 comes on 25,000 floppy disks and even with a full team takes a month to install...

If even Forbes is prepared to admit what we at RDF have known for years then its a wonderful moral victory that we can all enjoy!

The really ridiculous thing is that the Su-57 is probably what the US wanted in their F-22s let alone their F-35s and if it had been what they had come up with they probably would have gone for a mix of 2,000 Su-57s and say 4-6,000 S-70s in the F-22 and F-35 role respectively and everything would be perfect...

GarryB wrote:would you order the Su-34 to launch a potshot at the group of F-35s and then continue on its mission, or tell it that it is not a fighter and that is none of its business and continue its own mission and not to attract attention to itself?

It depends. If there are no A2A specific assets ready to help and the intervention does not risk the initial mission of the Su-34, why not. The same as if some SAM site or soldier group gets that pot shot, they will all contribute with AD, even if they are not fighter jets.

What I am saying is that you seem to forget weapons of war are just tools...

I don't think I am forgetting that, I just say that air forces irrefutably have and I think in future will still have aircraft which are specially designed for air combat. Even when the avionics is multi or omnirole, the air vehicle itself needs to meet the most demanding requirements of battling other combat aircraft and that is the force that shapes planes like Su-57, F-22, F-15, Flankers, Rafales, Eurofighters, F-16, J-20 etc. They could all have longer range, higher payload and much lower costs if they had not been designed as fighters. Or do you think aerospace engineers were not aware of the advantages of planes like Okhotnik until yesterday?

while you say it does not have the flight speed for launching BVR missiles nor the TWR to dogfight in close in combat...

Definitely it is more apt for the first task than for the second, in any case it is not optimal and hence it cannot constitute the backbone of air force (ergo needs backing from Su-57) to tackle top A2A assets of a peer rival. AD is a complex system with many elements, strike optimized UCAVs can participate too, maybe they can launch AAM or maybe they can help with guidance or maybe they can act as decoys, it will depend on the situation.

And I am saying that the S-70 is a semi expendable drone so enemy fighters burning fuel and launching BVR missiles against S-70s instead of Su-57s is fundamentally a good thing... enemy fighters distracted fighting Russian drones become more vulnerable to the SAMs below them and the Su-57s operating further back who can accelerate to super sonic speeds and better launch altitudes.

More or less agree on that

A final rocket stage that is not automatically fired... the missile has the first stage rocket fuel for acceleration and climb and then a much longer stage of low energy burn to improve flight range by compensating drag and better maintaining speed... the last stage can be fired any time needed by the missile when energy is needed to attack the target or to extend range and will probably be something between the first high energy fuel and the sustainer low energy fuel to allow turning and acceleration performance but for more than 2 seconds...

I have read is dual pulse not triple and much less the last push being independently fired.

The really ridiculous thing is that the Su-57 is probably what the US wanted in their F-22s let alone their F-35s and if it had been what they had come up with they probably would have gone for a mix of 2,000 Su-57s and say 4-6,000 S-70s in the F-22 and F-35 role respectively and everything would be perfect...

You can bet they would be boasting like there is no tomorrow if they had the Su-57 and the S-70 almost ready to de commissioned. Just wait and see NGAD, if it is not a yankee PAK-FA I will be surprised...

Big_Gazza wrote:I'd like to think that this will mean an end to the stupid Murican fan-boi faggots sneering about Russian warplanes and shit-canning the imminently sensible concept of running a mixed fighter fleet of a small(ish) number of 5G along with a large contingent of modernised 4++, but who am I kidding?

Even worse, the way the Su-57 is designed and developed it is likely that it will indeed be able to substitute the 4G fighters instead of remaining a token force. That would be the icing on the cake