RF plans to bring the Su-57 to the external market, but later

Moscow. June 10th. INTERFAX-AVN – The export of a fifth-generation Russian fighter, the Su-57, is planned, but only after it is put into service, Deputy Prime Minister Yury Borisov told Interfax.
“We are working in this direction, we have plans in the strategy for moving along the military-technical cooperation, but the time will come — we will advance. While the Su-35 is doing well, we don’t see any reason to undermine our own market. There will be a need — we always have a trump card “, – said Borisov, answering the question about the withdrawal of the Su-57 to the international market.
“There is a rule that before adopting it we never issue (export permission – IF),” he said.
Meanwhile, an informed source had previously informed Interfax that the documents authorizing the export of the fifth-generation Russian fighter, the Su-57, have been agreed.
Russia may officially present the export version of the Su-57 in November at an air show in Dubai, the British edition Janes reported in March with reference to the director of international cooperation and regional policy of the Rostec state corporation Viktor Kladov.

https://www.militarynews.ru/story.asp?rid=0&nid=509913&lang=RU

Good points, thanks.

I guess we would need evidence (that is traces on radar, recordings etc.) to know which of both situations was (which was the exact bearing when the crossing / overtaking started) and what was really going on with the ships speeds, courses and communications. Sadly we are not seeing anything of the like and only a lot of noise. Hopefully we will see a proper debriefing.

As to Rule 17, well, it was applied in the end which avoided the collision, even when unnecessarily late.

Some fun at China Sea, almost made the third accident where a USN Destroyer was involved:

https://edition.cnn.com/videos/world/2019/06/07/us-russia-navy-destroyers-near-collision-incident-video-vpx.cnn

Unfortunately for the opinion defended by US side, there are things called nautical rules that regulate how to handle such situations, and they state clearly that the Russian ship had the preference and should keep course and speed, while the US one should have taken early and substantial action to avoid the collision. But I guess reporting the USN vessel was behaving lawlessly instead of using the opportunity to take a cheap shot at the Russians would be anti-patriotic or something. Incredibly they don’t know or cant report the essential regulatory frame which is the most basic starting point to clarify the incident.

From Moon of Alabama:

The Handbook of Nautical Rules lists as the International Maritime Organization Rule 15: [INDENT]When two power-driven vessels are crossing so as to involve risk of collision, the vessel which has the other on her own starboard side shall keep out of the way and shall, if the circumstances admit, avoid crossing ahead of the other vessel.[/INDENT]
The book explains further:
[INDENT]Rule 15 requires the vessel that has the other on its starboard side to stay out of the way, and to pass behind. The vessel on the right becomes the stand-on vessel and must follow Rule 17 (Action by Stand-on Vessel). The vessel on the left becomes the give-way vessel and must follow Rule 16 (Action by Give-way Vessel).
…
The give-way vessel is required (if the circumstances of the case admit) to pass behind the stand-on vessel and so a turn to starboard would be in order. To keep the area to the left of the stand-on vessel clear for the give-way vessel’s maneuvers, Rule 17 directs the stand-on vessel to refrain from turning to port.[/INDENT]
Rule 16 says: [INDENT]Every vessel which is directed to keep out of the way of another vessel shall, so far as possible, take early and substantial action to keep well clear.[/INDENT]
and Rule 17: [INDENT]Where one of two vessels is to keep out of the way the other shall keep her course and speed.

https://www.moonofalabama.org/2019/06/us-navy-cruiser-ignored-rules-at-sea-caused-near-collision-with-russian-destroyer-.html#more[/INDENT]

Wow, few days ago Trump showed support for the working team to address integration issues of F-35 and S-400 and now these news seem to shatter that approach in pieces. Turks are going to be excluded from next CEO roundtable already on 12th of June and that is not going to go down well.

Any other lectures or hopes there is a way out of this situation that does not imply a massive face loss for any side?

USC’s Rakhmanov at SPIEF 2019:

Repair and modernization of aircraft carrier “Admiral Kuznetsov” completed in 2020

St. PETERSBURG, June 6 – RIA Novosti. Works on repair and modernization of aircraft-carrying cruiser “Admiral Kuznetsov” will be completed in 2020, the test vehicle will be released in 2021, told reporters the head of the United shipbuilding Corporation Alexey Rakhmanov.
“While we have no other representations, we planned the main part of the work to be completed in 2020 and conduct tests in 2021, nothing yet this does not change. (The works are – ed.) on schedule,” he said at the forum.

ria.ru/20190606/1555310576.html

Russia ready to build nuclear aircraft carrier for 15 years

St. PETERSBURG, June 6 – RIA Novosti. Russian nuclear aircraft carrier can be created in the next 15 years in the case of an order from the Russian Navy, told reporters the head of the United shipbuilding Corporation Alexey Rakhmanov.
“Ready. Of course, more than ready. The global trend of development and construction of an aircraft carrier is laid in 15 years. In America, in France, a period which is average. I think that we will certainly not worse”, – he said at the forum.

According to him, to build such a carrier can “baltzavod”, “Severnaya Verf” or “Sevmash”. “Starting from “Baltzavod”, ending with “Northern shipyard” with cooperation. Or “Sevmash” – the enterprise which this work was done for the Indian customer very good quality,” he said.

ria.ru/20190606/1555311551.html

The source told about the development of the first Russian “Mistral”

MOSCOW, June 5 – RIA News. Universal docking ships, similar to the Mistral-type helicopter carriers, will begin to be designed in Russia in 2020, an informed source told RIA Novosti.
According to him, the Navy plans to order two such ships, the first of them will be handed over to the fleet approximately in 2025.

The interlocutor of the agency noted that on a competitive basis they would select the best project of one of the Russian design bureaus. It is assumed that each such ship will be able to carry 12-16 helicopters.
At the same time, the source explained that this helicopter carrier was not an expedition ship, the plans for the creation of which were repeatedly stated by the President of the United Shipbuilding Corporation Alexei Rakhmanov, but another independent project.

ria.ru/20190605/1555261543.html

[USER=”29017″]ActionJackson[/USER]

I find it intriguing that you have this opinion of the plane, given the amount of materials available about it addressing such topics and considering where planes like Su-35S have already gone. There are two clear aspects that I perceive from many US observers:

> Suspicion that, in the lack of irrefutable proof, what Russians say is not to be trusted. So a kind of “presumption of guilt” that I cannot go along with. Keep in mind that the same can be mirrored towards the US claims, but we don’t do it because it would be unfair.
> Expectation to receive the same level of information about the program that we are used to in case of F-35 and other Western developments. This is not going to be the case with PAK-FA. It is not reasonable to think the Russian developers are not doing the logical things the state of the art allows just because they don’t give full details about them. Integrated avionics being one of the most obvious examples.

Going to your points, even when to answer all that would take more time than I have now:

The west defines 5th gen as a combination of Stealth, Sensor Integration and network integration (cooperative engagement, sensing, ew).

Lockheed Martin defined 5G as stealth, super-manoeuvrability, super-cruising and integrated avionics when they were marketing the F-22. Now they are busy with the F-35 with less-than stellar kinematics so the definition is centred around the points where the later is stronger. The firm even tried to register the term 5G fighters and has been using the fact that being the first ones to field these planes, they had the power to shape the term.

So lets take that definition with a bit of caution

Going one step further, if you see the requirements both PCA and NGAD will share, speed, range, payload ring specially strong. Why is not the Su-57 a legitimate 5G+ fighter, when its main characteristics are exactly those?

It’s a given that the Su-57 is lacking stealth for quite a few reasons from all aspects.

I have to challenge that you can take that as a given. You can have a healthy scepticism if you are missing in the plane many of the aspects you identify as crucial for VLO. But you cannot know with certainty what the real RCS values are and what you ignore of their ways of addressing the topic. Keep in mind that before PTD was invented in the USSR, US side had not even the theoretical comprehension of the phenomena to properly simulate the scattering properties of a plane’s surface. So this is not a trivial problem not only from the technological perspective but even from the theoretical one. Apart from shaping there is absorption, interference and even EW that can affect to the capacity of a radar to detect a target. And on top of that, the tactical approach to the use of the plane. So I agree there are aspects of the design (mainly the cylindrical engine nacelles) that are clearly conflicting with commonly accepted stealth design, but IMHO we lack many of the keys to fully understand the reasons and the implications. A bit of caution would be advisable instead of a blanket dismissal, me thinks. And even more when we are talking about the guys that invented PTD and created the most sophisticated AD network in the world.

The manufacturing photos of the serial aircraft recently showed that the aircraft are not being built with wedge shaped, graduating impedence, leading edge treatments. Just the same old blunt, rounded leading edges which will only support a far more reflective thin RAM.

Ok, how do you know what the internal structure of those components are? Just asking, maybe it is obvious but not for me.

BTW, the leading edges on the plane house the L-band radar, so I guess they will be built rather like radomes. But I will look at that carefully now you mention it.

There’s been no mention of sensor integration and no boasting of lines of missions systems code which is an indicator of overall system capability.

There have been lots of claims about the integrated avionics and even a “virtual” pilot that suggests the pilot the best operative course of action considering the tactical environment. Su-35 already has a previous version of this virtual pilot and sensor integration. Not sure there has been given no info about the amount of written code but that is hardly a proof they are using rudimentary avionics. It would make no sense. I recommend you to take a look to Sukhoi’s site and check what the Su-35S can do already and what is said about the PAK-FA

https://www.sukhoi.org/products/samolety/256
https://www.sukhoi.org/products/samolety/410

On the networking side, no mention of directional data link which form the emcon component of stealth. We do know the aircraft plans to light up like a Christmas tree in this regard though.

Why do we know that they are going to light like a Christmas tree? I see four big L band arrays on the plane that can theoretically be used exactly for that and furthermore the implementation of an integrated radioelectric system that can use at least radar and EW according to the needs. I don’t recall mentions to the data links but as said they seem to have this capability with the L band arrays. There is a rear looking ECM set of which we don’t know the details and antenna (at least) at the wing and keel tips. We just don’t know (or I have not seen) how the data links are implemented but the talk about smart skin has been recurring.

No mention of cooperative engagement or ew though (no mention of ew at all really).

No mention in The National Interest, maybe. Sukhoi site explains Su-35 can do that already and Su-57 of course too. For instance:

PAK-FA:
· a qualitatively new level of protection for aircraft, passive and active funds, including the composition of the group;

Su-35S:
• The ability to group action in the air up to 16 Sukhoi su-35 with the automated exchange of information and allocation purposes, including in networks of aviation terminal (at).

The RAP L-175М10 – 35 development of JSC “KNIRTI” provides group and individual protection of aircraft against threats by setting active radar jammers in a wide range of frequencies (up to 4 targets), use of radiant for purposes of anti-radar missiles, passive jamming by resetting about heat targets and chaff.

Consider the Su-35 is a export plane and it already has highly integrated avionics and intellectual support of the pilot. And Su-57 takes all that to a new level. So I see no grounds to claim Su-57 fails on the two last elements of your definition of 5G either. Real performance is very difficult to evaluate but I see no obstacles to such elements being present.

Based on this I’d challenge the assertion that this plane is a stepping stone to 6tg gen and say it’s more of a step towards what is widely accepted as 5th gen. Let’s call it 4.75

Based on its kinematic characteristics the F-35 is a 4G plane then. Based on what US wants from their 5G+ (NGAD if they finally go that way with it) and 6G PCA, that is, back to the importance of the airframe as defining of what a plane CAN ultimately do, Su-57 is 5G+. Unsurprisingly its basic engine – WB layout is used in most 6G interpretations we see. We talk about a low observable airframe designed for long range flight at very high speeds, carrying long range, hypersonic weapons. It will be very difficult to match that in terms of air superiority. And with its characteristics and even more paired with UCAVs as Okhotnik it will be also quite potent in A2G roles. It seems we are centered around two or three polemic aspects and forgetting the many innovative capabilities the plane is developing.