Su-57 Stealth Fighter: News #7

I've been to India. I have family in Indian military. I myself am not Indian so I can tell with an outside view of it.

The country is corrupt beyond you can imagine on all levels, and majority of its media organization arm is funded by both US and UK. Hence their rather poor portrayal of Hindus.

Not even Indians take Indian media seriously. Most listen to or read foreign media in India.

TMA1 wrote:

x_54_u43 wrote:

Gomig-21 wrote:

Mir wrote:Hehehe yes it seems that sometimes it is not to easy to get a straight answer - as one would have expected!

The short and simple answer for me would be why would they want to reveal the insides of a prototype? Early prototypes might not even have all the goodies to properly operate certain things that are not required for that particular development process. They certainly won't do it for the sake of a good snap shop for eager spotters around an airfield. You will most likely only see that kind of detail once the aircraft is in service. My 2 cents worth.

Well, so far you're the only one who offered an answer to my question which means only 2 things, either what you say is what it is or none of the other fellows know or care to share their opinion which is also perfectly fine.

However, to get back to your point, aren't they way passed the prototype stage now and in fact the assembly stage?  Assembly stage means that everything is all set and ready to go with the exception of removable items that can be replaced with upgradable ones just as engines, radars and other little stuff.

I doubt they plan of changing anything in the way they'll be firing any missile or dropping any laser or GPS guided ground munition out of the belly bays, just my opinion.

It reminds me of the days the USSR kept the records of their shattering Mach speeds for the MiG-21, the 23 and especially the 25 because of legitimate reasons.  They obviously didn't want the west to know how fast these things can intercept an attack of any kind at anytime.  Turns out the records went to aircraft like the F-4 Phantom II and the F-15 Eagle etc. but I'm sure the USSR was thinking who gives a rat's ass and rightfully so.

Here, with the belly bays of the Su-57, if they're interested in exporting the aircraft which they've eluded to on many occasions, why not show the damn thing firing away ay aerial targets and get these countries revved up to want to put orders.  For what India did to "stain" the image of the Su-57 (and I don't care what some say that they don't think it matters what India said about the FGFA), because guess what, it did more damage to the bird's reputation than anything else and certainly anything positive.  So PR wise, the people running the Su-57 program unless they don't care about exporting it, are not doing it any good service to be perfectly honest with you and this is just my opinion.  No trolling or any of that shit!

People who actually make decisions for purchasing foreign fighters for their military do not give a **** what shitty Indian tabloids run by utter morons have to say about the Su-57, and will be more informed by sending their own delegations to Russia to actually gain information on performance and such.

I can also guarantee you that when Su-57's get into a solid production rate and inclusion into the RuAF, you will see plenty of interest in the plane. After all, the main rule for export is that no one buys platforms that aren't in service with the host country, though there are very few exceptions.

I know what gomig is saying tho. I remember seeing a few Indians react to the checkmate and were seriously complaining that it didnt use a side stick. Reminds me of when I was a kid and people were arguing about what game system was best and some kid said jaguar 64 was best because "it has 64 bits!".

Same mentality with stuff like sidesticks and diverterless intakes. They are seen as critical to any new design. It's the same with the "it has thr cross section of a marble!" people.

The sidestick part is funny. It's only more comfortable for fat people. You don't want fat people flying a fighter jet.

LMFS wrote:

Mir wrote:True stealth fighters can only be detected at much shorter ranges so the R-77's and other medium to short range missiles would deal with those fighters.

Even when air battles do not really happen at many hundreds of km and R-77 seems a valid weapon indeed, currently there is no such thing as "true stealth fighters"

https://ria.ru/20210826/anoshko-1747223211.html

To think that Washington policy makers and pundits that feed their hubris actually think that "stealthy" B-2s can fly into Russia and unload their bomb loads without
interception. These morons do not even understand that the B-2 cannot launch stand off missiles and that Russia can track them all the way from their bases.

I am specifically referring to an article in The Diplomat from around 2006 which touted the pre-emptive strike ability of the B-2 to put Russia "in its place".
God, the inanity.

@Gomig-21

Take no offence, but we have already addressed the weapon bays topic. Russia owes no explanation to no one, and we already know what the main parameters of the bays are. This creates to uncertainty or distress to most of us, and any customer with real interest will duly get their information from Rosoboronexport and not from the internet. If MoD considers Sukhoi is not allowed to show any details about the bays, it will surely be for a reason, be it capacity, or additional functions, or max release speed or whatever. As to the capacity, with the LTS we already got confirmation that at least 3x MRAAM can be carried per bay. That matches the F-22 and surpasses it in A2G roles, by a huge margin. Further developments using up the available space are, like almost everything Russia does, secret.

The first prototype of the new jet—called the T-10BM—made its first flight on February 18, 2008

T-10BM was the designation for Su-35S prototype/program.

Regarding the bays: Its been shown that the dimensions matches the Su-47 demonstrator bay & there are pics of those open.

Also almost certainly the Su-75 bay is same (1 bay vs 2 in tandem on Su-57) & we can see the inside of that in their MAKS demonstration.

The entire side stick argument is bullshit.
The russians had it long ago on the su-37 to try it out, but pilots feedback was that it didn't feel any different so they kept the central one.

I wont even comment on the weapon bays.

Given the F-35s limited maneuverability and energy retention, I would guess the R-37M will be the staple BVR weapon for the Su-57 not only against large aircraft, but stealth fighters too.

It is rated for targets pulling up to 8g which suggests to me it might be intended for carrier aircraft use against carrier fighters and AWACS too because most of those can't pull more than 8g due to folding wings or payload.

Always thought an F-22 supercruising around at medium to high altitude would be an excellent IR target for most modern IRSTs and long range IR guided missiles.

The primary customer for the R-37M's would be to destroy the command and control elements of the enemy - basically AWACS and JSTAR type aircraft - "blinding" the fighting capability of the enemy. True stealth fighters can only be detected at much shorter ranges so the R-77's and other medium to short range missiles would deal with those fighters.

Very true, but the Su-35 have wing mounted L band radar which should easily detect the presence of stealth aircraft... but the problems it should have using its nose mounted radar detecting the same target should confirm it is a stealth target so an R-37M launch would be worth a shot... the L band can detect the presence and general distance but not track a stealth target, but for an ARH missile that is all you need to get in close and once in close the radar of the R-37M is much bigger than that of the Amraam and R-77... so the chances of a lock are much higher.

Using a R-37M would be a waist of it's true capabilities - but if that is the only missile you have left - fire away!

Actually I would say the cost of the F-22s and F-35s make them worth while targets... and besides how many enemy AWACS and JSTARS type aircraft do you expect to be?

Another valuable target would be inflight refuelling aircraft... whose loss could dramatically change the balance of power in the region...

Stealth today vs. Russia has lost the surprise element and been rendered largely irrelevant, even when X band radars onboard the fighters are still affected by it. I don't think the word "stealth" applies in the context of Russian AD anymore, actually.

Their main anti stealth fighters would be their Su-35s and Su-57s and with their IRSTs and L band wing mounted AESA arrays they are actually much better able to deal with stealth targets than western aircraft are.

In the 1980s when facing SPARROW armed Eagles the Soviets developed passive radar homing air to air missiles designed specifically to shoot down aircraft controlling SARH air to air missiles... it would not surprise me if they had R-33 and R-37M missiles with IIR seekers and two way datalinks that have the same range as their radar guided models but use IIR sensors to find stealthy targets and kill them...

My understanding of US DAS systems is that they are optimised for horizontal attacks... near vertical attacks from lofted trajectory long range AAMs will come as a surprise...

BVR gives you the time to react to counter whatever is coming your way.

A lofted long range R-37M shot with an IIR seeker means the first warning the target will get will be a hotspot about 70-80 degrees high and likely out of radar view... especially if you are not facing the direction the missile is coming from.

Then it will be a mach slashing attack there will be no time to evade even if you could see it...

Future plans are for 400km range missiles releasing mini missiles from high altitude to come down and attack a group of aircraft at a time...

Talking about context: If my radar detects a flight (4) F35's taking off on a strike mission from an airfield and also a flight of F22's on CAP in the area with an AWACS in support. My priority target would always be the AWACS.

But you would use a flight of perhaps four MiG-31s... so what are you going to do with all those other missiles?

If you wanted they could be carrying up to 8 R-37Ms each... and the replacement missile izd 810 has even better performance...

and I don't care what some say that they don't think it matters what India said about the FGFA

I think it is pretty clear what happened there... India thought they were going to get a custom made new 5th gen fighter made for them and they just contribute a token amount and essentially get everything for free, but their demands like a two seat model and a higher level of stealth the Russians basically said OK... but you have to pay for it to be done.

India realised that was going to cost a bit of money so they decided to exit the development programme and wait and buy some off the shelf and save lots of money.

If someone outside the programme thinks that makes it a bad plane... well exhibit one... the F-22... at 250 million per aircraft it was too expensive for the worlds only remaining superpower to afford. Exhibit two F-35... at 120 million per aircraft was not much better and was no where near being operationally ready even after 500 are built and sent to the front line.

I would say they made it too stealthy for what it was in the case of the F-22 and too many versions in the case of the F-35 and also too stealthy... that is where the 90K pounds per hour of flight operational costs come from... maintaining the stealth coating...

I can also guarantee you that when Su-57's get into a solid production rate and inclusion into the RuAF, you will see plenty of interest in the plane. After all, the main rule for export is that no one buys platforms that aren't in service with the host country, though there are very few exceptions.

Considering the next gen US aircraft are the F-15 and a warmed over mod of the F-16 I think the urgency for Su-57s might be relaxed all round and that Su-35s and MiG-35s for a cheaper back up numbers fleet and a few Su-57s to do some real damage to any attack force might be a popular formula...

The russians had it long ago on the su-37 to try it out, but pilots feedback was that it didn't feel any different so they kept the central one.

It was first used on the F-16 I believe and was touted as a huge breakthrough because your arm can be totally supported along its length which is good for high g manouvers... of course the argument the other way is that a central control stick means you can use either hand to control the aircraft or both if you want to while using buttons on MFDs.

As you can imagine a right hand side stick means MFD buttons on the right hand side of the cockpit will require a reach over with your left hand or a moment with hand off the stick with your right hand... not ideal.

x_54_u43 wrote:
People who actually make decisions for purchasing foreign fighters for their military do not give a **** what shitty Indian tabloids run by utter morons have to say about the Su-57, and will be more informed by sending their own delegations to Russia to actually gain information on performance and such.

I can also guarantee you that when Su-57's get into a solid production rate and inclusion into the RuAF, you will see plenty of interest in the plane. After all, the main rule for export is that no one buys platforms that aren't in service with the host country, though there are very few exceptions.

I'm with you on the delegation part, but it wasn't just BS Indian tabloids that were of any consequences, but rather the fact that it pulled out of the entire program sighting rather negative issues on the aircraft.  That is the problem not the silly tabloids.  When other countries that are very interested in purchasing this aircraft see something like that happen -- which was a rather big deal when India was devoted to the two-seat FGFA and were very optimistic about it and then suddenly pulls the plug and makes some rather derogatory remarks in particular about the Su-57's stealth capabilities -- and not sure how the IAF came up with that decision, that was not a good thing in favor of the Su-57.  Now we all can sit here and give them the middle finger and tell them to go to hell and all that happy stuff that makes us feel good, but I would think that based on A LOT of literature and opinions in forums and magazines and videos etc., that did more harm than anything measurably good.  So my question was simply why didn't Sukhoi at least show something that would detract from that like firing a pair of R-77-1s and R-74s out of the belly bays (hey, without even showing so much of the interior mechanism like they did with the wing pod and accompany it with a statement telling the Indians they lost out on a lot and made a hasty decision and that this aircraft will be about as stealthy as it could possibly be?  I'm just baffled at the lack of response but more so at why they haven't shown any of the successful weapons bay testing?  Am I being unreasonable?

TMA1 wrote:I know what gomig is saying tho. I remember seeing a few Indians react to the checkmate and were seriously complaining that it didnt use a side stick. Reminds me of when I was a kid and people were arguing about what game system was best and some kid said jaguar 64 was best because "it has 64 bits!".

Same mentality with stuff like sidesticks and diverterless intakes. They are seen as critical to any new design. It's the same with the "it has thr cross section of a marble!" people.

Thank you for at least seeing a little bit of where I'm coming from.  Sometimes being a bit of a contrarian makes you out to be a parriah lool which is the last thing I ever want to do.  I see my questioning of Russian and specifically Sukhoi's PR decision making process as a bit bizarre only in the sense that they don't seem to give a flying f---k about what anyone has to say and to me, that's perfectly fine when it comes to trivial things such as the side stick.  You brought that up as a perfect example of how some can be real nitwits and latch on to things that are kinda neither here not there.  But for me, when they pulled out of the entire program and then gave the specific reason that according to them it wasn't as stealthy as they thought it would be or were told it would be and dissed it on several other levels which made me quite angry, frankly, and I'm a huge fan of the IAF to boot LOL!

I think the thing that works against me here is on my avatar and name, it says where I live in Boston USA and I thin people who don't know me very well think I'm one of those Americans who are in those videos with chicks with tatoos and drinking beer and singing f---k yeah Murica baby and all that lol.  

Truth is, I'm from Egypt who happens to have US citizenship since I've lived here for almost 40 years.  But my home-country is Egypt which recently bought 46 MiG-29M/M2 (I was really hoping they would wait until the MiG-35 was ready which it seems to be now so they can get the AESA radar with it) but they needed to proceed with their ultra fast modernization and the 29M is about as close to the 35 as possible and they followed it with a beautiful order of 30 Su-35S (which in Egypt they're so excited including me that we've dubbed it the Su-35SE, the E being quite obvious what it stands for.  

That all out of the way, I am not an American who wished ill-will on anything Russian or whishes to rag on Russian failures big or small or anything of the sort, quite the opposite.  I just get a little ticked when I see 10 years of the PAK-FA turn into the Su-57 and not once in that DECADE except for that great shot of the wing pod firing what was probably an R-74 in a vertical climb did we see that aircraft fire a weapon out of a bay!  And the only thing we could barely see was the missile was already out of the pod for a millisecond before being blasted!  That was so awesome that why the hell couldn't they do that with the belly bay missiles?  

So what is so gaddam hell bent for secretive leather that they need to hide from prying US and Chinese and whomever else's eyes?  I can't see it!?!?!  Sorry, I just don't see it especially after being lambasted by the Indians about the stealthiness of the aircraft which I can see the Sukhoi and the Russians giving the middle finger about that but 10 years of following this aircraft's development and my comment of being from the Middle East is because I (along with millions of other local fans) can't wait to see Egypt put in an order for at least 50 of these beasts.  So is it that unfair of me to ask why the F can't they show just one -- 1 is all I ask for -- belly weapons bay firing in that huuuuuuuuuggggeeeaaahhhh span of time?  Sorry for the long and winded reply but I do appreciate your positive outlook on my point and I felt it important to reiterate my nationalities as well.  Cheers, good sir.

LMFS wrote:@Gomig-21

Take no offence, but we have already addressed the weapon bays topic.

No offense taken at all, my good friend.  Don't even worry about it.  But allow me a rebuttle without you taking any offense to it just like you offered, I must do the same.

Just because you and other members have discussed this particular subject matter before means that you should probably just indicate it like you did and/or ignore what I said because I was not privy to that discussion otherwise...I think you know the answer to that and that is I certainly wouldn't be asking the question again unless my 55 years of age is starting to show major forgetfulness which to be perfectly honest with you, it has on much smaller items, mostly people's names.  I can tell you one thing since I don't know your age, but Mick Jagger had it right all these decades when he wrote "Paint it Black" the album and the one track that sticks in my mind is "What a drag it is getting old"!!!  But I digress and apologize for going off kilter here.  Point is, I never read anything from you (which I enjoy your posts quite a bit as they are super informative and too bad there aren't more members like you and Gary and many other if I didn't mention your names, I'm sorry it's the age thing again lol.

So bottom line, either I wasn't around when you and other folks had this discussion since I joined in October of 2016 and if you had it before that, I DEFINITELY didn't see it and if you had it after, it probably got lost in how these threads get broken up because of their lengths.  So there you have it.  Is it unfair of me to ask the question if some of you have already asked and answered the question or is it ok?  Maybe @Gary can explain that to me so I know what to be ok with doing or not ok with doing.

LMFS wrote: Russia owes no explanation to no one, and we already know what the main parameters of the bays are.

While I completely agree with you on the first part and I've already mentioned it to @TMA1 I believe, especially nobodies' like us avid military aircraft followers and observers but I already answered the 2nd part of your point.  I wasn't privy to any of those discussions but glad you took the time to acknowledge my concern, I greatly appreciate it even though it probably irks you to have to do it again lol.

But don't you think that with the Indian dissing on the stealthy aspect (and I forget if they also made a comment on the weapons bays I'll have to go back and look at it) but to me, that was very damaging and created not only a PR disaster for Rosenboroexport, but for Sukhoi as well and especially Russian ingenuity.  Look at what they've done now, LMFS; they've opened Pandora's box for every entity and their mothers to join in on the bashing of the aircraft like we saw with the wingtip screws and rivets etc.  There was much more before that by the Aussies!  For Russia to say screw youz all and we don't care what you have to say is fine I guess, but I'm telling you there will be an effect of some sorts that you/we might not notice and it's certainly not super visible at first, but it will rear its ugly head in some form or the other until Sukhoi and Rosenboroexport put out and BLISTERING video showing all the decapitation of the Indian criticism as well as the Aussie and any other crap that was thrown out there by the Americans or Chinese or any NATO member.  Just my 2 cents.

LMFS wrote:This creates to uncertainty or distress to most of us, and any customer with real interest will duly get their information from Rosoboronexport and not from the internet. If MoD considers Sukhoi is not allowed to show any details about the bays, it will surely be for a reason, be it capacity, or additional functions, or max release speed or whatever. As to the capacity, with the LTS we already got confirmation that at least 3x MRAAM can be carried per bay. That matches the F-22 and surpasses it in A2G roles, by a huge margin. Further developments using up the available space are, like almost everything Russia does, secret.

I like that part I bolded since it makes a lot of sense.  Perhaps it revealed too much about the missile itself and if they wanted to put a lid on that, I can certainly appreciate and respect that.  But what's stopping them from throwing in an R-77 and firing that.  At least EVEYRONE including the interested parties with a lot of clout will see that and it would do NOTHING but add POSITITIVTY to the Su-57's capabilities and stick it to the rather harmful Indian pullout and reasons they left without any reaction from Russia.  That would've shut their asses up in a heart beat and opened the door to more than what is out there waiting to decide if they should get in on this aircraft or not.  I wish they gave us more, that's all.

But I appreciate your answer to me and taking some of your valuable time in replying despite you've already done that before and sorry I missed that.  Thanks again.

hoom wrote:

The first prototype of the new jet—called the T-10BM—made its first flight on February 18, 2008

T-10BM was the designation for Su-35S prototype/program.

Regarding the bays: Its been shown that the dimensions matches the Su-47 demonstrator bay & there are pics of those open.

Also almost certainly the Su-75 bay is same (1 bay vs 2 in tandem on Su-57) & we can see the inside of that in their MAKS demonstration.

THERE YOU GO!!!!  There it is!  Now someone please explain to me what the frig was so hard about doing the same exact thing with the PAK-FA all the way until they designated it the Su-57?  Didn't even need to fire a missile although that would've sealed about every single question any of the skeptics out there would've had?  Why not do exactly what they did here with the Su-47 and man did I love that aircraft and everything about it ESPECIALLY it's forward swept wings that gave it excellent agility and maneuverability up to a certain speed and after that point, it became an issue as with higher speeds, it increased its drag if I'm not mistaken and there was a great chance that they would be damaged.  But gaddam what a genius operation and invention and creation but with fighters that need to get up to Mach-1.8 or higher, it was not capable which I think was what did it in.  Please correct me if I'm wrong but I was all in love with this animal and how gorgeous it was with those forward swept wings.

More importantly, even as it ended up as a prototype demonstrator, it's gotta be the BEST of that kind in the entire world!  And if they had no problem showing it's weapons bay opened up for the world to see, then why not do the same for the Su-57.  I think it doesn't get any more simpler than that.  Do the same with 3 R-77-1s sitting inside and they don't even need to fire them, just show them and shut the world right up! lol

GarryB wrote:I think it is pretty clear what happened there... India thought they were going to get a custom made new 5th gen fighter made for them and they just contribute a token amount and essentially get everything for free, but their demands like a two seat model and a higher level of stealth the Russians basically said OK... but you have to pay for it to be done.

First of all, thank you for getting in on the replies to my question(s) and I'm gonna take this part right here because I do have something to say about India's request for a 2-seat version of that super sexy Ferrari in that Su-57.  Why the frig would they ever want to do that is beyond me.  Well, actually, it isn't and I'm pretty sure of the answer to that.  Let's face it, they LOVE their Su-30MKIs with 272 of them excluding the 12 more they just ordered from HAL which will put them at 284 fighters!  I don't know about you and the great country of Venezuela, but for us in Egypt, when we had a total of 240 F-16 (which we knew that number didn't include the aircraft that crashed, attrition rate etc. and simply older A models from the mid-80s etc.  Needless to say, we were so proud that we had the 4th largest F-16 air force despite the lost numbers I mentioned still gave Egypt the edge.  On the other side, knowing the US has billions and billions of billions lol, and a budget unmatched with arguably the best technology out there until Russia starts SHOWING ITS STUFF GADDAMITT!!!  

But again, I digress and man I would love to see what the Russian designers and engineers had in mind for a 2-seat PAK-FA?!  Have they ever released any drawings or legitimate pictures of it that you or @LMFS or @KVS might know of and have seen and could kindly show me?  It couldn't have been very easy for that modification particularly with that Harrier-style canopy which slides backwards.  I would think they would have to change that entire canopy to accommodate two pilots to satisfy the Indians.

But the other problem is that just like the Su-35S, many of the duties that were expected of the back-seater were automated and replaced with AI as well (correct me if I'm wrong please) but I think it was mainly the automation of the majority of the backseater's duties that nullified his need as well as AI aspects added to the pilot himself which at first you would think adds to his duties but with AI and automations of many of the aspects, they've actually lessened the duties of the pilot quite a bit.

But, Indian pilots are like probably my grandmother (and that is no offense whatsoever Indian Members reading this and quite the opposite - example - my grandmother sat on the same recliner for 20+ years that it was starting to really fall apart, springs were popping left and right and the base cushion had taken a perfect indentations of her ass right down to the wrinkles!  Sorry for the visual lmao!  So my big bro God bless his hear went out and spent thousands on a brand spanking new leather recliner with heated and cooling options and buttons to change all sorts of settings and the thing was the most incredible, state of the art recliner one would ever want.  The delivery company showed up and we were all there ready to surprise her and take pics and see how happy she would be and guess what?  She wanted NOTHING to do with it and shooed them away and threatened then never to come back and try to take away her ever so loving recliner the way it was because it was perfect for her.  No matter how much pleading my brother and I and the rest of the family did to get her to even try it, there was no way on God's green earth she wanted anything to do with the new recliner and that is what I think is the same thing with the Indians (of course not on that crazy level as my grandma God bless her soul now may she RIP) but they've been used to 262 X 2 pilots flying the Su-30MKI and did not want any new change even on a brand spanking new stealthy jet.  Can't think of any other reason for that craziness to tell you the truth.

GarryB wrote:India realised that was going to cost a bit of money so they decided to exit the development programme and wait and buy some off the shelf and save lots of money.

Really?  That is crazy if that was their way of thinking!  I think the US had a lot to do with it to be prefectly honest with you and don't be surprised if the IAF end up with the F-35.  Just throwing it out there.

GarryB wrote:If someone outside the programme thinks that makes it a bad plane... well exhibit one... the F-22... at 250 million per aircraft it was too expensive for the worlds only remaining superpower to afford. Exhibit two F-35... at 120 million per aircraft was not much better and was no where near being operationally ready even after 500 are built and sent to the front line.

I would say they made it too stealthy for what it was in the case of the F-22 and too many versions in the case of the F-35 and also too stealthy... that is where the 90K pounds per hour of flight operational costs come from... maintaining the stealth coating...

I'm with you on all of what you said, I just wish Russia said or more importantly did something like open and close the bays during one of the MAKS-21 flight demonstrations.  Give us something to shut up all the freaks out there dissing this magnificent piece of equipment.  Like I said, it's just my opinion and anyone can discuss with me or ignore me is fine by me but I do appreciate all that have said something.  Cheers and I won't bring it up any more, you got my word.

Gomig-21 wrote:

I'm with you on the delegation part, but it wasn't just BS Indian tabloids that were of any consequences, but rather the fact that it pulled out of the entire program sighting rather negative issues on the aircraft.  That is the problem not the silly tabloids.  When other countries that are very interested in purchasing this aircraft see something like that happen -- which was a rather big deal when India was devoted to the two-seat FGFA and were very optimistic about it and then suddenly pulls the plug and makes some rather derogatory remarks in particular about the Su-57's stealth capabilities -- and not sure how the IAF came up with that decision, that was not a good thing in favor of the Su-57.  Now we all can sit here and give them the middle finger and tell them to go to hell and all that happy stuff that makes us feel good, but I would think that based on A LOT of literature and opinions in forums and magazines and videos etc., that did more harm than anything measurably good.  So my question was simply why didn't Sukhoi at least show something that would detract from that like firing a pair of R-77-1s and R-74s out of the belly bays (hey, without even showing so much of the interior mechanism like they did with the wing pod and accompany it with a statement telling the Indians they lost out on a lot and made a hasty decision and that this aircraft will be about as stealthy as it could possibly be?  I'm just baffled at the lack of response but more so at why they haven't shown any of the successful weapons bay testing?  Am I being unreasonable?

You're not being unreasonable. AFAIK, the whole Indian side pulling out of the FGFA program is one of the main arguments (or, for that matter, sometimes the only argument) that haters give to criticize the Su-57. And obv no video, no speech from professionals, no literature value can make them stop hating the plane. If that was the case, moon conspiacy people wouldn't exist today.

On the other hand, I don't see how a video of shooting R-77 or R-74 from the main bay would help with distracting. They did show missiles being fired from the side bay and main bay after all, just not with a direct view of the launch rail. What does help with distracting customers though, is rebranding. And they will probably do that with the upgraded version of Su-57 with new engines and features. In fact, that has been the trend for arms producers around the world: rebranding their product to make people "forget" about issues in the past. Just look at Ukrainian tanks for example.

Gomig-21 wrote:

TMA1 wrote:I know what gomig is saying tho. I remember seeing a few Indians react to the checkmate and were seriously complaining that it didnt use a side stick. Reminds me of when I was a kid and people were arguing about what game system was best and some kid said jaguar 64 was best because "it has 64 bits!".

Same mentality with stuff like sidesticks and diverterless intakes. They are seen as critical to any new design. It's the same with the "it has thr cross section of a marble!" people.

Thank you for at least seeing a little bit of where I'm coming from.  Sometimes being a bit of a contrarian makes you out to be a parriah lool which is the last thing I ever want to do.  I see my questioning of Russian and specifically Sukhoi's PR decision making process as a bit bizarre only in the sense that they don't seem to give a flying f---k about what anyone has to say and to me, that's perfectly fine when it comes to trivial things such as the side stick.  You brought that up as a perfect example of how some can be real nitwits and latch on to things that are kinda neither here not there.  But for me, when they pulled out of the entire program and then gave the specific reason that according to them it wasn't as stealthy as they thought it would be or were told it would be and dissed it on several other levels which made me quite angry, frankly, and I'm a huge fan of the IAF to boot LOL!

I think the thing that works against me here is on my avatar and name, it says where I live in Boston USA and I thin people who don't know me very well think I'm one of those Americans who are in those videos with chicks with tatoos and drinking beer and singing f---k yeah Murica baby and all that lol.  

Truth is, I'm from Egypt who happens to have US citizenship since I've lived here for almost 40 years.  But my home-country is Egypt which recently bought 46 MiG-29M/M2 (I was really hoping they would wait until the MiG-35 was ready which it seems to be now so they can get the AESA radar with it) but they needed to proceed with their ultra fast modernization and the 29M is about as close to the 35 as possible and they followed it with a beautiful order of 30 Su-35S (which in Egypt they're so excited including me that we've dubbed it the Su-35SE, the E being quite obvious what it stands for.  

That all out of the way, I am not an American who wished ill-will on anything Russian or whishes to rag on Russian failures big or small or anything of the sort, quite the opposite.  I just get a little ticked when I see 10 years of the PAK-FA turn into the Su-57 and not once in that DECADE except for that great shot of the wing pod firing what was probably an R-74 in a vertical climb did we see that aircraft fire a weapon out of a bay!  And the only thing we could barely see was the missile was already out of the pod for a millisecond before being blasted!  That was so awesome that why the hell couldn't they do that with the belly bay missiles?  

So what is so gaddam hell bent for secretive leather that they need to hide from prying US and Chinese and whomever else's eyes?  I can't see it!?!?!  Sorry, I just don't see it especially after being lambasted by the Indians about the stealthiness of the aircraft which I can see the Sukhoi and the Russians giving the middle finger about that but 10 years of following this aircraft's development and my comment of being from the Middle East is because I (along with millions of other local fans) can't wait to see Egypt put in an order for at least 50 of these beasts.  So is it that unfair of me to ask why the F can't they show just one -- 1 is all I ask for -- belly weapons bay firing in that huuuuuuuuuggggeeeaaahhhh span of time?  Sorry for the long and winded reply but I do appreciate your positive outlook on my point and I felt it important to reiterate my nationalities as well.  Cheers, good sir.

What a lot of people failed to recognize is the fact that side stick or missile stick has nothing to do with the aircraft's capability, but with the airforce's training doctrine. Russian pilots are trained to keep a keen eye out the window and only use MFDs as complementary, so a middle stick wouldnt interfere with the process. On the other hand, Western pilots are trained to trust their instrument at all times and use eyes as complementary. Obv a middle stick would then prevent them from seeing the MFD, so they changed to a side stick one.

Also, Egypt IS considering Mig-35 hahahaha. But the F-16 block 40 is also competing.

There are some engineering decisions that require a leap of faith and trusting your instincts of the coming future even if things as they are won't provide you with clues right now.

For me the side stick issue is one such thing. Everyone who has used any gyro-controlled machinery, be it aircraft, an excavator or a computer mouse, knows that the control placed at your right (or left, depending on the user) is much more ergonomic than it being placed dead center in front of you. The thing is, aircraft inherited the yoke control from cars and the Yoke's natural spot, of course, is at the  center. When helicopters came around, the gyro control came along but it was a manual lever thing that required both hands for operation. So it made sense to place it at the center. When smaller fighter planes arrived and it was realized a gyro control was best suited for their maneuverability, they in turn inherited the center stick from the helicopter. Even after controls migrated to hydraulics and then electrics, the center arrangement persisted for the same reason anything in any industry persists - familiarity and existing investment. There are also a few things that came along the way, such as pilots needing their right hands to operate some panels on their right, and so they can hold the stick with their left temporarily. But that is a byproduct of the center arrangement itself, not an inherent necessity in itself. Obviously I have not flown a plane, much less a gyro controlled one, but I would guess it would feel a bit awkward to fly it using a control between my legs. The surveyed Russian pilots may say it felt the same, and God bless them. But my guess is a new trainee would prefer a side stick if it were available.

Remember when Airbus began to use the side stick instead of the yoke (the A340, was it?) The whole industry was awash with comments on how this was going to fail, and that it was a desperate attempt by Airbus to look more modern than Boeing. Yes, it helped that they had fewer customers to retrain than Boeing at the time. But they went ahead and introduced the control for their whole product line. The Boeing people at the time, predicting all the doom and gloom for Airbus, stuck with their yoke. Now they are really stuck with it, the cost of redesign and retraining astronomically higher than it was then, and the competition winning hearts and minds with their ultra modern cockpit layout. Believe it or not, even veteran pilots say the side stick feels more natural. Long time Boeing customers (may I mention Ethiopian airlines) are ordering more A350s than B787s.

I dare say it is more or less a similar situation with military aviation. And someone at a higher decision level of Russian military avionics needs to make the leap of faith. They could learn from their civillian countrparts and start with side sticks for their transport aircraft. I was a bit disappointed to see the yoke in a clean sheet design such as the Il-112. But I guess it matters less for something that was not meant to be super maneuverable. For its fighter products though, Russian cockpit designs need a rethink.

I'm with you on the delegation part, but it wasn't just BS Indian tabloids that were of any consequences, but rather the fact that it pulled out of the entire program sighting rather negative issues on the aircraft.

They had to say bad things about the plane to justify leaving the programme... the alternative is the truth that they are cheap bastards that don't want to pay for what they want, but want what they want to be provided to them for free...

]When other countries that are very interested in purchasing this aircraft see something like that happen -- which was a rather big deal when India was devoted to the two-seat FGFA and were very optimistic about it and then suddenly pulls the plug and makes some rather derogatory remarks in particular about the Su-57's stealth capabilities -- and not sure how the IAF came up with that decision, that was not a good thing in favor of the Su-57.

The level of stealth on any aircraft is on a gradient, but that gradient is logarithmic... the problem is that the logarithmic rate relates to the cost in a bad way and level of stealth in a bad way too.

A non stealth aircraft like a first model MiG-29 it is cheap and easy to increase its level of stealth... quite dramatically and relatively cheaply... you just go around smoothing the rough stuff and dealing with any corner reflectors and changing the angles of wings and fins etc etc... nothing amazing but it will have a huge effect of radar cross section. The effect might reduce the radar size of the aircraft 50 times... from about 5 square metres to 2.5 square metres abut only cost five to ten million dollars per aircraft to perform. If you want to reduce it further however the cost goes up by a factor of 100 and the results go down by an even bigger factor... so once all the obvious and easy changes and fixes have done their magic the next ones are much more expensive but also have much less effect and can be totally ruined if a screw is not screwed in flat to the skin and taped over and covered in RAM coatings five layers thick.

The Russians had to make a decision as to how stealthy they wanted their aircraft to be which will effect the distance they can be detected, but more critically will determine how expensive they are to make and to buy and to operate.

Russia can of course make them much more stealthy but I really doubt India are prepared to pay four times more to buy them and three times more to operate them, because the long wave radar solutions to see slightly stealthy targets also work on very stealthy targets too... but the difference in cost means the very stealthy targets wont be flying much cause they cost too much and they wont have bought as many.

This is clearly just an excuse to withdraw from the programme.

It also makes it easier to suck up to the Americans and try to gather their support against China...

So my question was simply why didn't Sukhoi at least show something that would detract from that like firing a pair of R-77-1s and R-74s out of the belly bays (hey, without even showing so much of the interior mechanism like they did with the wing pod and accompany it with a statement telling the Indians they lost out on a lot and made a hasty decision and that this aircraft will be about as stealthy as it could possibly be?

All that would achieve would be to prove their belly weapon bays work... which really does not compensate for questions over stealth.

They did release video of weapons on external pylons and a weapon launch from the internal wing weapon bay flying vertically... honestly I have never seen a weapon launched from a weapon bay in vertical flight before...

Suggests a lock on after launch capacity which is rather new for the Russians in IR guided weapons.... but of course we have since seen that new missile for attack helos....

I'm just baffled at the lack of response but more so at why they haven't shown any of the successful weapons bay testing? Am I being unreasonable?

I would think such things will be kept secret as long as possible and despite what you have said showing stuff to the general public is a low priority.

When Algeria says it is interested in Su-57s then I suspect such footage is shown to them as well as schematics showing what can fit at the moment as well as hints of what might be to come in the future in terms of weapons.

Sometimes being a bit of a contrarian makes you out to be a parriah lool which is the last thing I ever want to do. I see my questioning of Russian and specifically Sukhoi's PR decision making process as a bit bizarre only in the sense that they don't seem to give a flying f---k about what anyone has to say and to me, that's perfectly fine when it comes to trivial things such as the side stick.

Couldn't you turn that around and say... well if the weapon bays don't work why would the Russian AF have accepted serial production of it?

Side stick controllers are trivial pilot interface stuff and I am sure if a country wanted a side stick controller they could have one fitted...

The Su-37 with the TVC engine nozzles had a centre stick and a side stick and the pilot could choose to use either during flying displays.

The only practical advantage of a sidestick is being able to have an extra large display between your legs but then as I mentioned having your entire front presented with all these touch screens how much and how often are you prepared to take your hand off the stick to operate them... especially the ones on the right hand side...

Truth is, I'm from Egypt who happens to have US citizenship since I've lived here for almost 40 years. But my home-country is Egypt which recently bought 46 MiG-29M/M2 (I was really hoping they would wait until the MiG-35 was ready which it seems to be now so they can get the AESA radar with it) but they needed to proceed with their ultra fast modernization and the 29M is about as close to the 35 as possible and they followed it with a beautiful order of 30 Su-35S (which in Egypt they're so excited including me that we've dubbed it the Su-35SE, the E being quite obvious what it stands for.

The shell of the MiG-29M and the MiG-35 are the same so you can take various bits out of the 29M and put in bits from a 35 and you end up with a 35.

Think of the 29M as mature good quality stuff from the SMT that worked well and was affordable. The bits in the 35 are brand new technology the best of the best that they can manage... more expensive but also better.

I always thought and have mentioned several times that India should have ended up buying 300 MiGs... buy 50 MiG-35s and and 250 MiG-29Ms... operate them for five years or so and then make some decisions based on experiences because the MiG-29M is a fully multirole fighter bomber and could easily replace the MiG-21 and MiG-27 in Indian use very easily and relatively cheaply.

The MiG-29M has all the new datalinks stuff and is compatible with all their new and soon to come weapons and it much better than the 21 or 27 in their respective roles.

After 5 years use they will have had plenty of chance to compare the MiG-35 and its better systems and decide for themselves which systems are worth it and which are not so much better as to be worth the extra cost... so they might end up with their MiG-29Ms with half the stuff remain the same and half be upgraded to 35 level stuff.

They might even realise the 29M is cheaper to operate than the 35 and just keep them both... perhaps in 5 years with the 29M getting the AESA radar and the new IRST system and self defence equipment of the 35 and just leave it at that to keep it cheaper to operate.

Even buying 300 planes would not cost them more than buying 126 Rafales.

The original purpose of the buy was to fill gaps as older planes retired that could be deployed on the border with China.

The MiG would be fine.

I just get a little ticked when I see 10 years of the PAK-FA turn into the Su-57 and not once in that DECADE except for that great shot of the wing pod firing what was probably an R-74 in a vertical climb did we see that aircraft fire a weapon out of a bay! And the only thing we could barely see was the missile was already out of the pod for a millisecond before being blasted! That was so awesome that why the hell couldn't they do that with the belly bay missiles?

To be fair they also fired the gun... and the cannon shell spread shown from such a very short distance suggests the gun is articulated... (ie can move and aim independently of the aircraft....) which is a bit ground breaking but seems to be largely ignored too...

The simple fact is that showing launches from the weapons bay might show information they are not ready to reveal yet... I apologise in advance but it is amusing how you don't seem to be able to accept that they can and do keep secrets.

No need to put a lot of thought in to it... people have been speculating for ages about what sort of internal weapons they can carry and how long the bays remain open for and how far they open... for a long time many thought the wing mounted bays were electronics pods that didn't hold missiles at all...

Is it unfair of me to ask the question if some of you have already asked and answered the question or is it ok?

It is fine for you to ask the question... but don't expect answers and don't expect satisfactory answers because we don't have direct lines to Mr Putin... well he hasn't answered my calls yet....

But don't you think that with the Indian dissing on the stealthy aspect

The Indians and for that matter the Chinese are going to diss... the first obvious response would be to say... do you think domestic Indian and Chinese stealth fighters are more stealth and is there a two seat F-22 or two seat F-35 in operation?

Are Indian demands for two seat 5th gen fighters unreasonable?

There was much more before that by the Aussies! For Russia to say screw youz all and we don't care what you have to say is fine I guess, but I'm telling you there will be an effect of some sorts that you/we might not notice and it's certainly not super visible at first, but it will rear its ugly head in some form or the other until Sukhoi and Rosenboroexport put out and BLISTERING video showing all the decapitation of the Indian criticism as well as the Aussie and any other crap that was thrown out there by the Americans or Chinese or any NATO member.

I am actually surprised how little criticism there is of Russian aircraft, considering the F-22 is dead... they are making no more, and the F-35 is so bad they are putting F-15s back into production and are looking at modifications of the F-16 to put back into production too... I mean if you want to diss one side then low hanging fruit buddy low hanging fruit...

Post photos of the Ye-8 version of the MiG-21 and say that Russia has a new single engined fighter that most eurocanards were based on and watch the fur fly...

I like that part I bolded since it makes a lot of sense. Perhaps it revealed too much about the missile itself and if they wanted to put a lid on that, I can certainly appreciate and respect that. But what's stopping them from throwing in an R-77 and firing that. At least EVEYRONE including the interested parties with a lot of clout will see that and it would do NOTHING but add POSITITIVTY to the Su-57's capabilities and stick it to the rather harmful Indian pullout and reasons they left without any reaction from Russia.

What you are essentially saying is that until you see video of the Su-57 launching a missile from its main weapons bays you think... what... they are painted on?

That would've shut their asses up in a heart beat and opened the door to more than what is out there waiting to decide if they should get in on this aircraft or not.

No it wouldn't. They would bleat on about it being vapourware until they have 3,500 in service like the F-35, or they would claim that US stealth technology is better and this is just as stealthy as an Su-35 only, or that the R-77 is totally untested in combat... or that Russian pilot training is terrible...

They are not going to shut up even with footage of an Su-57 shooting down a death star...

THERE YOU GO!!!! There it is! Now someone please explain to me what the frig was so hard about doing the same exact thing with the PAK-FA all the way until they designated it the Su-57?

Because that was a test aircraft used to test some ideas and features... you might have noticed they dropped the canards and the forward swept wings...

They showed the weapons bays no doubt to prove they could be located where they were without revealing any information about a system that was ever going to become operational.

Really? That is crazy if that was their way of thinking! I think the US had a lot to do with it to be prefectly honest with you and don't be surprised if the IAF end up with the F-35. Just throwing it out there.

The purchase price alone would prevent any agreement and the excessive operating costs would make lease options out of the question too.

They complained about 2.4 billion for an entire aircraft carrier and a flight of 16 odd MiG-29KRs and half a dozen helicopters including the Ka-31 AEW aircraft, but they bought 36 Rafales for over 8 billion... no problem at all...

I mean if the carrier was designed for Rafales so they needed 18 Rafales to operate from it... those aircraft alone would cost over 4 billion... double the price they paid for the carrier...

But I am letting common sense get in the way of my judgement....

Give us something to shut up all the freaks out there dissing this magnificent piece of equipment.

But that is the point... they never shut up... when proven totally wrong... they move on to something else that will eventually be proven totally wrong too... there is no pleasing them because they just hate Russian planes and any excuse will do.

Cheers and I won't bring it up any more, you got my word.

This is a discussion forum and there are probably more opinions out there that you haven't heard or discussed with them about yet, so never say never.

And they will probably do that with the upgraded version of Su-57 with new engines and features. In fact, that has been the trend for arms producers around the world: rebranding their product to make people "forget" about issues in the past.

Well they will always try to improve their product, but trying to please the haters... they were so quick to believe the worst regarding a Russian plane because they hate Russian planes... fixing the problems for them wont change anything at all.... haters going to hate and were never going to honestly buy anything anyway.

India is in the process of sucking up to the US for its perceived battle with China, which the US is trying to encourage... buying Su-30MKIs and S-400s is bad enough but buying Su-57s would be a bridge too far... India knows China wont be able to buy any without proving their own stuff is not good enough so they think they can save a few billion in investment money now and just buy them off the shelf later.

When you think you are playing some other country for your own interests remember they are doing the same to you.

Obv a middle stick would then prevent them from seeing the MFD, so they changed to a side stick one.

Most planes with centre sticks don't have displays behind the stick.

Also, Egypt IS considering Mig-35 hahahaha. But the F-16 block 40 is also competing.

My understanding is that they wanted the MiG-35 but it was not ready yet... Russia is getting its first aircraft and will start working out the bugs and learning how to use it effectively... give it some time and it will be good to go.

Everyone who has used any gyro-controlled machinery, be it aircraft, an excavator or a computer mouse, knows that the control placed at your right (or left, depending on the user) is much more ergonomic than it being placed dead center in front of you.

I don't agree... the computer keyboard was always front and centre in front of you... I was using one before a mouse had been invented... and honestly I actually prefer a trackball for real precision anyway. The mouse went to the side because the keyboard was in front of you.

With aircraft traditionally controls are central so you could use both hands to operate them... sometimes they took quite a bit of force to operate... especially if the hydraulics failed or if there was no hydraulics at all.

The throttle has traditionally always been to one side, that is true, but on many large aircraft they are on the central console between the two pilots too... but then they are normally set and not moved around a lot.

Having a control between your legs that you can reach with both hands is better for left and right handed people... many choose to fly with their left hand because they are left handed.

Having the control stick directly in front of you you get a direct indication of the angle of roll you are applying to the stick... with a stick off to one side it is not so obvious.

The thing is, aircraft inherited the yoke control from cars and the Yoke's natural spot, of course, is at the center.

Not really.... the control surfaces the flight stick controls are located on both sides of the aircraft... both main wings, both horizontal tails, and the vertical tail so bringing the cables together and running them up to the cockpit it made sense to run them down the centre for the pedals and for the control stick.

The engine throttle controls were often placed on one side.

When helicopters came around, the gyro control came along but it was a manual lever thing that required both hands for operation. So it made sense to place it at the center.

Not really... they could have used a side stick, but the difference between the old yokes and control sticks and the modern side sticks is taht the modern side stick is digital... it is like a computer joystick and in the case of the F-16 didn't even physically move. It had sensors inside it that detected force applied to it.... direction and strength but it did not actually move under force... for most of the first 60 odd years of flight a sidestick controller would make no sense at all because there is not enough room to give it the range of physical motion it would need to work properly because there were no computers to work out how hard the pilot wanted to turn.

When smaller fighter planes arrived and it was realized a gyro control was best suited for their maneuverability, they in turn inherited the center stick from the helicopter.

Small fighter planes appeared in WWI... helicopters did not appear till WWII or so...

Even after controls migrated to hydraulics and then electrics, the center arrangement persisted for the same reason anything in any industry persists - familiarity and existing investment.

Well also the fact that it worked without needing to replace the entire flight control system of the aircraft with a fly by wire system.

There are also a few things that came along the way, such as pilots needing their right hands to operate some panels on their right, and so they can hold the stick with their left temporarily. But that is a byproduct of the center arrangement itself, not an inherent necessity in itself.

There are plenty of left handed pilots that prefer to fly using their left hands.

Obviously I have not flown a plane, much less a gyro controlled one, but I would guess it would feel a bit awkward to fly it using a control between my legs. The surveyed Russian pilots may say it felt the same, and God bless them. But my guess is a new trainee would prefer a side stick if it were available.

New trainees will be wanting Playstation controllers, but I rather doubt that will happen.

BTW I have seen Playstation controllers used to control drones, which is perfectly fine, but not aircraft.

A modern fighter pilots control stick and throttle has dozens of switches and buttons and rocker keys, but with it between your legs in front of you is about as having the steering wheel of a car in front of you instead of a side mounted joystick. The steering wheel and control stick in front of you is rather more common and popular for most vehicles.

Tanks had steering levers... and that is because tractors had steering levers... these days they look more like motor bike handle bars...

The Boeing people at the time, predicting all the doom and gloom for Airbus, stuck with their yoke. Now they are really stuck with it, the cost of redesign and retraining astronomically higher than it was then, and the competition winning hearts and minds with their ultra modern cockpit layout. Believe it or not, even veteran pilots say the side stick feels more natural. Long time Boeing customers (may I mention Ethiopian airlines) are ordering more A350s than B787s.

I find it hard to believe Boeing is losing orders because it uses side stick controllers.

Plus I have to ask... with two flight crew up front a sidestick controller means the guy in teh right hand seat can reach both right hand sticks... which one does he use?

Or do they hire a right handed pilot for the left seat and a left handed pilot for the right seat... and presumably the shared throttle controls down the middle in front of the controller... that would be awkward for the left seat guy using his right hand for the shared throttle console and the flight stick, while the pilot in teh right hand seat presumably has his own control stick to the right and his left hands controls the throttles....

For its fighter products though, Russian cockpit designs need a rethink.

They already tested side sticks... the TVC testbed Su-37 had a central stick and a side stick for use to operate the aircraft... their Su-35 and Su-57 seem to have a conventional stick layout.

GarryB wrote:
I don't agree... the computer keyboard was always front and centre in front of you... I was using one before a mouse had been invented... and honestly I actually prefer a trackball for real precision anyway. The mouse went to the side because the keyboard was in front of you.

Honestly? If you can do everything on a computer (hypothetically) with a mouse and you don't need a keyboard, center in front of you is where you use your mouse/trackball?

GarryB wrote:
With aircraft traditionally controls are central so you could use both hands to operate them... sometimes they took quite a bit of force to operate... especially if the hydraulics failed or if there was no hydraulics at all.

The throttle has traditionally always been to one side, that is true, but on many large aircraft they are on the central console between the two pilots too... but then they are normally set and not moved around a lot.

Having a control between your legs that you can reach with both hands is better for left and right handed people... many choose to fly with their left hand because they are left handed.

If you are talking about commercial airliners then they have the engine throttles in the middle so that both pilot/copilot can access them. A dual crew is actually a requirement of certification of any civilian airliner. Each engine has its own lever and on a 4-engined plane such as the B747 it might actually be impossible for a single crew.

GarryB wrote:
There are plenty of left handed pilots that prefer to fly using their left hands.

But they are not catering to them with the center stick arrangement, are they? Apart from holding it temporarily, the gyro control in any modern fighter can not really be used with a left hand. It's ergonomic shape and the function buttons are all designed for a right hand use. What would a left-handed pilot do with the engine throttle?

GarryB wrote:
Plus I have to ask... with two flight crew up front a sidestick controller means the guy in teh right hand seat can reach both right hand sticks... which one does he use?

Or do they hire a right handed pilot for the left seat and a left handed pilot for the right seat... and presumably the shared throttle controls down the middle in front of the controller... that would be awkward for the left seat guy using his right hand for the shared throttle console and the flight stick, while the pilot in teh right hand seat presumably has his own control stick to the right and his left hands controls the throttles....

Well Airbus has been doing it for a long time now. Sukhoi too on th SSJ-100. Instead of a right hand stick for both pilots, they use a left-handed one for the left crew member. They share the center throttle console as with traditional planes.

Sorry guys....this side stick or center stick or yoke discussion is complete BULLSHIT!

Boeing is using only yokes in all airliners and Airbus side sticks...so what?! Yokes are traditional, because the yoke was connected via wires with the control surfaces...and for this you needed sometimes both hands. Controlling a aircraft was a hard job and not only strong nerves were required, muscles too ;D Side sticks, yokes and center sticks are today all electronic, some with force feedback.

What is the difference between F-35 and Su-57??? The F-35 has nearly all controls focused on the front only the thrust lever left and the side stick to the right no additional buttons or controls. In the Su-57 cockpit there are still controls to the left and the right, sometimes classic buttons. What is better? Try to use a touchpanel in a 9g dogfight...good luck! I go with the russian solution!!!

Sorry for that...I'm not a racist or so...but Asians prefer design over function! This is really no joke!!! I'm working in the chemical industry and customers from China and general Asia prefer products that are optical better but worse in function. So you could have the best fighter in the world with 100 tons weapon payload, Mach 7 and the RCS of a virus...if it looks old fashioned they won't buy it!

By the way...the advertisment for Checkmate was really genius! Exactly what customers from Asia are expecting. They will sell the fighters like fresh baked warm buns!!!

Tsavo Lion wrote:

...with that kind of attitude my country is doomed. But hey we can do more photo ops with pride flags in front of our astronomically priced kit.

At least we can print more $s & use them as weapons w/o firing a shot!
Then some very talented immigrants & refugees will come to make us better & stronger.

Honestly? If you can do everything on a computer (hypothetically) with a mouse and you don't need a keyboard, center in front of you is where you use your mouse/trackball?

Who can do everything they need on a computer with a mouse.... I suspect they should be using a tablet or phone if that is the case.

But thanks for proving my point... if you primarily use a mouse or a trackball or a joystick then you push away that keyboard and you put the primary control device directly in front of you...

If you are talking about commercial airliners then they have the engine throttles in the middle so that both pilot/copilot can access them. A dual crew is actually a requirement of certification of any civilian airliner. Each engine has its own lever and on a 4-engined plane such as the B747 it might actually be impossible for a single crew.

So if both crew have side stick controllers then the guy sitting in the left seat would need the centre console for his flight stick... which means the engine controls need to be in front of that or above them on an above console... going to be damn difficult for that guy in the left seat to operate his flight stick with the same hand he is operating the engine controls.

Stops being a problem if each pilot has a central control and a centre console mounted throttle set...

But they are not catering to them with the center stick arrangement, are they?

You can use both hands to guide the centre stick... not something that can be done with a side stick.

What would a left-handed pilot do with the engine throttle?

Of course... they can fly the plane with their right hand but can't operate a throttle with their left?

Left handed people are not stupid you know...

Well Airbus has been doing it for a long time now. Sukhoi too on th SSJ-100. Instead of a right hand stick for both pilots, they use a left-handed one for the left crew member. They share the center throttle console as with traditional planes.

The SSJ was intended to be something western airlines would buy, but since a lot of sanctions and treachery it is now all Russian... I would not expect many other Russian planes to have a side stick... As I have already said... they tried it in an aerobatics plane and have not used it since then.

When you are pulling 9g and you are in full AB there is no need to keep you hand pushing the throttle forward, but your hand on the control stick might get tired and need some support... can't do that with a side stick when you are fully strapped in.

BTW stopped watching that video about the Su-57 when he said it would be hard to evaluate when there is only one so it does not represent a threat.

The guy is a moron.

There are about 500 F-35s in service right now but it does not represent a threat because without knowing the specific model it is hard to tell what features would actually work on it so for instance can it operate its AB for more than 90 seconds before its tail falls off... and that means most are subsonic only... so not much threat at all.

...with that kind of attitude my country is doomed. But hey we can do more photo ops with pride flags in front of our astronomically priced kit.

Your country has some very serious problems and anyone who speaks out like Snowden and Manning they call criminals and put in jail... sounds like the people in power and the people in charge like it this way...

At least we can print more $s & use them as weapons w/o firing a shot!

Going to come a time when those dollars are no longer accepted and then you are going to have to do a lot of shooting because there is not enough dirty dishes on the planet to work off your debt.

Then some very talented immigrants & refugees will come to make us better & stronger.

Most are looking for an easy life in a country the US probably wont bomb...

Tsavo Lion wrote:

Oh sweet jeebus that was painful... a few minutes of my life that could have been spent more usefully...

What a knob-end. What an arrogant condescending know-it-all f*cking moron...

No wonder these clowns lost in Afghanistan.  They are genetically and culturally in-f*cking-capable of giving credit to others when it is justified.  

@GarryB

I found most of your reply statements deflections at best

Who can do everything they need on a computer with a mouse.... I suspect they should be using a tablet or phone if that is the case.

But thanks for proving my point... if you primarily use a mouse or a trackball or a joystick then you push away that keyboard and you put the primary control device directly in front of you...

What exactly did I prove? My argument was that whether or not they have a keyboard in front of them, most people use the mouse in alignment with their arm. I am right-handed, so I use the mouse on the right side of the computer. In fact most people tend to use them at the extreme right for comfort and if they need to lean closer to the screen. Are you telling me that you use your mouse directly in front of your chest? I find that hard to believe.

So if both crew have side stick controllers then the guy sitting in the left seat would need the centre console for his flight stick... which means the engine controls need to be in front of that or above them on an above console... going to be damn difficult for that guy in the left seat to operate his flight stick with the same hand he is operating the engine controls.

Stops being a problem if each pilot has a central control and a centre console mounted throttle set...

Who said anything about side sticks on the center console? If we are discussing large airliners or transport craft, and if they opt to use side sticks, then there will be a left-handed one for the left pilot at his left and vice versa for the right pilot. That is what is implemented on Airbus planes, the SSJ-100 and now the MS-21. The center console remains the same with the traditional shared throttle set. How is this confusing?

Of course... they can fly the plane with their right hand but can't operate a throttle with their left?

Left handed people are not stupid you know...

I didn't say they were. You said the center stick arrangement allows for left handed pilots to fly the jet. How is it possible to use the left hand both for the stick and the throttle?

The SSJ was intended to be something western airlines would buy, but since a lot of sanctions and treachery it is now all Russian... I would not expect many other Russian planes to have a side stick... As I have already said... they tried it in an aerobatics plane and have not used it since then.

By the same argument they should redesign the MS-21 because it is primarily for the domestic market.

It is not just the MS-21 migrating to the side stick cockpit layout, you know. The Chinese also are basing all their upcoming designs on this concept. That includes the Comac C919 being flight tested now. The Airbus A400 military transport is another. Why should things be different for the Russian industry? They are practically starting their civilian aviation from scratch, so they have the luxury to introduce clean sheet design concepts. And they made the right call with the side stick layout. but for their military aviation, they have a huge thriving industry and customers all over the globe. So I understand if they insist in using their traditional layout. But things are fast changing in that sector too, and they would nee to rethink things.

When you are pulling 9g and you are in full AB there is no need to keep you hand pushing the throttle forward, but your hand on the control stick might get tired and need some support... can't do that with a side stick when  you are fully strapped in.

The best way to mitigate effects of a high acceleration maneuver would be, I presume, to have both arms resting on a support, such as the left at the throttle and the right at a right gyro-stick, and not with suspended arms holding a sensitive control between your legs.

Big_Gazza wrote:

Tsavo Lion wrote:

Oh sweet jeebus that was painful... a few minutes of my life that could have been spent more usefully...

What a knob-end. What an arrogant condescending know-it-all f*cking moron...

No wonder these clowns lost in Afghanistan.  They are genetically and culturally in-f*cking-capable of giving credit to others when it is justified.  

These are the same people who dick stroke about the F-35 - the flying boat that is jack of all trades and master of none.

Tsavo always posts shit.  I cut down the rest what I said, but I think most people here same sentiment for the useless who post garbage.

Going to come a time when those dollars are no longer accepted ..

we now have plenty of oil & liquified gas to sell, besides grain & civil/mil. aircraft. With the UK & its former empire, "who cares what the price of rice in China?"