LMFSLet’s look at original roadmap of PAK-FA program. The program is out of schedule,
Partially true, but for how much? Tell me a modern top fighter program developed in “schedule”
To my understanding this is a program remarkably well managed, considering the huge risk, scale and difficulty of it, essentially bringing the almost defunct Russian aeronautics industry into XXI century with a few years delay and without major disruption neither of the program nor causing VVS a gap, since the buy of Su-35 was already planed. Radars, weapons, engines, structure, aero etc etc, the scientific and technical yields of the program are simply huge and will lay the base for further programs. Would not ever consider it a failure but rather the contrary to be honest!
The developers clearly did not understand all the aspects of developing 5th gen fighter. It looks like their estimation was based on the experience of developing 4th gen fi
ghters in USSR.
Does this apply to F-35 too? Please don’t create narratives to justify condescending opinions about Russian MIC. High-risk programs have issues that need rework and cannot be reliably estimated at the beginning, this is not a trivial project. Then political and budgetary adjustments appear, and the military changes their mind too. For instance the engine. Izd. 117 was by all accounts of program staffers ok in order to fulfil the original requirements, this has been stated repeatedly. But then apparently MoD thought they rather wanted a real 5G engine, whatever this means for them (see VCE discussion). They could have rushed the plane in service maybe a couple years ago but they decided they prefer to do things slow and safe, what is the problem? In the end it is about the defence of Russia and if MoD considers they are ok by now with what they have, what say should anyone else have on this?
Otherwise the government could easily decide to buy Rafale, for example (like they bought Mistral ships from France).
Would US do something like that? The same with Russia. Aerospace industry is a strategic asset and PAK-FA is the core of VKS for next 40 years. They could not possibly consider Rafales, even if they were superior to Su-35S, which they are not and much less for Russian needs.
So pointing to initial schedule as an argument to “PAK-FA is done” is just meh. PAK-FA is “only” 18 years in development, compare it to JSF or ATF, none of 5th gen fighter was developed in such a time limit (exception is J-20 but is it really 5th gen fighter by western standarts?).
True, this is what I mean above. The same would go to budgetary claims (Russia is bankrupt and so on). No military has all the money they would like, none. And also, to think MoD does not know how much money do they need and how much do they have is considering their intellect little more than ape-like. The picture passed in the media is like they had embarked on the project without budget but with hopes that money would appear magically along the way… it is the same old condescending crap we cannot apparently get rid of.
Also, i can’t remember any jet ordered in such a quantity by VKS(VVS). Biggest one is 60 of SU-35s, if i’m correct. So why would Su-57 be an exception here?
People refuse to understand this is not how procurement works in Russia, true. Small correction, biggest order was 50 Su-35S IIRC.
So, money from abroad is profit – the stuff a capitalists is living for, but money from the gov is like to put cash from one pocket to another.
Exactly. But still people with an agenda to question everything that Russia does will chose to ignore our comments and continue doing superficial and counter-factual analysis, otherwise it may seem that people at Russian MIC are not so strikingly stupid as they like to depict them.
LMFSAs i said, they made the F-22 bay like that to have the benefit of smooth surface, which is good for stealth fighter, and J-20 uses very similar bay, so i don’t think it is as bad as you claimed
It is not bad, it is simply very big for the carried payload. Original Sidewinders had huge tail, they were not modified with the design of the fighter and IMO hindered the later instead.
By the way, did Sukhoi confirm the wing root bay on Su-57 is for missiles ?, it appears too small for R-73 in my opinion
That is the only reasonable option but I have seen no hard proof. Paralay has some nice drawings about this.
That the original requirement, now time have passed and it could carry various different kind of weapons
True, my point stands though
It is also the standard for first day strike, later in the conflict, you can carry external weapons also
If you win the war in one day. If not well managed and hidden SAMs are going to keep giving trouble, see Serbia for instance. Modern Buks have ranges of 70 km and are fully mobile. Tors can even shoot on the run. And then the claimed advantages of range go away with external carriage. I know it is a possibility, only say it is not the best.
F-35 is not very good at supersonic flight because that was not the main requirement, therefore it has less wing sweep, high bypass ratio engine
It does not mean that is good for the A2A role, remember it will substitute thousands of F-16
F-22 supersonic capability is good even if you think the design doesn’t follow area ruling
No I didnt say that! I said it was not so obvious as in other designs, the discussion was about sizes and volumes remember. Maybe I was not precise enough true.
Where exactly do you get these number from? is that an F-16 with or without targeting pod, external fuel and weapons?
Paralay did some diagrams I used, quite handy. Other calculations I do them myself. F-16 was meant clean
F-35 size is quite close to Mig-29 and F-18 in fact.
Both twin engine medium fighters, but even then your diagrams show the F-35 is thicker than any of both. Would need to check this carefully in any case.
F-22 is already extremely expensive, make it more expensive will push thing in a bad direction.
Cost came from demanding a luxury plane, not from making a layout more appropriate for bigger weapon bays. Su-57 expected to cost way less.
I don’t think modern SAM which can easily intercept ballistic missiles or SR-71 will care particularly about whether the aircraft is supercruise or not, once it has detected them and 1-2 degrees extra degrees/second turn rate won’t be of much use if 15-20 SAM comming your way.
Depends on the mission and for instance on the range of your stand-off weapons. There is a big difference in the time of exposure depending on the capabilities of the carrier.
You keep referring bigger plane than F-35 as able to carry twice the ordinance, i don’t think that is the case in many situation
Yes for big sized ordnance, that is what I am referring since they allow the plane to make big effect and/or stay out of air defences. There are other configurations of course. For instance current MRAAM capacity of Su-57 is 4 probably, even when the bays would potentially have space for 8 similarly sized missiles with fold wings. I assume they will look into this but maybe not!
I don’t think the networking, sensor fusion of Mig-31 can be compare to the current level of 5 gen aircraft
Of course not, what I meant is that Russia was aware of this before we started hearing PR lines from LM and that they have a lot of experience inside a huge and very sophisticated air defence network, for which such issues are fundamental. So it is not wise to assume they are unaware and incapable in that regard and F-35 will be light years ahead of what they do. There is lots of info and praise for F-35 but no real details about what Russians and Chinese are up to.
and there are plenty of so called problems of F-35 are design choice.
Motivated by unreasonably contradictory requirements as I tried to convey.
War is never fair, and once these 5 gen from others countries produced in large number, F-35 will have various upgrade from its current form.
But the airframe will need to remain, which is the core of what I try to say.
That is totally wrong.
SM-6 had intercepted medium-range ballistic missile and short range ballistic missiles in atmosphere since 2016 and the capability have been developed since 2012
These are ballistic targets, I am referring to aerodynamic targets. To intercept a BM you can use anything if you guide it correctly to a point in its trajectory, to intercept an aero target you need to catch it while it manoeuvres, this is substantially more difficult and the base of Russian strategy against US ABM. SM-6’s speed is what, 3.5 M or am I wrong? Will have roubles to intercept manoeuvring 10 M targets, don’t know how you want it to do the magic of approaching the target amidst evasive manoeuvres being notably slower.
I don’t think so, US can already shot down GQM-163 ( Mach 2.6 sea skimming with terminal maneuver) and AQM-37 (Mach 5) with their SM-2 missiles.
I saw different analysis but wouldn’t like to deepen in the off-topic.
I don’t think Kinzhal is a hyper sonic weapon in the same sense as HTV-2, AHW, Avangard, TBG (glider vehicle ) or HSSW, ARRW, HAWC (ramjet cruise missiles)
Kinzhal is an air launched ballistic missile, which makes it very similar to Silver and Blue Sparrow launched by F-15 as target practice.
Dont know the flight details and test history with Silver Sparrow vs Kinzahl. US armed forces have been clear in regards of not having real defence again hypersonic weapons, dont know where you have seen different info.
Mig-31K can’t carry air to air missiles they removed APU so that it can carry ALBM
Nothing prevents other MiG-31 to escort them, in a mission destined to sink a CSG a substantial air wing would be created capable of launching and protecting a big salvo
F-35 fly slower than Su-57, but it can be equipped with Meteor or JPNAAM both give adequate range for stealth aircraft thanks to their ramjet engine
Still notably outranged by R-37M
F-22 top speed is only a little higher than cruising speed as well.
It is the placard limit. The same case on F-35 as you can see its envelope cut off abrupt on the right hand side.
Having said that I don’t think the higher speed and acceleration of Su-57 will make it any different from F-35 when intercept Mig-31K launching Kinzhal from 2000-3000 km away. Su-57 combat radius is 1700 km?
They say 2 M class so we dont know what is the true max speed. Barring other limitations, the propulsion is there to go very fast.
Range, speed and acceleration are important in order to reach a given interception point at the right time. On a CAP long from the fleet the distances to cover would be very big and Su-57 would be massively more apt than F-35 in that regard as far as I can see.
LMFSArea rule is not about boxy, it’s about volume distribution. Note most of F-22’s wing and especially at wingtips is behind most of the fuselage and little is behind trailing edge, and most of weapon bay volume is in front of wing, while Su-57 main weapon bay go the entire length even at wingtips. So most of F-22 weapon bay volume is in front of wing volume while Su-57 weapon bay volume goes alongside wing volume. Either way to compare area rule you need full cross section area plot, it’s hard to eyeball.
Agree, not even remotely saying F-22’s design has no area-ruling considerations! What I am saying is that the F-22 is boxy and that gives internal volume, without big geometry changes as in YF-23 or Su-57, maybe the words chosen were not the best. There is just a slight tapering of the fuselage going to the aft part and that helps keeping big internal volume with lower wetted area. The discussion was about the size difference F-22 vs Su-57, which I personally don’t see very big. Probably somebody out there has made a reliable estimation of volume for both planes, I have not searched too much for this.
LMFSSome thoughts / compared analysis, back to Izd. 30 and Su-57:
> Designer has indicated specific thrust of the engine is above any other existing design. That should mean it has higher temp tolerance and/or lower BPR. Given similar size to F119, this should be the first indication I see that it could have more dry thrust than the F-22 engine.
> Added to the comments about SFC in the ballpark of AL-31F is a further indication that it is VCE
> For the plane itself it indicates a very strong supercruising capability. Huge air intakes equipped with adjustable ramps + strong area ruling of the fuselage would point out to engines receiving notably more airflow at high altitude and aero being very apt to use the available thrust. First glimpse in my case of Su-57 being possibly even faster supercruiser than F-22, even when this may sound as heresy for some :rolleyes:
LMFS[USER=”77292″]LMFS[/USER] – Part 2 (Part 1- about the reasons US objects to Turkey’s purchase is back one page)
In short, you can go about with your “wink, wink” the US is worried about the “true” lack of stealthiness being exposed by the S-400 narrative. Or that it will “prove” the S-400 can detect the F-35. Both points, for lack of a better word, display a naive idea on low observability. The F-35 isn’t invisible, the S-400 can detect it.
Wink wink nothing FBW
I know S-400 can see F-35. I know (or think I know) what the upsides of stealth technology are, beyond mass media talking points. But you should acknowledge that stealth is way more than an obscure military technology full of caveats and variables. It means lots of prestige. Based in maybe superficial notions I know but extremely relevant for US on the public sphere. Putting the possibility of “busting” (in the sense of Turkish side having the chance to make claims since it operates both systems) your stealth technology would be in general a bad idea. This is the kind of thing that could spread fast and it would not be good. At least admit the PR value of stealth is huge for US military and that putting fear in the enemy is many times more important (specially for US due to global involvement in conflicts) than even wining battles. I think there is more than that to this issue but I also think this is an interesting possibility.
But there is a risk to the LO of the F-35 from being networked to the S-400; these newer generation US LO aircraft have systems like the ASQ-239 with antennas all over the aircraft, these monitor 360* threats, emitters, signal strength & type. This information is fused with data from the MDF (including the RCS of the F-35 to different frequencies, angles, types of emitters) and calculates a “blue line” for the F-35 follow to weave through the emitters with the least chance of detection. The S-400 could be used to built up an accurate picture of the F-35’s signature from different vectors and distances. This is an issue because all LO aircraft rely on the filtering of radar program algorithms to fly through the edge of detection range without being tracked or classified (basically a weak or intermittent signal that is unidentifiable will be filtered out by radar algorithms). An accurate model of the F-35’s signature from different angles, frequencies, power, would allow adversaries to adjust systems to better detect, classify the F-35’s sig.
This is all good, appreciated info. But still rests on the same problem than any other, more superficial explanation: don’t you trust the Turks? If they are willing to share this info with the Russians, they can compile it with their own radars. S-400 does not make any difference, at least not that I see. What am I missing?
In short, the US has very good reason to deny Turkey the F-35, an would never have agreed to the F-35 being networked to the Turkish information system if they knew Turkey was going to buy the S-400. So there you go LMFS, took a considerable amount of time answer your post in depth.
Thanks again for the effort! Follow ups should be in other thread, maybe Turkish thread or bollocks thread don’t know.
LMFSMyself and (I believe Bring-it-on) stated the same reason… multiple times. Turkey wanted to (and had already started contracts) to integrate the F-35 with their own defense information systems network, HvBS. The Turkish F-35’s data collection, SIGINT, EW, Cyberwarfare information would be linked to this network. And while it’s true that the S-400 cannot be connected to the NATO air defense network, the Turkish Undersecretary for Defense had announced that Turkey was going to link the S-400 the Turkish airforce information network, this HvBS.
Like the F-35, the S-400 is a collection node for signatures, ELINT, SIGINT. Unlike the F-35, Turkey will not have access to that collected information, and Russian statements on the S-400 purchase made it clear that Turkey is buying “off the shelf” with no access to the S-400’s coding. To make matters worse, the S-400 is a networked system, all the various components connected. Turkey wouldn’t have any idea of a potential “backdoor”, or any possible Russian remote access to the Turkish S-400 networked systems. It is an unacceptable risk for the most sensitive technologies on the F-35, it’s MDF’s, threat detection, comms, and EW systems.
Since I know your going to ask “doesn’t that go both ways?” the answer is “no” not. The S-400 (even if capable of doing so) isn’t going to be sharing ELINT/SIGINT data on Russian systems it collects with Turkey the way the F-35 does, nor EW countermeasures to said systems.
Quoting a recent comment from a US Airforce General, “You don’t link your computer to an adversary’s computer.
Not going to deny yours and bring_it_on were the best answers or at least the better thought ones. But still (thanks for your efforts) I fail to see the clear asymmetry in the relationship between S-400 and F-35. Both have extensive intelligence capabilities. Both will be seeing the other system in operation. Both will be linked to Turkish systems through a gateway which will do its best to avoid that undesired info is passed through it, but it is simply not possible to know all levels on encryption in which both systems will work so I see (not an expert here) still a potential safety issue, for both F-35 and S-400. The backdoor can be on the F-35 as much as on the S-400 and in fact precedents point clearly to US using them very actively against its own citizens and allies (sorry but these are relevant facts) so no one should be surprised if F-35 does this too, in an admittedly very sophisticated way since militaries would be watching it very closely.
The only asymmetry that I see in fact is detrimental to the S-400 in that it will not be (to my knowledge) connected to Russian servers unlike the F-35. That countries who claim to have some defence sovereignty allow for this baffles me to be quite honest. Unsurprisingly Israel did receive source code for the plane, if anybody needed a clarification that in this program there are allies and “allies”. Further reason for suspicion (I would not call it even suspicion but near-certainty in this point) that US reserves the right to do things on those planes that they would not do to the Israeli ones.
Regarding the last point, you say (if I understand you right) that S-400 will not share “proprietary” ELINT/SIGINT info with the Turkish side (do not know if this is true to be honest or how the system operates to identify targets if not using threat libraries but ok), while F-35 would indeed do. Wouldn’t it be easier then to eliminate that data from Turkish F-35 libraries, than cancelling their whole participation in the program and create this fuss? Leave them take care of that on their own at their own expenses and save such a nasty episode with a NATO country that you are sending directly into the arms of your rivals.
LMFSIs AIM-9X block III going to retire in immediate future? if not then there is no reason to think F-22 side bay is a handicapped and good for nothing. When you talk about a point when AIM-9 is retired then at that point it is likely that SACM, MSDN have been in service for a while
My only point is that side WB of the F-22 are huge to carry one single SRAAM and it is very hard to discuss this as a matter of fact, just look for pictures for yourself if you disagree. Making a 5G to carry air inside is not the best investment.
But that isn’t the only option for F-35.
You fixate on the least impressive option.
I was only quoting the standard strike config as demanded in the requirements. If F-35 was a light fighter it would be quite ok, for a plane more than 15 tons empty weight it is not impressive indeed.<br />
bigger in volume, or at least very similar in size.<br />
F-35 is much smaller than both.
Let’s say similar. Su-57 appears to have bigger surface while F-22’s fuselage is more boxy and probably has bigger internal volume. Area ruling in Su-57 is very apparent, in F-22 it is not and that adds volume.
The same applies to F-35. Look at the picture you posted, the F-35’s fuselage is quite thick and boxy too, but it is not small and empty weight just confirms it. As said it is heavier than a 4G heavy fighter. It is compact around the CoG and that is probably very good to give authority to the control surfaces and get fast turning, but it is bad for aero, specially in supersonic flight. Cross-sectional area of the F-35 is between 8 and 8.5 sqm as said, F-35C maybe more, F-22 and Su-57 are both below 9.5 sqm. F-16 is <5 sqm. F-35 is hence quite close to being a heavy fighter in fact.
F-22A is 5 tons heavier than YF-22 too. Production planes have many equipment that are not on a prototype
There was a heavy redesing in both cases, cannot judge if it was extra equipment or different construction due to requirements creep.
F-22 is already very expensive and produced in small number, making it multirole will push the cost even higher and likely result in the cancellation of the program.
Why is F-35 not a jack of all trade?
F-22 should have been designed multirole, now it seems too late I agree, though LM seemed to be fond of the idea (and I personally think it may be a more realistic and balanced plan than burying the plane and getting after the new wunderwaffe – PCA)
F-35 embodies too many contradictions IMHO. Probably its avionics are a big jump compared to previous models and it has many technologies that are quite interesting. But the airframe as I have explained lacks and that is huge problem in A2A role and also in A2G, because it will not be fast and agile enough to stay away of SAMs. There is a huge difference SAMs NEZ between supercruising, high altitude attack and subsonic way lower. And the payload is not impressive, considering the idea is to carry the ordnance internally. USAF relies a lot in having a huge intelligence superiority over the enemy, but if their comms and nodes start failing they would have massive problems, given how they are structured. I think LM did a very good job given the requirements BTW.
All thing equal, a bigger plane will be more expensive, not to go into detail but F-35 isn’t the only program which suffer delay or technical issue.
I am not saying that F-35 is crap. Bigger plane will be more expensive but if is 30% bigger and still has the same avionics, it wont be 30% more expensive. And if it can carry twice the ordnance twice as fast, then it is 4 times more effective, so far less units are needed. F-16 was exactly the right approach IMO, F-35 is not.
LM is not the only one hyping the SA and networked fighting, i can recalled not long ago, Su-57 said something along the line.
SA is crucial and an obvious new filed of development enabled by the development of electronics, who would deny that? Absolutely everybody is working on this, that US pilots and officials in the customary interviews tirelessly flatter F-35’s informational capabilities does not mean that they are the only ones working on this. MiG-31 was networked 30 years ago inside the first and by far the best IADS for which networking is the absolute essence, so probably something has been learnt and probably Su-57 is also no slouch in this regard. Chinese are no idiots either. With over-hyping SA I mean to say all traditional fighter requirements are not needed anymore and you only need a big computer and neglect the rest. This is just a poor sales line from LM and the ever MIC-supporting media to turn F-35s problems into deliberated design choices. And it will not avoid other manufacturers fielding equally IT-capable platforms that are much better dynamically
F-35 has a big but also a high bypass engine, high bypass engine generally has less infrared radiance and it has good masking of the nozzle thanks to vertical tails
True. Also it losses lots of internal space and aero due to that. F119 as way lower BPR but it has flat nozzles. Which BTW in A/B mode glow in IR like the Halley comet.
This hiding of the nozzle works only from certain beam sectors but it does not help when egressing from an attack so I am not so convinced about it, given it is negative in many other important regards.
You got that in reverse, it is heavier because it need to carry a load more fuel and equipment, how often do you see an aircraft that is lighter but can carry 3 times the amount of fuel?, i don’t think that ever happen
See above. The light fighter should remain light and not do the heavy lifting in terms of strike efforts. A bigger platform can carry the ordnance and accommodate for the requirements with way bigger ease. F-35 has the same max payload of Su-34 for god’s sake, do you think both planes can really handle it the same? I doubt so much even half of that will be used in real operations, due to the massive dynamic penalties it would entail.
If your enemy have 500 4 generation aircraft and 10 5 generation aircraft, then on the battlefield, you most likely face the 4 gen.
That is the reality of war.
Maybe but that is not the way to evaluate the merits of the design. It is a low resistance path if you are lucky enough that not so many other 5G are available against which yours will be compared, but it is not fair and not representative of the real threat to be faced for most of the operative life of the new plane.
It is questionable if China will ever procure J-31 or if it ever have longer range or load out than F-35
Current Su-57 can’t land on carrier and we don’t know the extent of the modification that we need to make it carrier capable.
Ok let’s leave it there then.
Fighter range is longer than SAM indeed, but when anti ship missiles get close to your carrier (that where acceleration of aircraft is most necessary), SAM will offer better reaction time. SAM radar horizon is more limited but cooperation with F-35 can negate that.
The idea now is that fighters blunt the eventual salvo of ASMs/CMs. In the future it is proposed that they could carry DEW to combat also hypersonic weapons. You will need to have longer ranged air wing doing CAP and airspace monitoring in order to prevent launches and shoot down ever faster incoming missiles.
> I don’t see how SM-6 incapable of intercepting Kinzhal, US has very similar target system called Sparrow
Forget it. Max speed of intercepted aero target for SM-6 is 800 m/s, Kinzhal is like 3 km/s. SM-6 will be improved, but today it would struggle against Onyx (sea skimmer) and even more against Kh-32 (Mach 5)
US officials have repeated several times they cannot stop hypersonic weapons currently, they are scrambling to address this capability gap asap.
> Range of F-35 might be enough or not, depend on what is the real range of Kinzhal is 1000 km or 3000 km, or some where in between, if the range is 3000 km, i can’t see any fighter capable of intercepting the carrier before they launch missile. Speed over match between Mig-31 and Su-57 is also too huge for Su-57 to have any hope of intercept it.
Combat radius for F-35 is something like 1400 km, currently it would be out of range. USN tries to get refuelling in the short term to address this issue. But again, they would face massively faster carriers, probably supported by more MiG-31Ks and R-37Ms… not good for F-35s armed with AMRAAMs.
We know little in regards of max speed for Su-57. I read the requirement was reduced to 2 M in order to avoid need for reinforcing the keels, but then it would have a max speed little higher than cruising speed. It is very well shaped for supersonic flight, 2nd stage engines will have the highest specific thrust and big intakes with adjustable ramps… it looks like it could be in fact quite fast from that perspective but there may be other limiting factors. It can carry long ranged AAMs and fly higher, faster and further than F-35 so it would be better against MiG-31, which is on a class of its own and is so hard to engage. Su-57 was designed considering requirements of an interceptor too, BTW.
LMFSMoscow to approve export of the Su-57E to China and Turkey: https://sputniknews.com/military/201…y-Export-Su57/
Turkish media confirms announcement and is reporting that President Erdogan and Putin will hold meeting on issue late this month at the upcoming Russia-Turkey Cooperation Council meeting.
Can’t wait to see the Su-57T with the SOM cruise missiles and Turkish Air to Air missiles.
How is the weapons bays compatibility of those missiles?
LMFSGoing to ignore the nonsense parts, including your pet theories on F-35/S-400, and the “why”, as that’s been explained to you repeatedly (your of course free to keep up with your conspiracy theory line of reasoning, open forum and all).
No need for the derogatory comment. Yes I have asked about this issue in order to understand the motivations with words and arguments different from politicians talking BS for school children and the answers were varied, some more reasonable than others. No clear explanation since everyone had its own opinion. Still the issue remains concentrated on the F-35 instead of on “several other programs” as I was encouraged to think. Don’t worry, the truth always rises up to the top. BTW I said it was just a possibility so no need get triggered.
Two issues. First, where has Russia stated that the export Su-57E can be customized with foreign systems?
Nowhere. This is my assumption, considering Russia was ready to go as far as to develop a extensive modification of the plane (FGFA) and considering other experiences like the Su-30 MKI. Nothing ground-breaking IMO.
Second, if your thinking that buying a shell airframe and fitting completely indigenous systems would be attractive, I’d say that’s naive. Buying a fifth generation airframe and engine (we will discard your qualifier as irrelevant and opinion) without the systems is pointless. That is what drives the capability, differentiates those 4+ and 5th gen systems from legacy.
I said a Su-57 airframe with “Western” systems from Turkey could be attractive.
To say airframe and engines of 5G are not a key part of their capabilities is… shocking to put it mildly
Nice totalitarian touch deciding it is up to you to discard my opinion on the airframe, classy. I still happen to think it is the best 5G airframe out there hands down and therefore probably interesting to Turkey, even without your authorization.
Marketing aside, the Su-57 isn’t going to have game changing agility or acceleration advantages over the Su-35 or Typhoon, etc.
Too soon to know. Pilots reported it was physically much more demanding because it can sustain overloads much longer. The marketing comment is remarkable, reading the LM narratives you peddle below.
You can probably add superior supersonic persistence and supercruise. Better? sure but that’s not where the superiority lies. The whole point of these new weapon systems is act as an information node, be networked with other platforms and sensors (data fusion and distribution).
Ok, maybe you can explain to me what prevents such avionics to be included in any plane? And what do they have to do with a platform having good kinematics, size, endurance, cooling and payload as US is now demanding with high prio for their 6G fighters?
You have F-22 pilots saying over and over, the LEAST impressive advantage the F-22 possesses is it’s speed and maneuverability (this is after stating they feel no aircraft can compete with the F-22 in these areas).
If they come from old 4G it may be understandable, if they had tried other planes maybe not. Or maybe they are just playing salesmen for last LM product. F-22 is not the best plane in regards of data links BTW. In any case, why is US not selling F-22 but willing to get customers for their F-35, when it is even much more developed in terms of IT and hence much more valuable according to your criteria? It remains the “hi” part of the mix if I am not wrong, despite not having the latest Android version and Apps. Something definitely not matching
So, an Su-57 with all Turkish avionics? Why bother, wait for TFX (if it progresses) because it would take years to develop all the systems and make them compatable with existing Turkish systems and network. Just buy Su-57E? Not compatible with the above and that basically negates the whole advantage of fifth generation systems.
And it’s not as easy as just ripping out the Russian IFF system, for example, and adding a Turkish one compatible with Turkey’s western systems. In fifth generation architecture all systems are integrated, fused at central processor(s). So the catch-22 is that any indigenous systems would have to be federated, because there is no way Russia would had over the source codes to any export nation.
They would need to find a way around that with an open architecture. Maybe some elements would need to be separated from the central computer and run in single purpose ones, don’t know exactly but it is not anything new customers wanting their own specific avionics systems in export planes. It is not mandatory that all SW runs on the same computer to have a 5G-level avionics from what I know. It is simply more simple once you are the developer, but these architectures include very powerful buses to link additional HW.
LMFSI find it ridiculious that some one says a mere S-400 sale will weaken NATO alliance ………The issue is much beyond any defence deal but core strategic issue where NATO and Turkey has divergent interest.
Greece has the S-300 and nobody says a peep. In fact the NATO countries and Israel wait in line to train with the system. But you know, with those Russians everything is a ploy, they are up to no good. The S-400 has been designed to divide NATO and all that.
Thinking wicked, a F-35 in the screen of a S-400 could be the military version of the Kashoggi affair, a powerful blackmail tool that US may well want to avoid straight away. Just one option, maybe not the only or the most realistic one, not wanting to open a discussion about this here.
[USER=”40269″]FBW[/USER]
Just two comments:
1. Turkey could indeed customize the Su-57. In fact and if TF-X was not so advanced by now they could unify the fleet based on Su-57 both for A2A and A2G roles. Take the airframe, which is probably the best they could possibly find, and stuff it with their avionics. A fraction of the cost of TF-X and fully indigenous content for what matters. The engines could be the AL-41F1 in the beginning and a further refinement could be developed together by Russia and Turkey, I think Izd. 30 is too sensitive as of now but maybe I am wrong. The resulting plane could in fact be even too attractive in the international market for potential Russian customers so this should be regulated in the contract.
2. S-400 was designed with an eye on the export? You can bet it, almost every Russian conventional weapon is. F-35 was not? No anti-tamper mechanisms are in place? Couldn’t F-35 gather intelligence about the S-400 radar, modes of operation etc. and pass it to US as deeply buried, encrypted info? Doesn’t US have back doors on their HW to prevent misuse? A link to ALIS cannot be prevented in the end so even isolating the plane would not work. So at least potentially I see risk for Russia too. But they are ready to accept it in order to get sales. The argument that it is all a ploy to destroy NATO is a bit far fetched, since Turkey has been decades trying to buy Western and was left to dry, so what has happened was not Russia’s initiative to begin with but a long term Turkish security issue motivated by their own allies. Also, Russia for instance sold Su-35S to China risking relevant IP info and without any need to lure them from US arms. They have a weapons industry and they expect to make money out of it, really I don’t think in this case they had a master plan but simply used the opportunity the West gave them to make money and deepen their links with Turkey.
LMFSIf the Su-57 replaces the MiG-31 and Su-27 in the Russian Air Force, then no more than 240 units can be purchased, plus an export.
If, in addition to the Su-57, a PAK DP and LMFS will be developed, then no more than 127 fighters, plus 176 for export.
Plus considering that Okhotnik is also in the making (probably to boost Su-57) and MiG-35 should be purchased too. So probably in a more distant future VVS should have Su-57, PAK-DP and Okhotnik + (maybe) A2A role UCAV + remnants of 4G fighters according to their remaining life. Otherwise the numbers for each type would be very small. For the decade of 2020 no huge buys of Su-57 should be needed nor expected since Su-30/34/35 are pretty new.
LMFSIf we add together all 4th gen Flankers, Mig-31, Su-24M, Su-34 Mig-29S, it is around 1000, give or take.
True. And besides Russia has planes tailored to specific missions that have no parallels in the world anymore. They have capabilities that a multirole plane simply cannot match.
MiG-31s can simply engage and disengage at will with enemy fighters and carry extremely fast, long range AAMs which could strike their key air power assets very easily. It can also launch Kinzhals without giving almost time to react.
Su-34 and Tu-22M3 are extremely powerful tactical and naval bombers respectively which are much more effective than way bigger numbers of tactical multirole fighters.
Russia has the best Anti Air structure in the world, this also gives them breathing room.
Exactly, I think a majority of the kills in a conflict would probably be done by SAMs. So fighters reinforce that AD network instead of doing all the heavy lifting. But it is pointless to discuss with people that don’t want to learn.
And ofc all the Nukes..
Of course. The moment a build-up of forces at the Russian borders reaches some limit, nukes will start flying. So USAF can have trillions of F-35 if they will, they will be of no use for anyone but for LM stockholders.
Some US guys just keep trying to compare VVS with USAF without understanding that Russia does not have almost any base abroad and has a defensive stance. They should compare more with National Air Guard and the parallel would be more accurate.
LMFS[USER=”58228″]mig-31bm[/USER]
I was originally just answering claims from RALL that the plane’s weapons bays were somehow “doubtful”. I just said they are not and in fact in terms of capacity they are quite bigger than F-35’s, which paradoxically seem to be beyond critics. This, coupled with range and speed of the carrier result in a bombing effectiveness greatly surpassing that of F-35 (twice the ordnance x close to twice the speed). So a point claimed as a weak spot of the Su-57 is one in which it is actually far superior to F-35. And it happens like that for many other aspects where tireless hyping of F-35 just leaves the facts behind.
Quickly answering your points below:
1-Side bays of F-22 has their own merits, it is bigger than Su-57 wing root bay, but it make a smooth surface.
True, unlike those in F-35.
you can’t say it will be a handicapped once AIM-9 retired, there are SACM, MSDN that could be candidate to be carried there.
Are they going into service in immediate future? If not better to leave them outside the discussion. In any case the bays would need modifications and F-22 seems pretty much a frozen design but for FW updates and things like that.
2- Current F-35 carry 4 AMRAAM, block 4-5 F-35 can carry 6 AMRAAM, so saying that F-35 bays can only carry 2 AMRAAM is wrong
I said 2 JDAM + 2 AMRAAM, that is true I think.
Su-57 is not only a bit bigger than F-35, Su-57 is bigger than F-22 and F-22 is already bigger than F-35
.
Bigger than F-22 in what sense? We need to see empty weight to know this. Claimed data show it would be lighter, maybe we get some reliable info in November and maybe the Su-57E is not a monkey model too different in that regard from domestic version.
It is not a bad decision to make F-35 small as it is supposed to replace medium , small multi role aircraft such as F-16, F-18, AV-8B, and they don’t want it to be extremely expensive, and it need to be able to take off from a carrier, and the B version must be able to take off from a pocket carrier and land vertically. It is a decision based on strategic and economical stand point. A big aircraft is cool and all but in practical, if they have to choose between carry 2 more cruise missiles, longer range or better integrated with current aircraft craft carrier fleet and cheaper, iam not surprise that they chosen the second options.
Being small have another small added benefit of smaller visual and thermal signatures.
Good picture. You are touching many issues here that I cannot really agree:
> It is ok to make F-35 light as a replacement of light fighters. X-35 was below 10 tones, F-35C is above 15 tonnes. Original engine was a version of F119 and now we have F135. The plane is an overgrown light fighter that tried to become capable for heavy strike, besides having the additional, very difficult requirement of being STOVL. That is a bad idea and is showing throughout the program. F-22 should have been made with multirole capability from the onset and carrier capable, as the Su-57 is. F-35 could have been something like a stealth F-16 with engine commonality. Now the F-22 is a niche plane with little use and closed production lines, which render the fleet very vulnerable and prevent updates and new versions. While F-35 tries to be a jack of all trades, which it can clearly not. This was badly planed, even someone from the outside can see it.
> Cost issue. The cost of the F-35 as a program is extreme. The cost of the plane is not cheap at all, it has broken all previsions many times. It has been redesigned many times too, with very big delays and resulting in technical issues, non-compliance of requirements and complications. Today cost of the plane is not really to be measured in dollars per kilogram anymore so the obsession with making it small is pointless. Avionics and high-tech gadgets are the main cost driver, and F-35 has them all, partly I guess in order to compensate for poor kinematic performance (and hence all the over-hyping of the SA and networked fighting etc. we hear which are elements unrelated to the kinematic performance of the platform and which will be included by any mature 5G fighter due to short development times of SW compared to airframes). The insistence in making the plane small (in the ball park of the F-16 from external dimensions) but adding strike and STOVL requirements has created a plane which is very thick and very heavy for its footprint. This is not good for a fighter. F-16’s cross sectional is below 5 square meters IIRC, F-35 is close to 8.5. Now imagine its fineness ratio and how harder is it to make this plane flight supersonic compared to a F-16.
> Planes capable for carrier operations do not need to be small necessarily. In fact USN is seeing that they need a bigger airframe with more capability, range and supercruise. Exactly what the Su-57 has and F-35C has not.
> F-35 has a very big and hot engine, I would be surprised if its IR signature is much better than that of a F-22 for instance.
F-35C carry 3 times the internal fuel load of F-16, and has internal IRST, jamming system and can carry 2000 lbs JDAM internally and has re-enforced structure to land on a carrier does it come as a big surprise that it will be heavier than F-16?
It shouldn’t need to carry so much fuel if was lighter to start with. And IRST doe not make the F-35C twice as heavy as a F-16 does it??
If they thought the approach speed needed to be lower, they could have reduce the wing sweep or further enlarger the wing, i don’t see they doing that, so i don’t think it is a problem at all
Completely a non issue.
No, it was too high (especially with a reinforced structure) and therefore they made the wing bigger. Which means more drag and even more weight. Of course it is an issue, these design compromises degrade the capability of the plane.
The rival of F-35 are both 4G and 5G, because reality is not a video game where you level up and the enemy only get more and more powerful. Cost is an important factor. As of now and near future, the main fighting fighters of most countries won’t be 5G.
When designing a plane you should measure it against the rivals of the same generations, not against legacy fighters as JSF program constantly does.
In addition, what is the other 5Gen fighter that currently can take off from carrier? there isn’t any
Now exactly none, but all indicates J-31 and Su-57 are carrier compatible.
It is not an excuse but how they plan to join force and make the most of F-35C capability, they cooperate with the fleet, both protect the other.
Fighters range is longer than that of SAMs, I think this is clear. And if SAMs were enough, why to create the carriers? Air wing forms the outer defensive ring of the fleet.
It depends, they either already loitering at long range to create a barrier where Mig-31K must past through to launch their missiles (Mig-31 can’t take off from carrier, so this could be plan when you approach a land mass) or they could aid AEGIS destroyer in guiding SM-3, SM-6 to intercept Kinzhal or they could use their jammer or confuse Kinzhal, several of options none of with involved take off and fly like hell toward the direction where Mig-31K is detected. This is in truth, not a good case for benefit of super cruising or acceleration, your carrier fighter won’t super cruise for 2000 or 3000 km, and a dozens second difference in acceleration won’t make a big deal at such extreme distance.
Check your data here, this is not really correct I think. Among other issues
> SM-3 is of no use against Kinzhal, SM-6 in all probability incapable of intercepting it.
> Range of F-35 is not enough to make a forward deployed CAP to stop the MiG before launch
> Speed overmatch of the MiG is so huge that F-35 cannot hope to intercept it unless it is exactly at the point where the MiG is heading to. Especially considering the perimeter to be covered, determined by the range of the Kinzhal.
That is a big if, and i am very skeptical if at any point, it is possible for Su-57 to carry 16 SDB equivalent or 12 AMRAAM equivalent in its internal weapon bay.
Not going in detail with all prospective USAF arsenal weapons sorry. Su-57 has the space and capability to carry lots of ordnance if deemed necessary. No SDB designed by Russia by now, only way bigger weapons like Grom. There are probably doctrinal issues here or maybe they design some in the future, who knows.
LMFSThe Su-57 is not in Serial Production that is a “fact”. Nor, is it likely to be soon…….
Also, while it’s not uncommon to order aircraft in batches. You still usually have an idea in advance on how many will be ordered over a period of time. (5-10 years) This is critical to drive down cost and have parts arrive when needed. It’s not like you can just throw a switch………;)
Scooter give us a break, it is not 1st of April anymore.
LMFSThese data are taken from nobody-knows-where so it is difficult to know what the seeker will be.
40N6 is the longest range missile for S-400 BTW.
As to targeting of stealth targets (or using the missile beyond radar horizon) from what I understand is pretty much thinkable to use the ARH of the missile to do the kill, resolution of low frequency radars is not that bad that cannot allow to guide a missile to the immediate surroundings of the target. But I would not recall any 100% confirmation or further details that I could link sorry.
You have no idea what you’re talking about. Which, speaks volumes……
Why don’t you go on a Star Wars Forum and talk about X-Wing or Tie Fighters. Maybe you’ll gave more luck….;)
Let’s wait a few months and we will see who should try luck with the Tie fighters :eagerness:
Sign In
