LMFSSorry, cost is greatly effected by the numbers produced. So, your $45 Million Dollar Price Tag is likely the average for 500 aircraft split between Russia and India. Yet, that deal is long since dead….
Again, they always produce small batches, look the Su-35 for instance. That keeps the manufacturer honest, if they don’t deliver properly the MoD hangs them to dry. It seems to work.
Today a dozen are on order….and trust me they don’t cost anything remotely close to $40-45 Million. :rolleyes:
No, only 2 are on order. For the rest 13 for an initial first batch of 15, a contract is expected to be signed in 2020 but until then there is nothing official.
And I will trust you with those figures when your following prophecies happen:
> Turkey does not buy the S-400 && gets the F-35 instead.
> Russia buys the FC-31 or J-31, whatever its name is instead of China getting the Su-57
If you are right I promise to praise your supernatural powers. If not prepare to get truckloads of beers for the whole forum 😀
LMFSThe Su-57 is not is “Serial Production”…..:rolleyes:
The same way it will never be produced in “substantial” quantities in your world of doublespeak.
Russian planes are always produced in batches according to the signed contract my friend. The first serial contract is for just two units. Not many I agree, but those are serial planes for the VVS and not prototypes anymore. Keep trying.
LMFSIn a list of all 5th gen fighters that are something more than just a prototypes, J-31 is less mature and developed of all of them.
It looks like China put much more effort in J-20, Su-57 development started earlier and its development is much more active. It’ looks like J-31 development is of very slow pace.
Also, J-31 is kinda just a mix of drawbacks of MiG-29 and F-35. Look, it’s small two engine fighter like MiG-29, but lacks its kinematic performance and ruggedness. It’s overweight and oversized as F-35, but it lacks systems (IRST, EOTS, whatever) and advantages of single engine design.
Good demolishing hahaha! A 5G fighter without a 5G engine is just heavier and slower than the 4G it substitutes, and way more expensive. Imagine the F-35 without the F135 or the F-16 with an equivalent engine of the proper size… the comparison between both would be baffling.
Having said that, a proper engine will probably be developed but until then I don’t expect the plane to be a hot rod exactly.
LMFSThe only figure I heard for Su-57 is 1,500 km supersonic and 3,500 km subsonic range, no engine stated. Also AL-41F1 is not same engine as AL-41F which is izd.20.
Maybe in November with the export certification of the plane we get some official data from the manufacturer or Rosoboronexport. Until then all technical data are pure speculation.
LMFSIn the meantime it looks like China is due to be the first export customer of the Su-57…http://www.defense-aerospace.com/articles-view/release/3/201408/china-expects-russia-to-offer-su_57%2C-its-%27best-warplane%27.html
Our Nostradamus Scooter would deserved endless praise if this becomes a reality, Chinese buying the Su-57 instead the Russians the FC-31 LMAO
LMFSIt is impossible to say whether the new missiles program of US or Russia is more hamonized or disciplied, whatever that supposed to mean
What I mean considers not only current efforts but rather the whole history of development. Side bays on the F-22 are example of really bad use of space. Bays on the F-35 increased big time the volume and cross sectional area of the plane (plus creating many far from ideal curve surfaces at the belly of the plane) and yet they can only carry 2 units of big sized ordnance and 2 x AMRAAM, while leaving quite a bit of unused space. Wing root bays or Kh-59MK2 on the Su-57 are an example of well organized layout for maximum use of the space and coordination between the development of the fighter and its weapons. New big sized Russian missiles are almost all 4.2 m long and 0.4 m in diameter, that shows an structured approach that not only considers the plane but also the weapons system as a whole. It is logical that US will try to make the most of the space in their fighters, SDB is an example of it. But a plane like F-22 will be left with huge side bays that only carry 2 x SRAAMs and that is a handicap during its whole operating life, even when the Sidewinders are not any more in service.
F-35 is smaller because it was supposed to replace small and medium size fighters, it was supposed to be “cheap” so it can be produced in large number, it was supposed to take off from carrier and so on.
That is why it is a bad decision to make it the preferred strike fighter too. Su-57 is multirole per definition, using the size of its airframe for greatest effectiveness. A bit more size on Su-57 means in practice twice the internal strike ordnance. So that is definitely not a plus in F-35’s capabilities nor an excuse for bad planing.
1) F-35C need enlarge wing and hook but the rest is quite similar to others version of F-35 , why do you think F-35C is overweight?
Because it weights more than a F-15E and two tons more than the A version. A fighter with the rough length of an F-16 that is almost twice as heavy. Check TWR or max overload for the plane, not brilliant either.
what are the approach speed of others carrier aircraft in the same condition (same bombs load) for comparision?.
You can check min speeds for different naval fighters, F-35C is not even close to being the best in that regard despite its contemporary design. The faster it lands the harder the catch. And therefore, the more the structure needs to be reinforced, which brings the need of bigger wings and more weight in a cycle that is little beneficial for the plane’s overall performance.
F-35C is not fast, but it can fly far with internal fuel, for a carrier multirole fighter, combat radius is more important than speed, because it is also the strike range of the carrier. F-35C can guided missiles launched by AEGIS destroyers so it can afford to fly slow.
May agree for a bomb truck, but F-35, despite its weight, does not have the airframe size to be one. The rivals of F-35 are not the 4G planes all around, are the newer 5G examples. All of them fly on internal fuel, and in fact the Flankers have been flying essentially only on internal fuel for decades, so this is hardly an F-35 innovation.
Not going to buy such talking points when related to A2A role, they are nothing but poor Western media excuses for the less than stellar kinetic performance of the F-35. F-22 is praised exactly for being unlike the F-35C, should USAF replace it with the F-35 or rather keep using it as the “hi” part of the mix? Speed, especially if sustained with supercruising, long range, TWR, acceleration, flight altitude are all relevant for success combating other fighters, be it BVR or WVR. Also to confront SAMs by the way but let’s leave that aside.
Do you submit the F-35s are only going to fight under the umbrella of USN SAMs? Well, I thought it was the fleet’s fighters that were going to protect the vessels and not the other way around. What would USN do if a MiG-31K wing comes in their direction with Kinzhals onboard, send the fighters beyond the range of SAM cover to try an intercept of the missile carrier before it launches or run to the lifeboats? BTW the development roadmap of the USN points to tankers and other assets to allow CAP missions and AD at each time longer ranges from the fleet.
It is wrong to say F-35C can only carry 2 bombs, if you switch GBU-31 to GBU-39 or GBU-53 then the number is 8 smart bombs internally, if you switch to SPEAR, JAGM-F then the number is 8 missiles internally, if you switch to SACM then the number is 12 missiles internally. It depends on what you load it with
When will all those missiles be operational? As to the SDBs, are you suggesting they have the same effect or range that a Kh-59MK2? They are slow, weak, short ranged, easy to jam and to shoot down and have a small warhead, which means in countermeasure-intensive environments they may be way less effective. But of course they are a creative yet very expensive solution for the lack of internal carriage capacity and for permissive environments they can be a good idea. Still the F-35 would carry half as many as a Su-57 would carry similar weapons, if Russia was interested in developing them.
2) It could be feasible for a future version of PAK-FA to land on carrier, as of now, it isn’t a carrier aircraft, and you can’t be sure that it won’t require big modification like you said in case of F-35.
The modification is confirmed as feasible and we know the plane can land for itself on extremely short patches. That may indicate that catches may be very soft and structure may not need such intensive modifications, but I agree it is too soon to discuss further about it.
3) In case of attacking territories of of near pear rival, an aircraft carrier is still better than any other kind of surface ship both in destructive power and survivability. Ballistic missiles submarine is a rare exception but who mad enough to use them?
Completely disagree the approach here but it is a bit off-topic.
LMFSApril the first? fanboyism to that deree is collector!
:D:D I am happy you appreciate it
LMFSQUOTE:
Each fifth generation fighter is likely to cost India about 100 million dollars.
QUOTE:
The Russian and Indian air forces each plan to build about 250 FGFAs, at an estimated cost of $100 million per fighter.
QUOTE:
……and fighters estimated to cost approximately $100 million each at minimum
QUOTE: (Russian Source)
“Firstly, the price of one Su-57 without armament can reach $100 million. Without doubt this is a very effective yet costly machine,” said Dmitry Safonov, military analyst from the Izvestia newspaper.
https://www.rbth.com/science-and-tech/327013-supersonic-russias-top-jet
Just what I meant, you still don’t get that dollar is not the universal currency do you? MoD doesn’t buy and doesn’t think in dollars, try to imagine that abomination for a second. So what in 2009 could be 100 million would be now 50. Besides export prices are not domestic ones. Besides you provide no official source but only broad estimations from “guys” out there. Besides I have said this is my own estimation, nothing official. Russian officials said it would be 2-2.5 times cheaper than US models so make your own numbers. As proved above the domestic prices of Su-35 and Su-30 are around 30 millions, maybe even less. That would be their reference for what they consider acceptably expensive and too expensive, just use your common sense.
BTW look what I found, from your source The Diplomat:
The per-unit cost of a Su-57 is estimated to be around $40-45 million (or over 2.5 times cheaper than the U.S. F-35 Lightning II Joint Strike Fighter).
https://thediplomat.com/2018/07/russia-will-not-mass-produce-5th-generation-stealth-fighter-jet/
The Russian Su-57 fifth-generation fighter jet will be two and a half times cheaper than US Lockheed Martin F-35 fighter jet and F-22 stealth fighter aircraft, Russian lawmaker Vladimir Gutenev, a member of State Duma’s expert panel on the aviation industry, told Sputnik.
https://sputniknews.com/military/201807051066062664-russia-state-duma-su-fighter/
LMFSKh-59MK2 has bigger warhead but it doesn’t have longer range than JSOW-ER, JSM , MALD-V, LRASM and SOM-J, HSSW , either F-35 could hold it own when it come to missiles range.
PAK-FA can carry faster and further, but F-35 can operate from aircraft carrier and aircraft carriers can travel across the globe.
What? F-35 is TRUE VLO and does not need jamming, escort nor stand-off weapons, they could drop a free fall bomb on top of Putin’s head at the Kremlin with impunity!
I know there are missiles being developed in the US. But there has not been the same level of disciplined, harmonized development of platform and weapons as we see for PAK-FA. And that means bad use of the available space and negative effects on the airframe. Now they seem to have realised they need something better in order to compensate the scarce internal space in F-35, especially when you realize a Su-57 will be capable of carrying twice the amount of big A2G ordnance internally.
As to carrier version:
1) F-35C needed quite big modifications to the airframe to be carrier ready. Still its parameters are far from ideal, slow and overweight with high approach speed and big footprint. All that to carry two bombs and be kinetically handicapped in AD role. Not especially brilliant if you ask me.
2) Manufacturer has confirmed the adaptation of Su-57 for carrier operation is feasible. We know the plane is STOL by itself (half landing run than Su-35) and it was even reported that it can perform a high AoA landing mode.
3) Projecting power is crucial for US. Russia does not need to create weapons or size their military to reflect US needs. And in case of attack to territories of near-peer rivals, you know the effectiveness of carriers is more than questionable.
LMFSSerial Production of Russia’s Su-57 Stealth Fighter Delayed Until at Least 2020 Russia will not buy the Su-57 in serial configuration before 2020, according to a Russian aviation industry source.
What is this Scooter, part of your 1st April special??
So the first serial unit will be delivered in 2019 but the serial production wont start until 2020? That seems a bit difficult to me. Please select sources a bit better, this is like I quoting Sputnik to inform about status of the F-35 program. What they say that is true comes from TASS but they seem incapable of handling the info with the most elementary logic as shown above. And the comments they add by themselves are pure nonsense… bravo!
LMFSBecause the US doesn’t want Russia to gain access to F-35 technology! What don’t you get???
It is F-35 that would need to regularly exchange information with a foreign country in order to be kept operational, not the S-400 from what we know. And is US that has got caught read handed using all thinkable means and backdoors to eavesdrop rivals and allies alike. Russia would have more to fear from F-35 operating together with the S-400 than the other way around, but think what you want.
LMFSI don’t believe there is solid proof either way. But people shouldn’t be shocked it does turn out this way.
Exactly
4) A VCE actually makes a ton of sense for the Su-57 design. And it has little to do with fuel consumption. The Su-57 is clearly designed for future energy based attack/disruption capability with its multiple arrays and DIRCM mounts. This means its electrical power requirements are very high relative to legacy craft. Well, in a turbofan engine, the turbine section is what receives work from the airstream to turn the shaft to drive the compressor and also operate the accessory motor through its gearbox. With a VCE, you can keep the bypass ratio ‘high’ not just when you want better fuel consumption, but also for when you want to direct air away from the engine core so that your compressor doesn’t have to perform as much work (less air to compress) so that your accessory drive has more potential shaft energy available to it for electrical power generation. And you can then still lower the bypass ratio for high supersonic flight. Since the Russians designed a warplane with a high electrical demand it makes sense they also developed an engine with high electrical potential.
I am interested in this part of the electric generation:
> From what I understand, a modern jet engine produces many MW of propulsive power (have not done the numbers but probably tens or even hundreds of MW). How is it such a challenge to extract a small fraction of them to generate electric power?
> The engine in supercruising mode would be running with low BPR and hence most air would go through the core, do you see the operational conditions such (maybe high altitude) that the compressor would not need to work so hard to still be capable of generating all the electrical power needed??
Besides two questions I find interesting, maybe you have an opinion:
> Do you think electric power is more relevant even than fuel consumption? VCE would allow Su-57 to have a range probably similar to Su-35 and way superior to most other fighters while also being an effective supercruiser, which is unprecedented. The capability to outrange rivals without need for EFTs is very relevant I would say.
> What do you make of the very big sized air intakes in Su-57 related to F-22 and Su-27? Is it maybe to be expected that the OPR of the new engines is substantially higher than previous models or maybe only a provision for either 3 stream or simply higher performance engines in the future / other use like reduction of IR signature / systems cooling / high AoA flight? It is not a small difference: from my calculations it has 31% bigger frontal area than the intake on a F-22 and 23% bigger than Su-27, such a difference that I am questioning if the models used are correct… There must be an explanation for this big difference.
LMFSChinese contract for the supply of 48 Su-35 fighters for $ 4 billion. $ 1.5 billion for 24 fighters ($ 62.5 million apiece), 2009
Indonesia wants to buy 11 SU-35 for $ 1.14 billion USA . To replace their old F-5 tigers. Last year, it was decided that Russia would accept Indonesian export products such as coffee, palm oil, and tea as payment. 103 636 363 mln. $ Apiece. August 13, 2018
Thanks paralay,
interesting, the Chinese contract is often mentioned as being 2 billion in value. The potential one with Egypt was also referred in almost the same terms. The one for Indonesia, given the payment conditions and number of aircraft maybe be understandably more expensive.
LMFS42$m cost is from the info about 2009 year contract. 66 billion of rubles for 48 fighters. exchange rate was about 32 rubles per 1 USD.
But there is also the contract from 2015. Some sources claims it was about 100 billion, other “over a 60 billion” for 50 fighters. 2015 exchange rate was about 60 rubles. So fighters from the second contract was cheaper: 23-33$m
Hey, that is very telling. 66 billion rubles today would be like 1 billion dollar… for almost 50 fighters, is ridiculous even considering inflation.
LMFSI guess quotes are real, but they are “common knowledge” for any decent enthusiast. Most of the quotes are related to engines in general, 4th or 5th gen. So “journalist” had to diluted the quotes with his own vague thoughts to make connections to Su-57’s engine. A few want read about jet engines, but a lot would click on headline like “new Su-57’s plasma engine”.
It is a way of seeing it. He is saying that these engines (accepting it as a generic reference for the case) are designed for supercruise, a thing F135 is not for instance so it is not an universal truth for 5G engines. That the new engine (in English it reads as a very specific reference to Izd. 30) keeps the same SFC (the same as their 4G example I infer) but has increased specific thrust is NOT common knowledge, specially after you have said that this type of engine is designed for supersonic cruise. That means low BPR and hence higher SFC. In amounts that would challenge the ability of technological improvements to compensate for it, at least from what I know, and unless VCE technology is involved.
The sentence with the quote about VCE ends like: Maranchkov said about propulsion systems. In russian we don’t use plural form if we talk about an exact piece of something. The engine for example. The designer was saying about 5th gen engines in general. Im sure, but this not means that izd.30 is not VCE.
This is the kind of useful info I was hoping Russian speakers would contribute with, thanks. To me it reads very clearly as the list of requirements of Izd. 30 rather than a generic list of 5G engine requirements. I am not aware that Izd. 20 had stealth as a main requirement for instance, maybe I am wrong but the general layout of MiG MFI was difficult to classify as VLO or even LO. But I lack your deeper understanding of the language so cannot sense the intention of the speaker, maybe you are right and they are not referring to Izd. 30 concretely. But if they are referring to variable bypass as being a general feature of 5G engines and Izd. 20 was already VCE, how is that sentence a proof that Izd. 30 is not?? Arguable I can agree, but again, I am not stating that Izd. 30 IS guaranteed VCE, I am saying that it is a possibility perfectly compatible with the info provided in this interview and that I personally had not seen hinted at or supported previously. And it is a very relevant possibility, enough to deserve a discussion at least IMHO
We know little about AL-41F1, despite it’s kinda old and not as classified as izd.30. It’s just strange that designer would leak restricted information to a noname journalist. If it was authorized, when why not do it in a proper way?
Maybe he is allowed to give hints but not specs? We slowly know more things about new programs and it will happen the same with Izd. 30 invariably. In any case what is relevant for them is what the intelligence services of their “partners” know, and not what general public is informed about.
Sign In
