SU-57: On hold for a decade

[southerncross]

And don't forget you and others were sure Russia will cancel Su-57

20 years moving goals posts and still at it

you even write they will buy J-31 instead.

Hahaha, now that is an impressive show of foresight. I start to understand all that bitching because China is not taking it even for their carriers...

India no longer has "any" interest in the Su-57. They're just being polite....

At least you are brave enough to make bold prognoses against all odds, let us see how well this one ages. Indians have been checking MiG-35 and Su-57 thoroughly at this year's MAKS BTW.

Russia said it will spend $2.63 billion to acquire 76 Su-57's between now and 2028. Which, would equate to a unit price of less than $34 million per jet. Other sources have claimed in the $50 Million Range. Not that I believe either....

Russia didn't say a peep about the real price of the Su-57, those you mention were speculative figures from Kommersant. Almost everyone bases their estimations on the price of the Su-35 for the VKS, which is known to be below $30 million at the current exchanges... even if you don't believe it. That is what happens when you use your financial system to tank the currency of a country without external debt, you create a profit windfall on everything they export, boost their self reliance and make their internal production look ridiculously cheap compared to yours, literally like producing a Sukhoi for 20 or 25 million ans selling it for >80. Russia must be crying a river over the devaluation of the ruble.

Common sense would suggest Russia should be in a race to acquire as many as possible in the coming decade. If, it has any hope of putting up a credible defense!

There is always this elusive expectation of finally going to war with Russia. What do they have to defend against, any concrete war plans on your side? If not, Russia is not trying to conquer US any time soon, so you don't need to lose sleep over the "Russian Threat" ...at all.

[botsing]

There is always this elusive expectation of finally going to war with Russia. What do they have to defend against, any concrete war plans on your side? If not, Russia is not trying to conquer US any time soon, so you don't need to lose sleep over the "Russian Threat" ...at all.

What a dumb assertion.

You know about geopolitical strategies right? And things like global resources? Why do you think Russia is expanding in the arctic region? Why do you think Scandinavian countries are upping their defense bills? Why do you think the Baltic region joined NATO and is expanding their forces?

Really, what a dumb assertion and rabble-rousing.

[mixelflick]

MiG had excellent proposal for that, it is baby PAK-FA, there wouldn't be much work on airframe because aerodynimics is very similar and it would have good bay capacity, one Su-57 main bay and two Su-47 bays (each can carry R-77M) plus wing pods for R-74 but because Sukhoi have final word in UAC it didn't happen and only if they find foreign partner something like that could became reality.

What are you alluding to here? That Sukhoi calls the shots within UAC?? If that's true, will Mig EVER get back into the game? I'm genuinely curious, because I wholeheartedly believe that having just one dominant defense contractor (cough, Lockheed Martin, cough) is NOT a good thing.

Competition is important. If Boeing doesn't up its stealth game shortly in the fighter arena, they'll be precious little competition. LM is a fine company that's broadly diversified, but competition brings out the best in both companies. If Sukhoi really is calling all the shots, it would explain why Mig has been relegated to putting lipstick on the Mig-29, and offering it up as a 5th gen airframe.

Pathetic IMO, and unbecoming of their former status as Russia's premiere fighter producer. They built absolute winners with their Mig-21, 25 and 31 series. Even today, the Mig-31 represents a very credible threat and has monster speed, range etc. unmatched by any western fighter. In fact, I wonder if any F-35 could catch one. Here's a hypothetical for you..

Russia decides to fly the Mig-31 at high speed/high altitude over Israel. Does Israel send up the F-35 to down it, or the F-15? We'll leave SAM's out of it for now, and just consider her interceptors..

[sprstdlyscottsmn]

Russia decides to fly the Mig-31 at high speed/high altitude over Israel. Does Israel send up the F-35 to down it, or the F-15? We'll leave SAM's out of it for now, and just consider her interceptors..

not much to consider. The F-15C is still a world class interceptor.

[fidgetspinner]

@corsair1963

Then why not a single buyer and so few domestic orders?

Something, something sanctions. Something, something country relations. Something something threatening countries from purchasing russian military arms. Something along these lines.

You can't win on Land or Sea without "Air Superiority

But a with a decent amount of SAMs to hold off aerial attacks you can send conventional missiles flying to where that air superiority has to eventually land . Well I guess thats why we are paranoid about their missile projects having striking distances of more than 500kms violating a certain treaty. This comparison is no different than bringing a katana and you believe you got a higher chance to win a fight because you see someone with a shank but don't realize there is a revolver in his pocket until he goes john wayne on you.

[Corsair1963]

Then why not a single buyer and so few domestic orders?

SAM's can't hold off Stealth Fighters and Bombers. So, your logic escapes me.

[fidgetspinner]

SAM's can't hold off Stealth Fighters and Bombers. So, your logic escapes me.

They can hold off strikes, until long range stand off missiles get launched their way when they prepare to land or start targeting ammunition or refuel stations. if you don't have air superiority how can you win on land or sea battles is what you said earlier right?

[Corsair1963]

Hahaha, now that is an impressive show of foresight. I start to understand all that bitching because China is not taking it even for their carriers...

You have proof that China is not developing a Naval Version of the J-31 or that the project has been canceled???

At least you are brave enough to make bold prognoses against all odds, let us see how well this one ages. Indians have been checking MiG-35 and Su-57 thoroughly at this year's MAKS BTW.

Again you care to provide an official source that states India is seriously considering acquiring the Su-57 or Mig-35??? LOL

Russia didn't say a peep about the real price of the Su-57, those you mention were speculative figures from Kommersant. Almost everyone bases their estimations on the price of the Su-35 for the VKS, which is known to be below $30 million at the current exchanges... even if you don't believe it. That is what happens when you use your financial system to tank the currency of a country without external debt, you create a profit windfall on everything they export, boost their self reliance and make their internal production look ridiculously cheap compared to yours, literally like producing a Sukhoi for 20 or 25 million ans selling it for >80. Russia must be crying a river over the devaluation of the ruble.

I made it clear in my comments I didn't believe the Su-57 would cost $50 Million let alone $35 Million. Are you stating it will be expensive???

There is always this elusive expectation of finally going to war with Russia. What do they have to defend against, any concrete war plans on your side? If not, Russia is not trying to conquer US any time soon, so you don't need to lose sleep over the "Russian Threat" ...at all.

Absurd....then why does Russia have one of the largest militaries on the planet??? Why is it aggressive towards it neighbors??? Why did it invade Georgia and Crimea/Ukraine??? (etc. etc. etc.)

You expect us to believe that if NATO didn't exist. That Russia wouldn't have forcibly taken over a number of Eastern European Countries. (Baltic States, Georgia, Ukraine, etc.)

[Corsair1963]

SAM's can't hold off Stealth Fighters and Bombers. So, your logic escapes me???

They can hold off strikes, until long range stand off missiles get launched their way when they prepare to land or start targeting ammunition or refuel stations. if you don't have air superiority how can you win on land or sea battles is what you said earlier right?

No Advanced Air Defense Network currently on the planet can hold off a strike force of F-22's, F-35's, and B-2's. (and supporting forces)

Russia has "no hope" to winning on land or at sea. Without "Air Superiority". That has been proven countless times in the last 70+ years.

So, this idea that Russia is in no hurry or need to acquire first rate Stealth Fighters is "laughable".

[Corsair1963]

Russia decides to fly the Mig-31 at high speed/high altitude over Israel. Does Israel send up the F-35 to down it, or the F-15? We'll leave SAM's out of it for now, and just consider her interceptors..

not much to consider. The F-15C is still a world class interceptor.

Sorry, a combat loaded F-35A will eat the F-15C for lunch even in the interceptor role.....

[fidgetspinner]

No Advanced Air Defense Network currently on the planet can hold off a strike force of F-22's, F-35's, and B-2's. (and supporting forces)

Russia has "no hope" to winning on land or at sea. Without "Air Superiority". That has been proven countless times in the last 70+ years.

So, this idea that Russia is in no hurry or need to acquire first rate Stealth Fighters is "laughable".

What if I told you that their entire defense network has more missiles than what an entire airforce is able to carry?"

A single launched missile for the cost of 1 million dollars can sink a carrier holding 100 F-35s. A single submarine can waste 40 vessels at sea from 1000kms away.

or the fact that aircrafts can be monitored by OTH radars and satellites and some one sent an iskander missile immediately to the runway of where the F-35 is to land or after it lands?

Of course this can work vice versa but who do you think in the end is wasting more money in a war on land or sea as in having multi-billion dollar spent equipment happens to be destroyed with ease? Having air superiority only applies to countries like syria or Libya.

[popcorn]

How cost-effective will it be to fire million dollar SAMs against a swarm of low cost killer drones?

[XanderCrews]

India no longer has "any" interest in the Su-57. They're just being polite....

At least you are brave enough to make bold prognoses against all odds, let us see how well this one ages. Indians have been checking MiG-35 and Su-57 thoroughly at this year's MAKS BTW.

Serious Checking. this is serious. They might even check twice.

Russia said it will spend $2.63 billion to acquire 76 Su-57's between now and 2028. Which, would equate to a unit price of less than $34 million per jet. Other sources have claimed in the $50 Million Range. Not that I believe either..../quote]
Russia didn't say a peep about the real price of the Su-57, those you mention were speculative figures from Kommersant. Almost everyone bases their estimations on the price of the Su-35 for the VKS, which is known to be below $30 million at the current exchanges... even if you don't believe it. That is what happens when you use your financial system to tank the currency of a country without external debt, you create a profit windfall on everything they export, boost their self reliance and make their internal production look ridiculously cheap compared to yours, literally like producing a Sukhoi for 20 or 25 million ans selling it for >80. Russia must be crying a river over the devaluation of the ruble.

Cheap as hell and they aren't buying them.

There is always this elusive expectation of finally going to war with Russia. What do they have to defend against, any concrete war plans on your side? If not, Russia is not trying to conquer US any time soon, so you don't need to lose sleep over the "Russian Threat" ...at all.

And yet, we've already had an Su-57 deployment to Syria...

[XanderCrews]

What if I told you that their entire defense network has more missiles than what an entire airforce is able to carry?"

A single launched missile for the cost of 1 million dollars can sink a carrier holding 100 F-35s. A single submarine can waste 40 vessels at sea from 1000kms away.

or the fact that aircrafts can be monitored by OTH radars and satellites and some one sent an iskander missile immediately to the runway of where the F-35 is to land or after it lands?

Of course this can work vice versa but who do you think in the end is wasting more money in a war on land or sea as in having multi-billion dollar spent equipment happens to be destroyed with ease? Having air superiority only applies to countries like syria or Libya.

I'd tell you they would lose, and so would the Russians.

This is as silly as saying "What if I told you the Germans had more anti tank rounds than the Russians had tanks?" or that their "V-2 missiles could take out whole runways? "

Its a bit more complicated than that (and thats without getting into the old "how do they fight things they can't see but lets keep this sporting), and this "asymmetrical conventional" warfare doesn't typically turn out too well for the defense. We've seen that repeated many times and the Russians know first hand as well. Maneuver warfare is a b*t*h. moreover you need aircraft to take the offensive, to control the air to control the battle space, to deploy and project power overseas. There just any real substitute for a fighter/bomber just yet. Which is one of the reasons the Russians are bothering with airplanes still despite their SAMs and Iskander.

Maybe they like wasting money. I don't know.

The bottom line is that airplanes will pick and choose the when and where, theyre faster than Mobile SAMs, they deploy and rain down hellfire, and SAMS are primarily a DEFENSIVE weapon. They don't take the initiative, they don't destroy bridges and tanks and and ammo depots (filled with SAMs) they don't perform recon, they can't be everywhere, they don't support troops directly on the ground, they shoot down airplanes (And are seriously deadly, don't get me wrong-- which is why smart air forces don't underestimate them) but they are one trick ponies, and ground forces relying on them to win the day have been proven horrifyingly wrong the last few decades. Yes SAMs kill airplanes, no one gets away clean. People are still cheering about the F-117 they downed, and leaving the part where they got annihilated out, but I guess you have to pull one good thing out of something that unbelievably lopsided. Once the air defenses are handled,suppressed, starved, jammed etc.. and with no air force, the ground and sea forces are at the mercy of the airplane, which again doesn't recognize things like mountains or rivers and is able to repositionat the speed of sound and adapt to a fluid battlefield, and reattack within hours. We've seen how that plays out for the ground forces time and time again.

Theres things I could share that I'm not quite comfortable sharing in some cases, but suffice it to say the US understands how to cripple a lot of the critical reconnaissance and communication efforts that leave enemies blind and dumb cut off and surrounded. And this before me even explaining why Stealth aircraft exist regarding the threat of SAMs.



good luck

[southerncross]

You have proof that China is not developing a Naval Version of the J-31 or that the project has been canceled???

No, not even suggesting it will be cancelled since I have no clue about that. But I admit I expected it to be selected as naval fighter, latest news may be BS, who knows.

Again you care to provide an official source that states India is seriously considering acquiring the Su-57 or Mig-35??? LOL

The MiG-35 for sure is being officially considered. It is officially in the shortlist of fighters participating the tender and the Indian pilots officially flew it twice during last MAKS. About Su-57, I only know it has not been discarded officially. I don't know what will happen and when a decision will be taken, that may take time yet.

I made it clear in my comments I didn't believe the Su-57 would cost $50 Million let alone $35 Million. Are you stating it will be expensive???

No, I just say that we are speculating because there is no data. But Russia cannot substitute Flankers costing 25 million by other planes costing 100, it would make no sense. I agree with milosh that it may be 50% more expensive than the Su-35 in worst case, but not more. Just gut feeling, don't take it seriously.

Absurd....then why does Russia have one of the largest militaries on the planet??? Why is it aggressive towards it neighbors??? Why did it invade Georgia and Crimea/Ukraine??? (etc. etc. etc.)

You expect us to believe that if NATO didn't exist. That Russia wouldn't have forcibly taken over a number of Eastern European Countries. (Baltic States, Georgia, Ukraine, etc.)

I know for a fact all of the above to be not only false or misleading but serving an agenda that puts our lifes in the harm's way for nothing more than egoistic goals. But it would be off-topic and flaming if I go here in detail, so let it stay like that please. Other users got upset already.