LMFS@Levsha:
I did not make any mention to you or your posts specifically but to the widespread notion that this way of purchasing is compatible with best practices or common sense. I don’t care how many projects are run like that or who does it, this is not how you keep your independence as a customer. Please tell me what is so wrong in what I wrote. Do you defend buying a product for which you have hundreds of deficiencies without even having a tested solution to those? How do you know how much the retrofits are going to cost, if you don’t know what the root problems are?
@SpudmanWP:
Damn, this belongs in the F-35 thread ;(
You are right!
LMFSThis is funny isn’t it? Now the game is pretending that there is no problem buying something before it is ready and it happens everywhere.
No. This crap only happens when amazing levels of corruption have taken control of military procurement. Not a single person in their right mind would do so but the US MIC pretends that covering all this with some obscure terms hides the colossal negligence of ordering hundreds of half backed aircraft for which the manufacturer can afterwards put a price tag as high as they want to the retrofits. And what is even more ludicrous is trying to present this behaviour as model of how programs are run, in order to put down other procurement programs where purchasing works soundly and quantities are only ordered done once the product is ready and to the entire satisfaction of the customer.
Stop taking us for idiots please.
LMFSBy why do all that work getting Su-57 stuff into Su-35? For all cost of retrofitting and then making new Su-35 with Su-57 avionics and engines, why not just make Su-57 in the first place? Makes no sense. If it’s to set up production they made 11 aircraft already, why another 2 years?
I assume for what I state above that already existing Su-35s would get (possibly many years from now) equipment or technologies from the Su-57. But in any case I can imagine the Su-57’s airframe is also more expensive than the one from Su-35 so MoD would have also some incentive to producing Su-35s further, even with Su-57s already in active procurement. It all depends on threat level, technological risk management and budgetary priorities. Expectation is nevertheless, that in the end the T-50 platform should substitute the T-10 completely.
As to the existing units, they are prototypes. Prototypes are built essentially by hand and therefore not related to serially built ones. Manufacturing is a big fat part of the whole project so you cannot underestimate the costs and time needed to fine tune the assembly line, subcontractors and the rest of details.
LMFSThe signed contract (finally), which was said to be for 12 units all this time, it is only for 2 units, which must be delivered in the next 2 years till 2020, I imagine one unit per year.
The other link only talk about future when new engine will be ready but reality at this moment it is only 2 units. Something similar is happening with armata, i read it is some order for T-90 MS tanks…I think it will be same with new orders on Su-35 S. And very possible we will see new Su-27 evolution with some features from Su-57 on next future.
Yes, this is not a huge amount exactly but is apparently due to nature of procurement system in Russia. First two serial units are used for adjustment of the production line, apparently this is always like that. And as you know, they work to ensure loading their manufacturing capacities during long periods of time instead of making big buys, so low amount batches are pretty normal there. So this results in different types of equipment coexisting in the military. Elite units receive the newest material and older one is pushed down the line to other units, until it is out of service after many years and a couple of modernization rounds. This is the best approach form the economic point of view if you ask me. Same happens with Armatas, T-90Ms and T-72B3 for instance. Not every unit needs something so advanced as Armata, not only in terms of the MBT but also IFV, which right now is head, shoulders and waist above almost anything else out there. First 132 Armatas contracted but also new and modernized T-90s. I really have to object that this system is flawed in any fundamental way. Flawed IMHO is the Western procurement, where PR and profit seems more relevant than actual defensive capabilities.
Returning to PAK-FA, we wont see big numbers at least until 2023, only one squadron at most to develop all the know how needed to deal with the new fighter, while 2nd stage engines are done with their testing and manufacturing setup. As said several times before, the level of perceived threat is discouraging Russia from investing more heavily in defence. We can discuss if they are wrong, but that is what they say and what they do, at least as far as conventional technologies are involved.
Is it possible that technologies developed for the Su-57 revert to the T-10 platform? Yes, like AESA radar technologies that were developed for ATF and are now used in 4G US fighters. UAC seems adamant that the Su-57 will be the base of a new series of platforms, very much like the T-10 was, so they probably would like to see it replacing all Flanker models asap. But MoD can have another opinion of course. At less than 30 million a piece, Su-30s and the likes are still very effective according to them and you know stealth is not their main concern. A Su-30 or 35 with Al-41F1 engines (not even izd. 30) or Su-57 avionics would be a serious asset if used under the right circumstances
LMFSFirst serial pair of Su-57 contracted at 2018 Army forum. 15 units expected on short term and deliveries of units with 2nd stage engine from 2023 onwards:
http://tass.ru/armiya-i-opk/5480249
http://uacrussia.ru/ru/press-center/news/oak-i-ministerstvo-oborony-rossii-podpisali-kontrakty-na-postavku-su-57-i-mig-35
LMFSThe new LMFS will be the STOVL/VTOL type potentially a medium fighter with twin engine in Mig-29/Rafale class , More then of a question of how much composite they use for Empty Weight.
Wont be limited to just Naval application and will replace the medium fighter in Russian fleet 15-20 years down the line. Russian AC wont exceed 60 K T class so a heavy fighter like PAK-FA will have limited utility on it unless they go for 100K Plus which is unlikely to happen. Having a VTOL types also means it can be operated on Amphibious Flat tops
RuAF and CSTO countries put together will have 100’s of aircraft to replace in their existing inventory from Medium to Heavy and PAK-FA , VTOL and Mig-41 will be the ones replacing them in next 20-30 years. If one add export customers of RUssian Aircraft then the numbers are bound to grow.
The CTOL version would most probably not benefit from the compromises needed for the STOVL version, main engine position is quite different. Agree on the export market but that should be the LMFS. Years pass, nothing concrete is decided on the Russian side and in the meanwhile China and other countries start capturing that potential market.
A navalized Su-57 will have bigger footprint and maybe slightly inferior numbers in a 60k carrier than a smaller fighter but that is all, would remain not only useful but in fact dominant compared to what PLAN and USN are fielding. And even better, the baseline plane is already designed. Where I agree is in regards of amphibious assault ships, they could benefit, but that will hardly mean more than 50 planes for Russia.
LMFSAs said, this is very cool, but you don’t throw to the bin something just because you just discovered something better. There is a thing called life cycle of a technology. Some technologies are dying, others are actively used and others are being developed.
See no relation to cancellation of PAK-FA. Which, by the way, is utter nonsense to me, to make it clear.
On the contrary, I can imagine that you can go and develop structures designed in this way to substitute conventional ones that can be exchanged 1 to 1 during some mid-life overhauling. More resistance and less weight. No need to cancel any plane…
LMFSI find it intriguing, why on earth would they start one additional fighter development program for a niche plane like a STOVL, while they are still missing a new light fighter. Maybe they see export potential? The CTOL design would have much bigger market IMO
A navalized Su-57 could (easily) take off fully loaded from a sly jump with a 100 take-off run. The issue is AWACS/ AEW and tankers, not the fighters! Irrational to me but, lets see how this ends.
LMFSWhat the?
Hahaha, exactly my thoughts!
All those technologies are very cool, they will come, maybe earlier than thought. But the rest of 5G fighters are still traditionally designed and built, why on earth would these technologies mean a death spell for the PAK-FA and not for them?
LMFS[ATTACH=CONFIG]262369[/ATTACH]
No integrated EOTS as far as I know. But if you are close enough to the target to light it up with a laser you are going to be detected anyway. Apparently Russian military prefers to deal with dangerous targets from stand-off distances.
LMFSThere was no concrete planned production (beyond the 12 units about to be signed), so there was nothing to cancel in first place. And then, it would be interesting NOT to cancel the program and then NOT producing any planes… in levels of absurdity this is right there with the US requests to Turkey to buy S-400 BUT not using it š
BTW, UAC’s CEO said India did not withdraw from FGFA
LMFSOk, yes I know Cd of different shapes is different. Hence why most planes have a broadly similar shape designed for very low levels of Cd.
[ATTACH=CONFIG]262361[/ATTACH]
Fd = 1/2 Ro * vĀ² * Cd * A
where Fd is drag force, Ro is density of the fluid, v speed of the body relative to the fluid, Cd drag coefficient and A cross sectional area.
All designers try to get a low value of Cd, do you suggest in F-35 this value is so much better than in other planes to compensate for bigger cross section? Definitive acceleration values would be of help to check that
LMFSFirst batch of Su-57 expected to be signed these days at the 2018 Army forum.
http://tass.com/defense/1017791
Poor guys at Sukhoi & MoD, they don’t know cancellation of the program is imminent š
LMFS@bring_it_on:
Fair enough. My level of knowledge of the project and approach are simply not comparable to yours so this becomes a too dissimilar conversation. Strikingly to me though, you seem to have no big apparent objections to the way the program was set to work by decision makers or you do not want to make them public, so be it. From the technical perspective, I think the resulting platform is a great achievement in VERY difficult conditions (and also due to exorbitant investment) and I know there are time-refined processes in place and incredibly sharp people taking care of such businesses, but I cannot help seeing the philosophy behind it as inherently flawed as a result of unreasonable political agendas, as so often regardless what brilliant technical guys are involved. I know I am not the only one there, as well as I know probably you and many other knowledgeable guys may only see this as superficial criticism, lacking the massive amount of background and info one would need to really evaluate the project and the aircraft in fairness. Both opinions can be true, as far as I can see it.
There is a great number of comments I would make to your statements above but I don’t think that would bring us much forward, apart from the tremendous effort it would mean for me to collect the hard data in support of my hypotheses to have a half serious discussion with somebody in the know as you. Excuse that I don’t engage in that.
Would like to check the paper on the design of the F-35 air vehicle, but is it openly available? Seems to be subject to payment.
BTW, I am not demanding USAF or insiders to disclose every secret on the internet just to satisfy my curiosity but I think asking is legit. Have no way of knowing in advance what materials have been made available and what not.
Many thanks for the explanations, insight and sources of info! :eagerness:
LMFS@FBW:
Yes, I have no way of knowing how good current UHF/VHF radars are against a certain VLO plane. But I know modern ones can perfectly guide a missile to a position were it can in all probability activate its seeker and detect the target. So end game guidance is not needed and the drawback of them being less precise not that important as far as I can see.
Apparently there are already functioning prototypes of the mentioned new radar concepts. If they will need 1 or 100 years to get them operational is something probably nobody knows. I would say in 10 to 15 years it could be done, if the level of the threat demands it.
Sign In
