The Russian autocannon is an elegantly simple beast. The barrel is almost a consumable, but you would not be blazing away with this gun as its a secondary weapon. However in this era of drones I think a gun is essential if you don't want to be trading $1m missiles for $200K drones This is probably why its still on the SU-57
I totally agree with you but from a financial aspect a cannon is quite expensive for something they don't intend to use a lot.
The Americans made this same mistake with the F-4 Phantom... missiles would do everything, cannon were heavy and expensive and unlikely to be used so they removed them and then the war in Vietnam came up and they realised their mistake.
If, however you want to make an aircraft cheaper, removing a fixed gun frees up space and weight, but it also massively reduces maintenance because every flight you fire that gun and even flights you don't it has to be cleaned. Also in action there is always a risk of a build up of explosive gases that can cause damage or fire, and of course cannon generate significant force on the aircraft structure... firing 100 30mm cannon shells a second exerts serious force from a 6 barrel 30mm gatling gun on the MiG-27 for instance, and while the 23 x 115mm round is much less powerful firing at a cyclic rate of 12,000 rpm generates a huge amount of vibration and energy on an Su-24 and MiG-31.
Not having to clean it, not having to carry it, these are important issues for some aircraft that may not use their guns very much at all... mainly because they don't want to have to fly that close to targets on the ground or in the air.
And I totally agree... Russian aircraft guns are works of art... the Americans think their gatlings are best, but the 23mm Russian cannon has double its rate of fire and is much lighter and is gas powered so it does not need an electric motor to make it fire... saving more space and weight. The American round has a higher muzzle velocity but the Russian round has a much heavier HE payload making it more effective on target. Put a projectile in the Russian shell and you would get similar high muzzle velocities but higher rate of fire, lighter and rather more compact.
This plane is for export however and most countries will never use it in combat so not having an internal gun wont be a huge issue.
Russia already has gunpods with cannon... including pods that allow the cannon to elevate and traverse to follow targets... ie you can open fire in a dive and then pull up 30 degrees and keep the barrels on the target as you continue to fire...
@Garry: I do not really understand the mechanism under this, but I hear that the Soviet-Russian style centre sticks and buttons enable the pilot to "feel" the applied forces and sounds without paying too much attention to the cockpit monitor. Russian style requires the pilot to look at the surrounding outsides before looking at his cockpit monitors, hence the sticks are designed to reduce the need to look at the monitor.
The control sticks are not connected to cables moving the control surfaces any more so it does not take a lot of effort to fly a plane. The fly by wire system in modern aircraft are a bit like computer gaming force feedback joysticks, but the Soviet ones are different from American ones.
The American flight stick in the F-16 is fixed... it does not move, but it is also very sensitive and so when you place your hand on it and push a little one way that will have an effect. The harder you push the more the effect. But no matter how hard you push it wont move. The flight is also computer controlled and the flight limits are hard so where the limit is 9g it does not matter how hard you push or pull the aircraft will never exceed 9g.... to prevent damage.
(Note I read this in the 1990s written by F-16 pilots comparing the MiG-29 Flight controls with the F-16s).
The MiG-29s controls do move, though not an enormous distance and there is a spring tension there so as you move it it gets harder so you have to push harder and harder till it gets to a limiter... but the limiter is not solid... if you push even harder you can move past the limiter... essentially you can make it turn harder than it is supposed to be or is allowed to be. Obviously if you are going to fly into a mountain or hit the ground pulling 11 g is better than crashing into the hard ground.
The point is that with the limiter it shows the pilot where the limits are but allows the pilot to push through those limits if they so choose... ie because they feel they have to.
Note exceeding the limits is not allowed so when going over the mission recordings the pilot had better have a very good excuse for doing that to the plane or they are in trouble.
The flight stick also communicates to the pilot... it will start to shudder if you approach a stall or departure from normal flight just to warn the pilot to drop the nose down or increase power or stop doing what they are doing...
The flight stick of newer Soviet and Russian planes has what is called Hands on Throttle and Stick, called HOTAS in the west which means you have one hand on the flight stick and one hand on the throttle control and within reach of your fingers are buttons and switches that you can use to control the plane... ie you can change multifunction display pages or prepare missiles for launch or change to navigation mode just by clicking buttons and switches on your control stick and throttle.
On the first MiG-29 the biggest cockpit instrument was a clock and the pilot used that to ensure the target was illuminated during a long range BVR R-27 missile engagement... the pilot had to use the clock to ensure the target was lit up long enough for the missile to reach them.
At that time most western fighters had computer countdown displays showing time to impact because the onboard computers handled all that for him.
New Russian fighters are much easier to use than the older ones were.
Why would you stick these things on a carrier? May has well navalize the SU-57 then it would perform far better.
With smaller aircraft you can carry more and their operational costs are lower so you can afford to fly more often. At the same time having a couple of bigger aircraft for outer ring CAP missions means you get the best of both worlds.
Western and Southern MD need full Su-57 package because those are potential hotspots
Not strictly true, the combination of IADS and air power is going to be a problem for the west no matter what aircraft are used to clean them up.
It's Center and Pacific that should get smaller ones, those places are pretty quiet and they are not hurting for Su-57 because this new jet can easily deal with 90% of potential issues
Pacific would need range more than central europe...
Sukhoi LTS plus all the 4 gens can handle Center and Pacific no problem
I doubt the Russians will let UAE base any of its aircraft in Russian bases...
Also money saved from using LTS can be redirected into buying more Su-57s
The idea is to get the same level of defence while spending less money.
Which attack helicopter made after Vietnam had one engine?
Quite a few tiny ones and of course drones, but you are right, single engined aircraft are not safe... especially for fixed wing aircraft that can't autorotate and operate close to the ground.
MiG-35 barely exists
The Su-57 barely exists and you are already putting it on carriers...
And only reason it does is because VKS was badgered into buying token amount
MiG does not have that level of power... and if they did the MIG-AT would likely be in production and they would not have a problem of there being a price/performance gap between the Yak-152 and the Yak-130...
Had it actually been cheaper to operate maybe it would have been bought in two token amounts instead of just one
The Su-35 and the Su-57 were only bought in small amounts to start with... after they prove themselves one way or the other then their future is decided... that is how it has always worked.
MiG is circling the drain, now it's either getting MiG-41 done or they get flushed
MiG is not going anywhere.... at worst Sukhoi profits can be directed to their department to improve their systems and equipment and get better results....
Because they may want a light fighter.
They are introducing their light fighter... the MiG-35, and now they should be funding its replacement in the form of the LMFS if they are good for their word.
This new Sukhoi redesign of their heavy fighter is interesting and all but it is an export oriented system.
For what Reason does Russia need a light stealth fighter exactly? none.
Having a light fighter is useful for economic reasons... it adds numbers without adding to cost at the same rate that having more bigger aircraft would inflict on the budget.
That is why they are buying Mig-35s.
Russia does not need to go the way of the USSR and build individual project for every single little aspect, that worked out so well for the USSR, didn't it.
We don't know the operational costs of Russian stealth fighters so far and we have no idea what sort of costs the LTS or LMFS will create for their users, so it is difficult to judge.
Suffice to say the Flankers are big aircraft and are not cheap to operate for Russia, so having Fulcrums improves their fighter coverage and improves their flexibility in being able to respond to different situations while being cheaper to operate than an all Flanker fleet.
The 57 can do anything this plane can do and BETTER, there is no reason to stretch your budget for something you don't need.
The Russian government now has one design bureau department of UAC that can make modern 5th gen stealthy aircraft and the MIG department has practised but never actually gone through the process of building one to serial production stage.
This is an opportunity to develop their skills too... Sukhoi is already making money and this new single fighter will no doubt make them even more money, but the LMFS will be focussed on what Russia wants which might be even cheaper, but also simpler.... perhaps more manouverable, maybe faster but shorter ranged.... it will probably require an internal gun and that gun might need to be able to elevate and traverse to follow targets... though not like a chin gun on a helicopter...
All this crap talk about "the fighters being developed to support each other" is pure BS. This thing isn't designed with the 57 in mind.
I suspect this single engined LTS plane is intended for countries that probably could not afford nor would they need an Su-57, or if they do only need a small number and therefore this smaller single engined plane will compliment it with standardised parts and components... not really a huge issue for Russia, but for a smaller country... even India... could licence produce both with the PAK FA supplimenting Su-30MKIs eventually, and LTS perhaps replacing Tejas and maybe MiG-21s and MiG-27s and Jaguars and Mirage 2000s, while the MiG-35 might be their non stealthy medium fighter on land and at sea...
Why not?
Actually in the Soviet Navy the plan was to equip all fleets with MiG-29s for this task, although only MiG-29s were received in Crimea at the end of the USSR. Precisely the MiG-29s that were in Belbek when the Ukrainian occupation ended
Essentially the light plane serves the role of the frontal aviation swing fighter... dealing with air and ground targets near the front line... which means having a few of them is a good thing and also means their lower operating costs mean having a lot of them is not going to cripple the budget.
The Su-75 or whatever they want to call it wont be in service for 5 years at the very least, and that assumes the MiG-LMFS is not accepted by the Russian military... a bit premature for us to suggest because we haven't really heard much about it.
Mig will be building MiG-35s in the mean time...
Early specs show that the Su-75 will be a better performer than the F-35.
Early specs show dried cow dung is a better performer than the F-35... at least it makes the roses look pretty...
I can't see any reason why the VVS wouldn't buy into the Checkmate?
Not their plane programme... if the UAE are funding it then they will call the primary shots which might include choices the Russian military have a problem with.
The Su-57 is even heavier than the Su-33, which was already a bad aircraft to navalize, especially considering the Kuznestov's lack of space, both due to the width of the deck and the small size of the hangar.
Are you sure it is heavier?
I have only read it is smaller and lighter than the Su-33 (which is of course heavier than the Su-27 because of changes to make it carrier capable).
I would think the Su-57 could operate from the Kuznetsov, but later carriers will be rather bigger and suit the bigger aircraft much better.
No, Russia is not going to build 100,000 ton nuclear aircraft carriers and also does not need them at all, in fact the US Navy itself has serious doubts about continuing with these very expensive and useless junk, and according to I have read they will be reduced in number in the coming decades.
Russia is talking about 75-85 K ton carriers, France is talking about a 75K ton ship to replace the CdG.
The US Navy faces Zircon with Patriot level air defence missiles... the Russian Navy faces Harpoon and Tomahawk with S-350/S-400/S-500 level air defence systems... it just is not the same...
The trend is for smaller aircraft carriers with Sky-jump and STOVL aircraft, such as the F-35B.
No it isn't. The countries buying such carriers only do so because they can't afford anything better. All the countries who can afford better are going for 50-80K ton ships because any smaller are not effective.
In this context, a STOVL version of the Su-75 or some other development should be expected for the 2030s, which is actually what was planned since 2000.
Vertical landing is Elon Musk snake oil like BS... I remember all the promises in the 1980s... VSTOL fighters are the only aircraft that will be in the air on the second day of WWII because on the first day all the airfields will be destroyed. Didn't really work out that way and all the testing and work led the Soviets to realise it was a white elephant dead end money pit.
The MiG-29 was an aviation fighter for the frontline destined to accompany the MiG-27, Su-17, Su-24, etc ...,
The MiG-35 and LMFS would perform both roles of frontal Aviation... fighter and light strike.
At least they weren't stupid enough to try to suggest the LTS or LMFS also does the CAS role too... that would screw up the design like the Harrier requirements screwed the F-35.
For a carrier it depend of what kind we are talking. If they have a catapult then su-57. If ski jum then this one. If they have only heli carrier then they will need a VTOL. But that wasn't the point of my answer.
The cat is only really needed for AWACS type heavy aircraft on Russian carriers, their fighters don't really need much more than a ski ramp.
Ideally the Kuznetsov would operate a couple of Su-35s and MiG-35s eventually (ie Su-33 upgraded to Su-35 with the most powerful engines they can get) and MiG-29KR upgraded to MiG-35 level.
Future 75-80K ton carriers will have Su-57s and LMFS fighters on board for the same reason... a few for long range CAP, but most smaller cheaper for closer air defence and support.
Yes, but that the Su-57 is navalized, it is like that the F-22 is navalized, the trend is not going around, among other things because you need aircraft carriers twice as large and that cost 5 times more
The Trend in Russia was that the Su-27 and MiG-29 were going to be navalised to the Su-33 and the MiG-33, and that the PAK FA and LMFS would probably also be used on carriers too.
What naval plane did the ussr have? the yak-38 (single engine)
which I wanted to continue, the Yak-141 (single engine)
that's where the trend will go. Su-33-sized planes are a thing of the past
The Yak-38 was the worst plane the Soviet Union ever produced and the Yak-141 was never developed into an operational aircraft but even at the early stages they could tell it was never going to outperform the navalised MiG-29 which was also much simpler and cheaper and safer... and with fewer limits on what it could carry.
The Yak-141 was a terrible plane... the lift jets near the nose meant hot air blown into the deck right next to the main engine air intakes... not just hot air, but hot air that fuel had been burned in so it was oxygen depleted.... going into your main air intakes to feed to your main engine providing half the thrust to keep you airborne.
To get supersonic the main wing was tiny and apart from the single 30mm cannon it was only ever going to carry weapons on four wing hard points.
The downward thrust of the lift jets and the main engine meant ordinance could not be carried on any belly positions because of the heat damage.
It was a dead end.
Having a "light" 5gen plane available will allow the top-tier air superiority Su-57 to confront directly with F-22 alone (that is actually already challenged by J-20 being produced in scores) without engaging in the impossible challenge to cope with the F-35 production numbers.
Very much agree, and while the S-70 is a good way of force multiplier that compliments and makes the Su-57 more powerful, having a smaller lighter cheaper to operate lighter fighter makes a lot of sense, but unlike the US or the west, the Russians will likely have rather more aircraft to choose from... right now they are choosing the MiG-35 over the MiG-29M2, and in 5 years time they might have the new LTS from Sukhoi to look at too and perhaps by then MiG will have their LMFS to show as well.
anyway Russia has a twin-engine analog of the F-18, which is the MiG-29K, maybe a MiG-35K will be made if necessary
I suspect as much until the twin engined MiG LMFS is ready... the model shown above, to replace it.
Makes full sense, once the technologies used in this design are essentially what is already known about the Su-57. Do you think there was a disclosure of military secrets related to the Su-57 with the presentation of the LTS without alignment with the MoD?
No it does not make sense... Only a fool will say that in 10 years time I am going to buy a dog to protect my property to keep the neighbours kids out of my gooseberry bushes... there is no advantage to giving them any warning at all...
Their main fighters are su-35 and su-30 and they have less than 300 of them. That's very low.
And yet conversely it is a lot of heavy fighters...
To recap: In 5 years this thing will be ready to roll, Su-57 production will be in full swing, they will have loads of components for both (due to sharing most of them) and VKS will have two different 5gen aircraft to pick and choose from for every single part of the country
In 5 years time they will have hundreds of MiG-35s in service in this light swing fighter role for Frontal Aviation units and the VKS will be able to have a better look at what MiG have come up with. I would expect they will look at the Sukhoi too... why look a gift horse in the mouth if someone else has paid for its development, but they might find that foreign funding has led to design decisions that don't suit them at all, but the LMFS is custom made for their requirements...
Even if Su-57 was 10 times better than f-22/35 and j-20, having a hundred isn't enough to counter the thousand of the lasts being deployed around russia.
It think you underestimate the effectiveness of the IADS these planes will be working within... though having said that the purpose of a light fighter is a good radar and good engines in larger numbers than the bigger fighter to make up for lack of weapon load with more numbers of aircraft.
But just in case I missed it, I apologize.
Don't apologise for noticing it, whether other mentioned noticing it or not.
The MIG-35 has a downward looking EO system for ground targets, so I would expect this plane to at least have the same.
The Su-57 can carry a EO pod for engaging ground targets too so I would expect this new Sukhoi could use it as well.
After all, the Chinese shouldn’t be seen as friends but rather viewed with caution.
Differences of opinion over boundaries have been discussed and sorted with China... the presence of UK and US forces in the Pacific region is far more of a threat that the obvious presence of Chinese forces in their home waters. The US and UK forces are not there to protect Russian interests in the region.
In fact it is the US that is manipulating Japan like a puppet with US forces in their country all these years after WWII finished.
Russia needs to expand its military across the arctic and the far east to ensure no other actor is tempted to interfere and I mean the US or UK or Japan.... China does not even come in to it.
Look at the population map of China and Russia and you will realize that any war between them would be fatal disaster for China, their entire population is in a shooting gallery while Russia can use entire Siberia as a hiding spot and launch pad for strikes into China's sweet centre while China can only shoot at empty forest (or get cut off and eradicated if they try to invade)
Not to mention the tidal wave coming from the US coast as 400 million americans erupt in their pants as their biggest dream come true... their two biggest perceived enemies trying to destroy each other.
And the main thing to remember: China and Russia really are on friendly terms, being hostile would be needless and harmful for both
To civil countries who try to treat other countries with respect. They can do bad things of course, but they don't start wars for fun and don't try to destabilise... normally they try to stabilise... if only the same could be said of the west and the world would be in a much better place now.
I have however still to see a plane, even geared for export that has not been acquired, although just in a token quantity by the nation that develop it. Foreign customers won't buy them otherwise.
That is not strictly true, because in this instance this aircraft is a programme for some country... at the moment we assume UAE, so there is no requirement for the Russian military to buy it to prove its worth or value because it is not a Russian military programme.
It would be like when the British bought the US Mustang but didn't like the Allison engine and asked for the Rolls Royce engine to be fitted... transforming its performance and it ended up the US bought them too... with a licence produced RR engine...
Reckon the Shvabe EOTS that will appear on the checkmate will make its way onto the Su-57?
Or possibly to an external targeting and navigation pod for any aircraft...
*Replacement of all mig29s.
By the time it is ready it will be supplementing MiG-35s which will likely already have replaced all the MiG-29s.
* Maybe a CAS variant to replace SU25.
No... such things have been tried in the past and all failed... CAS is better custom made...
*Maybe su75 would be beneficial or even preferable for a carrier wing, depending on the size and configuration of their future carrier.
Can't see them wanting single engined aircraft on carriers...
Home
Latest images
Register
Log in
thegopnik
