LMFSWould i remind you guys of how the last 15-20 years on this forum has been.
1st. Russia did do not have a chance in hell to develop a new modern class fighter jet with stealth requirements. Russia broke!!
2nd. 2010. Well its not a Stealth jet, cus protuding probes, antennas, round nozzles from AL-31F series engine bla bla.
3rd. 2018. We see both Idz 30 and PD-14 is happening, in which has silenced most, but now its; Well Russia cannot buy them, Russia still broke!!
Do you guys see a trend here?
Yes, exceptionalism at work. Despite all nice words and fake liberalism, if it is not from us it is inferior or just a copy. We cannot avoid it. The West is wasting the time we should use to readjust our world views in sticking our heads in the sand… in the end it will be for us to pay the price of a flawed understanding of reality of course.
This “interview” with Marchukov really looks more like just an journalist’s fantasy. None questions asked, few cherry picked quotes, a lot of speculations and vague words from the author. There is nothing in this article to debate about.
Also, i read russian easily.
Great that you read Russian. I agree that the article is not well structured and mixes relevant and irrelevant topics and opinions. But just one question:
you suggest the parts between quotation marks in the article are made up or real quotes from the designer? There are hard statements there, either they are real or not. If they are, that Izd. 30 is VCE, becomes a distinct possibility, either if we want to believe it or not. One thing is being cautious, another very different to disregard hard evidence, in this case explicit statements from the developer.
LMFS1).- I see that India have left Su-57 program after put many money on it.:stupid:
Again, no.
1. India was never part of the PAK-FA program, as repeated n times
2. There has been not even an official cancellation of the interest in the FGFA or off-the-shelf Su-57
In any case, what India does is of zero meaning to evaluate the success of the PAK-FA program for its customer, the Russian MoD.
2).- I see that some russian official told Su-57 only slighter better than Su-35-S, for this they do not need many units at a very high cost/efficiency.
They should rather engage teleshop-style promotion of the new fighter, USAF style? On the same statement they said the plane is so good they don’t even see the need for it. Putin just said it is the best fighter in the world. Bondarev said something similar few weeks ago. It is not fair if you cherry-pick bits and pieces of statements and forget other much clearer ones praising the plane.
Besides, Su-35S is a 4.5G fighter by their standards. They put many systems on it well on the path of 5G, so the gap between Su-35 and Su-57 in some regards is not so steep. This is the way they work and actually the right way to go if you are cost conscious and cannot allow yourself to screw a program. They should be taking praise and not flak from observers, because this is the serious way to do things and what allows such a small budget developing world class, real world effective weapons systems.
3).- I see that it is a LO design, but no VLO design, similar to eurocanards designed 20 years ago
.
Only you have no clue what RCS reflectivity the plane has, spare us the nonsense please.
4).- I see it is a not mature airplane yet, no new air-to air missiles avalaible, no any decent video of firing from internal bays, with a very doubtful new avionics as Aesa (is there some new technology on Su-35 S (2014 service entrance) or other current aircraft from Su-57?:rolleyes:)…with a new IA more near than previous 4th generation fighters than new 5th generation fighters due to the very hight workload in the pilot….etctera…
The first serial plane will be delivered this year, second next year. So this is something like low rate initial production. F-35 is getting IOC in its different variants and has a telephone-guide style list of open issues. That is what happens with complex and innovative weapons systems, they need time to mature. Means only the plane is new, not that it is not capable.
The weapons bays issue again… we indeed saw it launching the Kh-59MK2 CM, proving two things:
> The bays exist and are there to carry weapons (real surprise for some)
> The plane can carry twice the amount of A2G stand-off ordnance, with notably bigger range and warhead, than F-35. Plus supercruising plus longer range, make your own conclusions about their comparative effectiveness as strike planes.
There is a number of claimed developments of new missiles for the plane too, which is something PAK-FA is doing but not necessary what we see in 5G US programs. Just see the size of the side weapons bays of the F-22 to understand the terrible level of harmonization between platform and weapons and the effect it had on the plane. Russia is not going to do everything right now and idle for the next 40 years of operation of the plane. This is a long term project. Really long. Improvements will keep coming.
About the claims about AESA, avionics, intellectual support AI etc…you simply have no data to make any assessment of their performance and are making this all up yourself. Feel free to correct me if you want.
5).- I see it is only 2 not finished units to RuAF to 2020, far away from initial plans.
True. What does it mean? That they are failing miserably or that they don’t feel the threat demanding rushed delivery to the VVS?
Just for a comparison, the studies for the JSF submissions started as soon as 1993. That is ten years before MFI program was cancelled and PAK-FA was open. Who is managing programs effectively and who is terribly delayed and over budget? Is JSF to be dismissed because of it?
6).- If i do not look all this, can tell everything is wonderful with this airplane at this stage.
There is no single military program of this size and risk level that has no delay, even if only due to technical issues. Now add political motivations and budget fluctuations. 3 years delay for the first serial deliveries of Su-57 is by no means a drama. It is funny because normally is Westerners decrying the program for this reason, while in their countries 25+ years development times are normal, budget deviations often double and triple the planed values… they are in no position to say a peep about PAK-FA.
IMO we need wait to 2025 and to think again if this airplane really is mature or not, on this moment is far away. While Russian officials are not stupid and they bought and will buy more Su-35 or other models.
It will keep maturing easily until 2050, so be patient then. They said they will turn it into a 6G platform and there are reasons to understand they may have a point. They will place ROFAR on it, 3-streams engines and unmanned operation, plus DEW, at least from what we know from authoritative people. Cooperation with UCAVs in active research. In the real world there are no instantaneous transitions, you introduce a new platform with just the basic functions and expand them while your crews and whole scientific, industrial and operational base learns. There is no other way and the F-35 is a good example of it.
Regarding Su-35, you are right: they were intelligent enough to develop a 4.5G fighter to hedge against development problems and to easy the transition to 5G. This is the correct way, not to rush half backed airframes into operation that are terribly expensive, will have shortened operational lifes and will need expensive retrofit, only to order afterwards 4.5G as USAF is apparently going to do after the delays in program materialize. They always materialize, so act in advance and not after the problem is there! Every project manager knows this as the ABC of risk management…
LMFSThe cost of the Su-35S is $ 42 million, for a foreign customer – 62 million;
Su-57 delivery cost is expected $ 82 – $ 123 million
Do you have sources Paralay? To know the year when the currency conversion was done would be important too.
There is a number of reasons why I don’t completely agree on the figures above but would think it is better to see how they were calculated before discussing xD
LMFS[USER=”70376″]stealthflanker[/USER] – the total contract value was 1.1 billion, so unless Indonesia skimped on weapons, spares, training, etc. I doubt the aircraft themselves were in the 90-100 million dollar range.
[USER=”77292″]LMFS[/USER] – yeah I’ve seen those MoD numbers quoted. And they simply put aren’t accurate. I wouldn’t be surprised if that is simply for the airframe and the radar, engines, etc were separate contracts. And the idea that a customer simply pays what they think the aircraft is worth is frankly, dumb. You don’t think they want transparency in negotiating a contract? For example accounting for production cost, associated fees, % of Dev cost?
Sure Russia buys them at under 30 million a pop, but export customers contracts all come in over 100 million per Su-35S. Are they throwing in unlimited fuel+spares, maintenance, and weapons too?
I don’t have details to what the MoD contracts include that is right. But in any case this is why we make focus in PPP corrected GDP, value of things in less “developed” economies is also so much lower than you cannot assess their effective “wealth” from Western parameters. And as said essentially all is state controlled so there is no incentive to inflating costs as US MIC does. The kind of armed forces RF sustains with $50 or 60 billion budget is surreal from our perspective. A Western country for that money would not be capable of keeping the nuclear forces on their feet alone, much less modernize them as the RF is doing.
I have never negotiated fighter jets contracts, so just my understanding here: customer pays in function of what their options are. If you have a Rafale and F-16V costing >$100 million a piece and Russians come with a much better offer you may buy, regardless of the profit that means for Russia. Especially for non-aligned countries, what are the other options instead, buy Western and get their fleet grounded in the worst moment? What is the leverage of the customer to demand knowing for instance % of development costs he is paying? And how would that metric be calculated for a program developed without publicly accounting for foreign sales? Those figures are not their business IMHO.
Export contracts are also not very detailed, but we know for instance China bough 24 Su-35S for ca. $2 billion, that is like 83 million a piece. Even if it was only the planes it would be very cheap for such a plane, look what Morocco for instance is going to pay for 25 F-16…
Further training, support and weapons would make the deal even better if included, but I dont have info in that regard to be honest.
LMFSYeah, and I can buy “real Gucci sunglasses” from the local street vendor for $20 USD. There have been several Su-35S contract disclosures (China, Indonesia, Egypt proposal). So, either Russia is charging export customers 3.5 times what they are costing Russia (in which case the customers are rubes) or “under 30 million” is in your wildest dreams. If you look at an average of export contracts of combat aircraft, with support, equipment, training, they usually add up to between 1.5-to a bit over 2 times the “unit cost” on a per aircraft basis.
In in other words, “no”. 50-60 million in USD would be more accurate.
Look for the prices of Su-30 and Su-35 contracts to MoD if you want. And of course the price on the export market is not what the production costs as Russia pays (remind the involved companies are state-owned so making profit makes no sense here) but what the aircraft is worth for the customer. It can be much more than the production cost of course.
BTW, what costs do you estimate at $50-60 million concretely?
LMFSI can repeat the same arguments all over again to address your last comments, but I guess you already have your opinion.
“Through the use of new designs and technologies in the “Product 30” specific consumption remained at the same level, but the specific thrust increased“, — said Marchukov.
“Compared to engines of the fourth generation the fifth was added cruising supersonic movement — the engine should have a variable bypass ratio. This requirement added one specific option — specific fuel consumption at cruising supersonic speed. Also, the engine should be much less visible in the infrared and radio range. This is achieved by special design nozzles and air intake. A major aspect of the new engine is also reducing life cycle cost of the machine less the cost of maintenance, the overhaul period more”, — told about the new power plants Marchuk.
Let’s wait and see then
LMFSAl-31F is known to have SFC value of 0.67 at Economic cruise. But we never really know that values is for what altitude and what cruise speed.
It doesn’t really matter, since it is the designer itself who is making the claim and he probably knows how such comparison needs to be done:
The engine of the second stage for the su-57 the developers have applied a number of new design approaches and technologies, thanks to which “article 30” in the specific fuel consumption approximately corresponds to a turbofan engine AL-31F (670 grams per kilogram-forces per hour in cruise mode), but surpasses it in terms of the specific thrust.
“Specific fuel consumption opposes with a specific thrust. The best fuel consumption is obtained on civil turbofan engines, but they have the least specific thrust due to high bypass ratio. At one-loop engines — on the contrary, specific thrust is high and consumption is high. Through the use of new designs and technologies in the “Product 30” specific consumption remained at the same level, but the specific thrust increased“, — said Marchukov.
Su-57 has a cross-sectional area very slightly bigger than F-22. To supercruise in analogous conditions* it would need, but for very different aerodynamic merit figures (which is unlikely) roughly the same amount of thrust, estimated at ca. 11000 kgf per engine in dry settings (of course in bench not at altitude). AL-41F1 generates only 8800 kgf in dry settings, that means F119 has 25% more thrust. Do you think that, just by redesign and slight improvements in technology (AL-41F1 is already very modern by most standards and generates 2.5 tons thrust more than AL-31F) from better compression or higher combustion temperature they can get the same SFC that AL-31F and the same dry thrust that F119, all at the same time? This doesn’t look likely to me and variable bypass ratio seems a distinct possibility to achieve that result, but maybe I am wrong.
* This assumption can be questioned of course, but:
> You generally don’t create your answer to an existing foreign design to be inferior from the onset, that would make no sense
> From other parameters we know the F-22 was taken as reference, as it would be obvious in any case
> From the plane’s patent we know the focus on supercruise is one of its main design drivers
So I think the assumption similar levels of thrust are needed is not so far fetched.
Izd.30 can sacrifice some SFC compare to AL-31 because Su-57 has more fuel than Su-27 while they have around the same range, 3,500 km.
But they are saying it has not lost efficiency. And we don’t know neither the internal fuel of Su-57 nor its range but from unofficial data that I would not trust more than the word of the designers.
LMFSI dont see hyping about Izd-30 have such feature as a wise decision.
No statements from my side apart from my personal interpretation of these and other statements as consistent with the possibility that Izd. 30 is VCE. Something I was not expecting BTW so I was the first to be sceptic when I read the interview. But the paragraph I mentioned addresses specifically the Izd. 30 requirements so I am inclined to think as I do. Regardless of being less risky to assume it is not a statement related to Izd. 30, based in that interview I cannot think otherwise.
How do you reconcile the supercruising design with a SFC like the one of AL-31?
LMFS100% Agree.
I’ve said it before. There might be several issues that “sunk” the Co-op between India and Russia PakFa/FGFA program.
But in the end i think Sukhoi with UAC threw in the white towel and conceded to the IAF that they could not at current time develop two different planes at the same time.
It would mean much more money, more Risk, more delays or time to even get the PakFa ready, which brings us back again to what you just said here.
Namely that the PakFa program is so important for Russia, for its armed forces and its future Industry for all its drop down of inovations going into the future.
I think Russia tried to lure India with a program that was a win-win for both. They would get additional money and ensure their partnership long term and India would get lots of ToT that are simply not available anywhere else, I think in fact Russia went quite far in terms of concessions. But India was not ready for the effort and Russia was not ready for the Indian demands I guess so it didn’t work in that format, irrespective of what happens in the future. In any case the program was never coupled to PAK-FA, it was always stated they were two different planes
There has always been a silly but perhaps a pinch of thruth when people said the F-35 program was -“too big to fail”.
Well it can be said that the PakFa program is too important for Russia too fail.
Pretty much! Russian industry cannot allow themselves to lose PAK-FA. They simply can’t.
If your air force for whatever reason can’t be part of the illustrious F-35 circle, the only viable alternative is “J-31”. Because it looks similar to an F-35. :very_drunk:
Hahaha, that’s it! In the world measured in dollars, they cannot imagine that Russia can buy the Su-57 because it will cost them like the F-22 or so, so better to admit their insignificance and settle for a medium or light fighter like the J-31, even if it is useless. Hardly can they imagine that the RF is buying Su-35s under $30 million and that probably Su-57, if it is very expensive as they admitted, will come at $45-50 million. That is just my guess, but officials have already said the plane will cost 2-2.5 times less than the American examples so it can be in that ballpark indeed. Now look what is the cost of a medium fighter in the international market and try to get a 5G one for something like that. These are simply ridiculous propositions…
LMFSI’m sticking with Flateric at this one.
That is perfectly fine. But the quote says the 5G engine differs from 4G in having variable bypass and 6G adds a third stream. That or the machine translation is kidding me. There can be misreporting, misinterpretation and whatever, but the statement looks clear and consistent with the rest of the article and other related statements.
Which engine you are talking about ?
F119 vs. AL-31F. Engines for supersonic flight have (normally) lower BPR. At the time of MFI it was already clear for the Soviet designers that a 5G engine needed to be VCE. I doubt they have changed their minds, they are insistent on Izd. 30 being a REAL 5G engine. So to me it makes sense but I can be perfectly wrong. We will see, I hope.
LMFSThat’s fundamentally revisionist, Russia and India signed an IGA for the design stage, basically a co-development of the FGFA based on the Pak-Fa project. They contributed roughly 300 million USD (2010) in the development stage. Disagreements over India specific design elements betwen Pak-Fa and FGFA, cost sharing, and India’s share of co-production sunk the project.
Irrespective, India was NEVER a partner to PAK-FA. Stop mixing unrelated things please. Russia’s need for the plane has nothing to do with what India wants to do with their air force.
LMFSWell Marchukov said about future development, not the current product 30.
I encourage you to read again. For the future he mentioned the 3rd stream engine. That doesn’t mean the current one is not a VCE with two streams, does it?
In parallel with the development of the engine of the second stage for the su-57, the designers are already creating research and technical groundwork for engines of the sixth generation. In the first phase of research aimed at improving specific characteristics of a power plant compared to the engines of the fifth generation.
According to Marchukov, this project involves the addition to the construction of the power plant of the third external air circuit. This makes it possible to achieve a low specific fuel consumption at cruising supersonic mode.
and it doesnt have to be VCE for supercruise given the F-119 can do it just fine.
True, but can an engine with BPR = 0.3 have the same SFC than an engine with BPR = 0.60? I stand to be corrected but this doesn’t sound realistic to me.
LMFSIs it even confirmed Izd.30 use variable bypass?
That is the million dollar question. This is what the chief developer said:
“Compared to engines of the fourth generation the fifth was added cruising supersonic movement — the engine should have a variable bypass ratio. This requirement added one specific option — specific fuel consumption at cruising supersonic speed. Also, the engine should be much less visible in the infrared and radio range. This is achieved by special design nozzles and air intake. A major aspect of the new engine is also reducing life cycle cost of the machine less the cost of maintenance, the overhaul period more”, — told about the new power plants Marchuk.
To me this reads clearly as a statement that the engine is indeed VCE. Further arguments in favour:
> Supercruise + SFC in line with high-bypass engine like the AL-31F seems not feasible without variable cycle.
> Russian sources have said in a number of occasions that the AL-41F1 is already very capable but that the Izd. 30 would be the true 5G engine (designed for supercruise) and in fact rather a 5G+ design. This is consistent with a two streams VCE, ahead of current 5G examples but still not 6G level with three streams.
> Original AL-41F for the MFI was already going to be VCE
They also mention specific thrust being ahead of any competitor, but I don’t know if this is related to A/B or dry settings and hence cannot make a conclusion about TIT or OPR, maybe somebody knowledgeable could help here.
Against this possibility of the engine being a VCE, the fact that we have never been told before in such clear terms and that it may be an unexpected development. But it would make a lot of sense given the approach to effective supercruise the plane was designed under.
LMFSIt is useless to discuss with this kind of people that are trolling anything non-US based in terribly flawed data and hiding behind vague claims. The first serial Su-57 is coming this year, development continues on a big scale as scheduled and the plane could be deployed in VVS in full normality analogous to Su-35 and Flanker in its day, nobody will ever talk of the J-31 in RuAF but still we will hear the claim that the program is an abject failure because it is not deployed in “substantial” numbers, being “substantial” whatever arbitrary amount that suits the agenda. It does not matter that VVS is defensive in essence, if they don’t field thousands and thousands of 5G fighters which are an exact copy of US planes they will be hopelessly doomed. And if they copy the US way then they will be copycats like they claim from the Chinese so better to let it be. It does not even matter that thousands of US 5G fighters attacking Russia would unleash a nuclear retaliation for these logic-free arguments.
LMFSDoes any of you know something about this program to create targets simulating modern Chinese and Russian planes?
Thanks!
Sign In
