Su-57 Stealth Fighter: News #7

thegopnik wrote:
Lets say the AR-10 because of smaller size and stealth to reflect radio waves away is .000001m2 and the F-35 with a bigger size but stealth to also reflect radio waves away is .00001m2.

There isn't a single low-observable platform that has anything close to that RCS. It was nothing more than bullshit marketing from the offices of Skunkstench LockedroomFarting Skunkworks Lockheed Martin. We now know without a shadow of a doubt that the F-22A's ram routinely cracks and deteriorates during the duration of a sortie, making the .0000000000000000001m2 fake claim effectively impossible for LockedroomFarting to realistically achieve. The best anyone could really do is .1m2 - .01m2.

tanino wrote:The F-22 was an exceptional aircraft. In the 1990s. At the time, it had a Generational Stack unimaginable for any other Air Force. And it did for 20 years. So credit where credit is due.

The F-22, as others have said, entered service in 2005, so it is not a plane of the 90's strictly speaking. But of course it was extremely ahead of anything else at that time and it was at least a high-end airframe capable of really making things difficult for any rival even if the avionics and stealth advantage was eroded. The main issue is that, as so many weapons programs of those days, it was more about peak-empire delusions of "unlimited power" than about designing a real military system. The result was a plane that is very good on paper but in reality has not been developed further, sold, procured or even used. That is very telling of a program that was all but successful. A resident and knowledgeable "cold warrior" called it an experiment, and he was right with that.

So it's not all the fault of the designers, times and uses of aircrafts have just changed.

Agreed, also F-35 is not fault of the designers but of greedy managers and a rotten system. Engineers did a wonderful job with the PoS they were instructed to develop...

thegopnik wrote:
Not trying to make it sound like the Su-57 is obsolete but I am starting to believe that the Russian military's seems to be pushing more in giving air to air roles to drones with stealth profiles and the nice configuration of photonic integrated circuits will make them to be a force reckoned to deal with.

I think that is a partial view of the reality. High end platforms continue to be developed, simply because they will ruthlessly wipe the floor with low grade UCAVs. You have the famous video from the Georgian war (UAV vs MiG-29) and more recently some very nice videos of Saudi F-15 against Houthi drones... pure turkey shoot. Those things are defenceless against a proper fighter. And in terms of detection, well, Russia is already seeing essentially any aerial target at thousands of km away. Those absurd RCS values on the one hand do not exist and on the other don't matter that much. As to the A2A role of UCAV... I see no evidence they are going beyond what is a bare, logical minimum for a flexible platform, and no hint that they are going to displace the Su-57.

I will personally be surprised if they want to push more than 76 Su-57s.

You don't develop the Su-57 for 76 units. It has been designed to be the backbone of the VKS, not an expensive whim. That being said, we can only wait and see who's right.

Arrow wrote:
This US advantage will disappear with the introduction of the ROFAR technology, which will happen soon.

And that supposed advantage is of practical use, since in the operational environment Russia needs to attend too, they have an overwhelming advantage granted by their IADS. Any USAF expeditionary force would be detected thousands of km away, their bases hammered, their tankers hunted and their AWACS sent far from the Russian border. They would need to activate their radars while Russian fighters would be able to operate passively most of the time. Russia is not attempting wars they cannot win, and that is the best recipe for victory that exists.

thegopnik wrote:...it will probably pull insane maneuvers in very close combat with the F-35 that probably wont be limited to just 9Gs when using pilots...

Insane maneuvers with 100 g???

The point which most people don't get is that the limitation to g-force doesn't depend on the pilot!!! The strongest G forces appear in missiles during interception and the maximum here is 30 g and NOT MORE! Pilots can easy survive g-forces of 20-30 g, because another factor is time and another factor is the direction of g-force.

There was briefly a car crash with a man that survived more than 100 g (american car sports)! Maximum on a rocket sled was 46 g.

Why is the F-35 limited to 9 g??????? Because with stronger g-forces the plane will simply break apart. And it doesn't matter whether a pilot is inside or an AI controls it! Older fighters had a much higher limit...but if you reach this limit you can lose your wings in the worst case. Normally stall will occur and your plane will crash.


Guys...it's not that simple! It's not like, we put an AI inside and the aircraft is now able to pull 50 g and more...like a wunderwaffe!


Drones have only ONE simple (really simple) advantage...the costs! And that's for sure really important!!! 10 drones or 1 high end fighter!?

@LMFS

I was by no means being that serious about the RCS values, other than UCAVs with a stealth profile and for being smaller would have a better RCS signature than another adversary 5th gen platform. Even mi-28s are being given air to air roles but they are short range and I have no idea yet on the AR-10 or Su-70s air to air missile options or if they limited to just short range and even if they are limited to just short range the question would be just how close they can get to an opposing aircraft before the opposing aircraft notices. The size and ease of placement for PICs with EW immunity or countermeasures will be a an amazing option.

https://www.niip.ru/upload/iblock/4c8/4c89c11ae741be234a5f900b3fb41e86.pdf

"The first platform for our latest radar will most
likely be an advanced Russian-built unmanned
aerial vehicle (UAV). We believe the radar designed
for a heavy UAV will be able to scan airspace with
the 200-km radius."


Russians usually give a 3-5m2 figure range so that will be at 200kms, https://mil.news.sina.com.cn/jssd/2019-05-01/doc-ihvhiqax6102967.shtml

The Russians' official propaganda is generally like this: "The detection distance is very far, the energy conversion efficiency is up to 60%, the traditional radar is only 30%, and the noise is more than 100 times lower than the traditional radar, greatly improving the signal-to-noise ratio, for stealth target theory detection distance of more than 500 kilometers!

https://tass.com/defense/1012445

"As the press office said, RTI Group is completing R&D work in 2018 on creating a mockup of the X-band radio-photonic radar. Following its results, specialists "will determine a principal scheme of building the radio-photonic locator," which will make it possible "in several years to build prototypes of super-light and small-size radars for unmanned aerial vehicles."

So lets say that AR-10 drone has this radar and we go with Chinas claim(I think KRETS several story size radar building claim, being as efficient as a photonic radar on a Kamaz truck news report might exceed what the Chinese are saying in terms of detection) with the more than 100 times lower noise claim that gives us a .03-.05m2 at 200kms(it could be less because Chinese say more than 100).

https://youtu.be/WLuRGaKzAKU?t=2

@48:30~

"[Billie Flynn] A: “So right we went from World War one the Red Bear and get the world war two like you're talking about p38 it's Spitfires it's against the great German pilot we get to Korea and fighter jets. we get to Vietnam same sort of thing we get to Top Gun thirty something years ago in that movie of dogfights.
That's not my world anymore.
I see the enemy 200 miles away."

The U.S. usually uses 1m2 for detection claims so 1m2 at 321 kms. So because lets say the AR-10 is smaller and size and has internal weapons we can say it has better stealth than the F-35. So the F-35 has to have detection and tracking capabilities that have to make up for stealth being bigger so lets see. 321(.05 times 1) ^.25 the an/apg-81 can spot a .05m2 target at 151.79kms. Ohhh shit that did not work out for the F-35 either, Wait how about EW to suppress the radar? oh yeah I forget that's right the Barricuda has to produce a 200 decibel jamming capability in order to effect the photonic radar which is impossible to do.

Latest Mi-28 can shoot at aerial targets from 40kms away, If the Su-70 and AR-10 exceed those ranges with longer air to air missiles, Id say now it would be a great time for the pentagon to be concerned about this. Lets just say that this april fools I go to F-16.net and they get mad when I prefer the Su-57 over the F-35, I am sure they will go ape shit if I told them that UCAVs that have a smaller size with stealth than F-35, adding PICs and having missiles that exceed short range missiles will waste F-35s at a very small price.

projects like the Su-70 and a presentation of the AR-10 drone shows they are in the right path to eventually create a better stealth drone with a smaller size than a F-35 and such developments wont be a problem because of nordstream 2 and arctic/antarctic projects will bump their economies back up for more funding on more creative ideas. Than mid-2020s to mid 2030s they will start producing PIC based radars for drones. But I have yet to see what kind of air to air missiles they would need to test on the Su-70 for example if they fire R-77 kind of missiles than they wont have a problem engaging 5th or 4th gen aircrafts(if they meet stealth and PIC requirements) but if they are just test firing 40 km missiles than they still have a path to further improve drone capabilities to strike at BVR distances.

Because of this I am assuming that only a single order of the Su-57 would be made, but I could be wrong or I am setting my expectations way too high.

^ Several comments to this:

> ROFAR is not be all, end all in air power
> Kinematics play a role not only for the missile but for the platform, because it does not matter what you detect but what you can attack. Think why fighters are highly agile and supersonic in the first place
> Equally, a big platform will be able to carry more long range missiles than a small platform
> Engagements ruled by individual radar ranges and supposed RCS only happen in the internet.
> Countermeasures like ECM and soon self defence weapons also play a role and they favour heavy high performance platforms

In general I think it is not yet well understood why current fighters are designed the way they are. A supersonic fighter would dance in circles around subsonic ones. And if you throw in ROFAR, then even very small targets would be detected without a problem and the actual kinematics of the engagement would be even more relevant. We will have UCAV no doubt, but high end fighters (manned or unmanned) will not be replaced by cheapo aircraft unless in low intensity conflicts.

thegopnik wrote: I will personally be surprised if they want to push more than 76 Su-57s.

But you think they will still be cranking out Flankers and Mig 35's ? Or are they going to shut down that production too ?

The su 57 is the replacement for the Flanker. It is not some overly expensive one-off like the F-22 and J-20 are.

Backman wrote:

thegopnik wrote: I will personally be surprised if they want to push more than 76 Su-57s.

But you think they will still be cranking out Flankers and Mig 35's ? Or are they going to shut down that production too ?

The su 57 is the replacement for the Flanker. It is not some overly expensive one-off like the F-22 and J-20 are.

Not against current production orders but i am hoping for a shift into more drone orders in the late 2020s to the 2030s. I am like the only user here that is in awe of the AR-10 drone so the right path is being taken.

Can we get a discussion going how ridiculous it is that so many countries have "5th generation" fighter programs when they haven't proven that they're capable of designing and building indigenous 4th generation jets?

Japan: Has no indigenous 4th gen fighters but has a 5th gen program. Took the F-16, gave it an additional seat and dubbed it the F-2 and bloated the price out the atmosphere. The F-2 cost's $127 million in FY2009 Dollars, with inflation it costs $160 million in 2021. Imagine paying $160 million for a glorified F-16 lol!    

Turkey: No indigenous 4th gen fighters of their own, has a 5th gen program, but also negotiating trying to buy Su-57's. What's even amusing is that their drones are literally pieced together from parts sourced all over the world, but they think they can create a domestic 5th gen fighter lmao?

India: Their 4th gen fighter is a stillborn abortion that's 30 years late, they turned down the FGFA(Su-57) program and now they're claiming that they can create 5th gen fighters? Fuck outta here! Their media's idiocy rivals the bullshit excreted by US/UK media concerning Russian MIC, but that's expected from those licking Anglo-Suckson nutsack. You go from being independent to wanting to be colonized again.

South Korea: No indigenous 4th gen fighters but has a 5th gen program.

Notice how Western media never once questions their ability to create 5th gen fighters despite never having successful indigenous 4th generation programs, but they lodge infinite amounts of criticism for the Su-57.

What about Europe not having 5G but supposedly designing 6G fighters?

South Korea's isn't even 5th Gen, Something closer to a Rafale

kvs wrote:

magnumcromagnon wrote:Can we get a discussion going how ridiculous it is that so many countries have "5th generation" fighter programs when they haven't proven that they're capable of designing and building indigenous 4th generation jets?

Japan: Has no indigenous 4th gen fighters but has a 5th gen program. Took the F-16, gave it an additional seat and dubbed it the F-2 and bloated the price out the atmosphere. The F-2 cost's $127 million in FY2009 Dollars, with inflation it costs $160 million in 2021. Imagine paying $160 million for a glorified F-16 lol!    

Turkey: No indigenous 4th gen fighters of their own, has a 5th gen program, but also negotiating trying to buy Su-57's. What's even amusing is that their drones are literally pieced together from parts sourced all over the world, but they think they can create a domestic 5th gen fighter lmao?

India: Their 4th gen fighter is a stillborn abortion that's 30 years late, they turned down the FGFA(Su-57) program and now they're claiming that they can create 5th gen fighters? Fuck outta here! Their media's idiocy rivals the bullshit excreted by US/UK media concerning Russian MIC, but that's expected from those licking Anglo-Suckson nutsack. You go from being independent to wanting to be colonized again.

South Korea: No indigenous 4th gen fighters but has a 5th gen program.

Notice how Western media never once questions their ability to create 5th gen fighters despite never having successful indigenous 4th generation programs, but they lodge infinite amounts of criticism for the Su-57.

It's the me-too club.  

I am sure they will also produce the bestest stealth ever.

At least their jets will be much better then this shitty russian Su-57.

thegopnik wrote:

Because of this I am assuming that only a single order of the Su-57 would be made, but I could be wrong or I am setting my expectations way too high.

Edit: I mistook your post for a new one. Either way.

If you think drones are the future, then do you believe that all Flanker derivative production will stop ? Mig 35 also ?

The su 57 is a true stealth blend wing with a small silhouette and we already know that they built it with unmanned capability in mind. So even if what you are saying becomes true, su 57 will be in more demand. Not less.

magnumcromagnon wrote:Can we get a discussion going how ridiculous it is that so many countries have "5th generation" fighter programs when they haven't proven that they're capable of designing and building indigenous 4th generation jets?

Japan: Has no indigenous 4th gen fighters but has a 5th gen program. Took the F-16, gave it an additional seat and dubbed it the F-2 and bloated the price out the atmosphere. The F-2 cost's $127 million in FY2009 Dollars, with inflation it costs $160 million in 2021. Imagine paying $160 million for a glorified F-16 lol!    

Turkey: No indigenous 4th gen fighters of their own, has a 5th gen program, but also negotiating trying to buy Su-57's. What's even amusing is that their drones are literally pieced together from parts sourced all over the world, but they think they can create a domestic 5th gen fighter lmao?

India: Their 4th gen fighter is a stillborn abortion that's 30 years late, they turned down the FGFA(Su-57) program and now they're claiming that they can create 5th gen fighters? Fuck outta here! Their media's idiocy rivals the bullshit excreted by US/UK media concerning Russian MIC, but that's expected from those licking Anglo-Suckson nutsack. You go from being independent to wanting to be colonized again.

South Korea: No indigenous 4th gen fighters but has a 5th gen program.

Notice how Western media never once questions their ability to create 5th gen fighters despite never having successful indigenous 4th generation programs, but they lodge infinite amounts of criticism for the Su-57.

It looks like the reason the KFX isn't being built with internal weapons is because of arms control restrictions because it has US engines. The US has basically made it illegal for other countries to build 5th gen jets.

What are the engines proposed for the Turkish and Indian projects ? They will be subject to the same restrictions.

Backman wrote:What are the engines proposed for the Turkish and Indian projects ? They will be subject to the same restrictions.

All those 5G projects are dead from the start, since none of those countries have the technology to develop the corresponding engines. A bit of shaping, some AESA and that's it. When you create a modern plane with all the extra weight and drag of stealth, avionics and internal bays but older engines, the result is not going to be exactly stellar.

magnumcromagnon wrote:

That dark blue works well with this aircraft.  You can really see all the gadgetry on the back of the aircraft and one of the main ones that has always impressed me which the Su-35 also has is the wing-mounted AESA radar and in this picture you can clearly see where they are by that darker panel on both leading edge flaps about 4ft long or so right at the wing root where it meets the LERX.  It matches the same location on the schematic someone posted a few pages ago of the location of those AESA radars.  The fact that they even came up with the idea of mounting additional radars aside from the main, nose radar is great ingenuity in of itself.  So you have the main radar, the wing-mounted AESA radars (and I believe they're also mounted somewhere else, too, maybe the wing tips or the H-stabs?) and the IRST to assist this thing in detecting enemy targets.  It has quite a few selections to help it in that regard.

LMFS wrote:By Ejajjs:

 

Observe what appears to be the huge dorsal fuel tanks...

If those are in fact 3 fuel tanks on its back and spine, that is quite the internal load of fuel this thing can carry!  It would be something if that center, spine "box" was actually a container for additional missiles that would automatically feed down into the forward weapons bay once its missiles are used up.  That would give this aircraft quite the weapons load as you could pack in what, 20 R-77s in that space?  Even split it where the lower half holds additional missiles while the upper half holds fuel.  That would be quite the setup to make this thing even more lethal than it already seems to be.