Su-57 FELON

Military aircraft - Post cold war aircraft, including for example B-2, Gripen, F-18E/F Super Hornet, Rafale, and Typhoon.
  • Author
  • Message
Offline

Corsair1963

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 6583
  • Joined: 19 Dec 2005, 04:14

Unread post20 Apr 2020, 05:00

The Su-57 is nothing short of a colossal failure. No other way you can put it....


Honestly, it won't be factor in future conflicts...... :?
Offline

madrat

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2604
  • Joined: 03 Mar 2010, 03:12

Unread post20 Apr 2020, 13:20

Colossal? I think that's a bit dramatic.

If anything it is great that Russians aren't getting behind it otherwise we'd have to push a 6th generation much too soon.
Offline

mixelflick

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3909
  • Joined: 20 Mar 2010, 10:26
  • Location: Parts Unknown

Unread post20 Apr 2020, 15:00

madrat wrote:Colossal? I think that's a bit dramatic.

If anything it is great that Russians aren't getting behind it otherwise we'd have to push a 6th generation much too soon.


You know it's funny... When the order went from a dozen airframes to 76, there was lots of speculation as to why? One of the more persistent rumors was that the Russians got info our 6th gen fighter was further along than originally thought. So who knows which is correct. What is clear is that the perception of an enemies progress can accelerate fighter development (F-15, response to Mig-25), or curtail investments in such (F-22 cancelled, with Gates not thinking Russia/China would jump into stealth game anytime soon).

The Russians may finally be getting cold feet though..

As recently as last week, reports have re-surfaced that Mig is designing a lighter "compliment" to the Felon - https://www.defenseworld.net/news/26759 ... p2orshKjIU

This time, they might actually be serious about it. The article goes on to say that it would use components of the SU-57, and a compressed developmental timeline might be possible "a few years". If production schedules don't slip again, Russia will have just 76 SU-57's by 2028. Don't hold your breath, I think even the Russians know this is overly optimistic. I'd go so far as to say if there are no foreign orders in the next 2 years, this program is dead. At that point, they may actually go with Mig's design, and lord knows Mig could use a win like that.

Time will tell...
Offline

Corsair1963

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 6583
  • Joined: 19 Dec 2005, 04:14

Unread post21 Apr 2020, 02:11

madrat wrote:Colossal? I think that's a bit dramatic.

If anything it is great that Russians aren't getting behind it otherwise we'd have to push a 6th generation much too soon.



I wouldn't consider "colossal" as to dramatic in this case. As Russia has given the future Non-Western Fighter Market pretty much to the Chinese! So, what would you call it....
Offline

Corsair1963

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 6583
  • Joined: 19 Dec 2005, 04:14

Unread post21 Apr 2020, 02:20

mixelflick wrote:
You know it's funny... When the order went from a dozen airframes to 76, there was lots of speculation as to why? One of the more persistent rumors was that the Russians got info our 6th gen fighter was further along than originally thought. So who knows which is correct. What is clear is that the perception of an enemies progress can accelerate fighter development (F-15, response to Mig-25), or curtail investments in such (F-22 cancelled, with Gates not thinking Russia/China would jump into stealth game anytime soon).

The Russians may finally be getting cold feet though..

As recently as last week, reports have re-surfaced that Mig is designing a lighter "compliment" to the Felon - https://www.defenseworld.net/news/26759 ... p2orshKjIU

This time, they might actually be serious about it. The article goes on to say that it would use components of the SU-57, and a compressed developmental timeline might be possible "a few years". If production schedules don't slip again, Russia will have just 76 SU-57's by 2028. Don't hold your breath, I think even the Russians know this is overly optimistic. I'd go so far as to say if there are no foreign orders in the next 2 years, this program is dead. At that point, they may actually go with Mig's design, and lord knows Mig could use a win like that.

Time will tell...



Honestly, don't see anyone interested in the Su-57. Except "maybe" somebody like Algeria or Vietnam and neither of them could afford it....Hell, not even sure about the latter. As Vietnam has been very slowing moving towards the West. So, Russia couldn't even count on them!
Offline

mixelflick

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3909
  • Joined: 20 Mar 2010, 10:26
  • Location: Parts Unknown

Unread post21 Apr 2020, 14:17

Russia will still buy (some), as it's a favorite of Vlad and more a national vanity project than anything. If they DON'T build at least a few, it's the tell tale sign of Russia's fall in the world of military aviation. I do agree with the prior poster regarding the fact Russia has ceded the international stealth fighter market to the Chinese - the SU-57 more or less guarantees that.

If Mig were smart, they'd self fund (if necessary) a smaller, more economical LO design. So what if it can't fly as fast or as high? None of that matters if nobody can afford it, and it certainly looks that way for the SU-57. I'm betting a stealthed up Mig-29 (clean sheet design though) is going to cost a lot less than a stealthed up Flanker, which is what Sukhoi has in the SU-57. Drop the damned Mig-41 nonsense (who, other than Russia is going to afford that?) and pour everything you have into the new LO Mig.

They've got a ton of nation/states out there with Mig-29's that need replacing. This plan would leverage that, because few if any of them can replace those Mig-29s with SU-57's (or even SU-35's, for that matter)...
Attachments
Mig LMFS.jpg
Offline

jessmo112

Enthusiast

Enthusiast

  • Posts: 54
  • Joined: 16 Mar 2020, 02:09

Unread post21 Apr 2020, 14:35

38407ebf3d98cdf1eda52e0af94a6d7e.jpg
Mig-41
So are we talking about a Russian style J-31 or a toned down mig-41? The plane will likely be a medium weight class fighter. No one, not even the Americans have been able to build light LO design.
Offline

hythelday

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 603
  • Joined: 25 Jul 2016, 12:43
  • Location: Estonia

Unread post21 Apr 2020, 15:11

mixelflick wrote:If Mig were smart, they'd self fund (if necessary) a smaller, more economical LO design.


How can a state owned MiG "self-fund" anything? Every time you post on these matters you say this, every time me and others point this out, and everytime you ignore this. MiG isn't doing anything they are not told by UAC to do.

mixelflick wrote:So what if it can't fly as fast or as high? None of that matters if nobody can afford it, and it certainly looks that way for the SU-57. I'm betting a stealthed up Mig-29 (clean sheet design though) is going to cost a lot less than a stealthed up Flanker, which is what Sukhoi has in the SU-57. Drop the damned Mig-41 nonsense (who, other than Russia is going to afford that?) and pour everything you have into the new LO Mig.


You and others have suggested that Fulcrum somehow is more economical than the Flanker, yet there is no data to corroborate that, the contrary is actually quite true. The quality of Fulcrums is quite well known from the Finnish comp (and how EXPENSIVE it was to operate given it's laborous MX and short service life), Indian troubles and the fact that Algeria refused to accept squadrons worth of Fulcrums (and exchanged them for Flankers) in what was to be MiGs biggest export contract since India. People continuously disregard the fact that Flankers were more widely exported than Fucrums and have the benefit of being a much better multirole fighter, not least because they have a habit of being improved upon by Western tech.

mixelflick wrote:They've got a ton of nation/states out there with Mig-29's that need replacing. This plan would leverage that, because few if any of them can replace those Mig-29s with SU-57's (or even SU-35's, for that matter)...


Would that be Myanmar or Sudan? No, there aren't "a ton of nations". India is they only major export success for Fulcrums (probably because Flanker was not available), but they are not interested in those anymore. Algeria told MiG to stick it and went with a bunch of Flankers instead - as mentioned above. The only one crazy enough to actually buy a decent number was Egypt - and I will be damned if it was for some logical reason. It remains to be seen how much end up being delivered. The rest mostly received them as aid from Soviets or purchased second hand birds (ie Peru, Algeria first batch, Poland, Sudan, Azerbaijan, Chad). Some nations were even more creative. Iran got 5 Iraqi ones for free during Desert Storm, which is more than the massive reported export deal of four Fulcrums to Mongolian Air Force in 2011 (which apparently did not happen at all, instead Russians gave Mongolian Air Force two UBs free of charge last year) and equals a massive success of Sri Lanka Air Force contract, which, according to Russian wiki "are delivered" but sadly in real life they are not, as evidenced by Sri Lanka Air Force website and news. Hungary recieved a bunch of Fulcrums as "debt-relief" from Russia in 1993 and decided to get rif of those ASAP and went for Gripens (The record in this regard belongs to Romanian Fulcrums, which were received brand new in 1989 and removed from service in 2003, while RoAF decided to keep MiG-21s flying). Tells you a lot about Fulcrums.

So please stop with this "stealthy Fulcrum was the way to go" theory. It's rubbish.
Offline

weasel1962

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2194
  • Joined: 07 Jun 2012, 02:41
  • Location: Singapore

Unread post22 Apr 2020, 01:32

1. Interesting to note 27 nations still using ~800 Mig-29 which makes it , on paper, the 5th highest numbers of fighter type in global service after the F-16, F-15, F-18 and Sukhoi.

These include:
Algeria (32), Azerbaijan (12), Bangladesh (8), Belarus (39), Bulgaria (15), Cuba (3), Egypt (15), Eritrea (5), India (111), Iran (20), Kazakhstan (26), Myanmar (31), North Korea (35), Peru (9), Poland (29), Russia (285), Serbia (9), Slovakia (11), Sudan (11), Syria (20), Turkmenistan (24), Ukraine (21), Uzbekistan (39) and Yemen (24).

2. The UAC have approved and funded the development of the Mig-41.

3. Off paper, agree completely with comments that there doesn't appear to be a market for the Mig-41 among current and former Mig-29 users.
Offline

Corsair1963

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 6583
  • Joined: 19 Dec 2005, 04:14

Unread post22 Apr 2020, 02:32

weasel1962 wrote:1. Interesting to note 27 nations still using ~800 Mig-29 which makes it , on paper, the 5th highest numbers of fighter type in global service after the F-16, F-15, F-18 and Sukhoi.

These include:
Algeria (32), Azerbaijan (12), Bangladesh (8), Belarus (39), Bulgaria (15), Cuba (3), Egypt (15), Eritrea (5), India (111), Iran (20), Kazakhstan (26), Myanmar (31), North Korea (35), Peru (9), Poland (29), Russia (285), Serbia (9), Slovakia (11), Sudan (11), Syria (20), Turkmenistan (24), Ukraine (21), Uzbekistan (39) and Yemen (24).

2. The UAC have approved and funded the development of the Mig-41.

3. Off paper, agree completely with comments that there doesn't appear to be a market for the Mig-41 among current and former Mig-29 users.



You see any of those Mig-29 customers likely interested in the Su-57??? :|
Offline

Corsair1963

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 6583
  • Joined: 19 Dec 2005, 04:14

Unread post22 Apr 2020, 02:41

jessmo112 wrote:
38407ebf3d98cdf1eda52e0af94a6d7e.jpg
So are we talking about a Russian style J-31 or a toned down mig-41? The plane will likely be a medium weight class fighter. No one, not even the Americans have been able to build light LO design.



Let's break this down....

1.) The Su-57 is pretty much a failure and won't be acquired in any numbers.

2.) Another "new" 5th Generation Fighter isn't forthcoming. Plus, it would arrive to late to be any use...

3.) A new 6th Generation Fighter Program. If, started today wouldn't arrive for at least 20+ years.


So, what is the solution for the RuAF then???
Offline

mixelflick

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3909
  • Joined: 20 Mar 2010, 10:26
  • Location: Parts Unknown

Unread post22 Apr 2020, 16:44

If Mig is going to be dictated to as to what they can (and can't) do, why keep them around at all as a design bureau? The state and others should just stop referring to their fighter aircraft as Mig or SU, developing some other acronym.

There are indeed many Mig-29 foreign operators, as detailed in the previous list. Mig-29 price is $23.8 million, and SU-27 is $41.2 million, both per this link - https://militarymachine.com/most-expens ... tary-jets/. $16-17 million difference is a lot of scratch, if you ask me. Couldn't find reliable cost per flight hour numbers, but I fail to see how the Sukhoi is going to be appreciably cheaper.

You cite an example of Mig-29's being returned for Sukhois due to shoddy workmanship. That's one example. Another is India and its ongoing issues with its Flanker engines. They aren't exactly enamored with them. Indian pilots speak highly of the their Mig-29's though - https://hushkit.net/?s=mig-29. It's also interesting the Indians went for the Mig-29K vs the SU-33 or any other Flanker when it came to equipping their carrier. You can bet if there was a smaller, less costly Russian LO design they'd look hard at it. Navalised SU-57's? Please. The cost is already astronomical, and it's only going higher for a carrier based version.

A stealth design from the Mig (or state, whatever you wanna call it) burea is indeed what's necessary for Russia to have any hope of having a successful LO program. The SU-57 is way too big, too expensive and too riddled with issues to fill that role. Replacing Flankers worldwide is getting too pricey, and even if countries could afford to trade their SU-27's for SU-35's, every day that ticks by they get more obsolete in the 5th gen world.
Offline

mixelflick

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3909
  • Joined: 20 Mar 2010, 10:26
  • Location: Parts Unknown

Unread post22 Apr 2020, 16:55

jessmo112 wrote:
38407ebf3d98cdf1eda52e0af94a6d7e.jpg
So are we talking about a Russian style J-31 or a toned down mig-41? The plane will likely be a medium weight class fighter. No one, not even the Americans have been able to build light LO design.


More akin to a Russian J-31. The Mig-41 I see as wholly impractical, even for Russia.

I don't think anyone is envisioning a truly "light" LO design. Way, way too many design compromises insofar as range, payload, operational ceiling etc. It would be like building an F-35 with F-5E like performance. Stealth? Sure. But when you can't carry enough fuel/weapons a significant distance, why bother?

You wind up with... a Gripen :mrgreen:
Offline

milosh

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1031
  • Joined: 27 Feb 2008, 23:40
  • Location: Serbia, Belgrade

Unread post22 Apr 2020, 17:47

mixelflick wrote:You cite an example of Mig-29's being returned for Sukhois due to shoddy workmanship. That's one example. Another is India and its ongoing issues with its Flanker engines. They aren't exactly enamored with them. Indian pilots speak highly of the their Mig-29's though - https://hushkit.net/?s=mig-29. It's also interesting the Indians went for the Mig-29K vs the SU-33 or any other Flanker when it came to equipping their carrier. You can bet if there was a smaller, less costly Russian LO design they'd look hard at it.


Agian that nonsense about Indian problem with AL-31, it is heavy BS. Indians are only which had that problem so Saturn send inspection and they find out it was Indian mistake I think they used different oil for engine.

There is nothing strange selecting MiG-29K over Su-33, Indian modified Kiev class carrier isn't big carrier:
Attachments
comparison.jpg
Offline

hythelday

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 603
  • Joined: 25 Jul 2016, 12:43
  • Location: Estonia

Unread post22 Apr 2020, 18:01

mixelflick wrote:If Mig is going to be dictated to as to what they can (and can't) do, why keep them around at all as a design bureau? The state and others should just stop referring to their fighter aircraft as Mig or SU, developing some other acronym.


Great advice, as always. Go write to the UAC.

mixelflick wrote:There are indeed many Mig-29 foreign operators, as detailed in the previous list.

The only ones who BOUGHT NEW BUILD Fulcrums from Russia are 1) India (most of them MiG-29K, which India pretty much funded. The odd number of new air force Fulcrums of air force variety were bought to replace lost stock) 2) Egypt (none yet delivered) 3) maybe Yemen, but there are no concrete numbers 4) Maybe Malaysia, but I wouldn't bet on that. Flanker is a much more successful fighter both domestically as well as well as on export, despite the fact that it is a large, and according to you more expensive fighter.

mixelflick wrote:Mig-29 price is $23.8 million, and SU-27 is $41.2 million, both per this link - https://militarymachine.com/most-expens ... tary-jets/. $16-17 million difference is a lot of scratch, if you ask me. Couldn't find reliable cost per flight hour numbers, but I fail to see how the Sukhoi is going to be appreciably cheaper.


Got any more rubbish blog links to back up your theories? I have already explained to you, several times in the past, the perils of "eye-balling" cost of Russian fighter contracts based on public info.

mixelflick wrote:You cite an example of Mig-29's being returned for Sukhois due to shoddy workmanship. That's one example. Another is India and its ongoing issues with its Flanker engines. They aren't exactly enamored with them. Indian pilots speak highly of the their Mig-29's though - https://hushkit.net/?s=mig-29.


Indian pilots speak highly of their aircraft? What a surprise? Did you know MiG-21 Bison could wipe the floor with an entire USAF if they wanted to? They did exactly that on that one exercise. You know, the one they talk a lot about.

mixelflick wrote:It's also interesting the Indians went for the Mig-29K vs the SU-33 or any other Flanker when it came to equipping their carrier. You can bet if there was a smaller, less costly Russian LO design they'd look hard at it. Navalised SU-57's? Please. The cost is already astronomical, and it's only going higher for a carrier based version.


You could stop for a second to think why India chose a smaller plane for modified Kiev-class. Maybe research a little into Russian (or should I say late Soviet) naval aviation, and the proposed air groups sizes for Kuznetsov: how many Flankers vs how many Fulcrums could be carried. Then suddenly the mystery of why they went with Fulcrum would not be a mystery.

mixelflick wrote:A stealth design from the Mig (or state, whatever you wanna call it) burea is indeed what's necessary for Russia to have any hope of having a successful LO program. The SU-57 is way too big, too expensive and too riddled with issues to fill that role. Replacing Flankers worldwide is getting too pricey, and even if countries could afford to trade their SU-27's for SU-35's, every day that ticks by they get more obsolete in the 5th gen world.


Your entire argument that Russia needs a "small LO fighter" to be successful is rubbish and is entirely unjustified.
1) Russia itself, first and foremost, is not interested in the "small, less capable but economic" fighters because they do not suite Russian needs. Russia will not develop an entirely different fighter "just for export".
2) A bulk of foreign Fulcrum fleet is hand-me-down from WarPac era. In the recent history, and by this I mean past 30 years, Flanker was the chief export success for Russia. This was the plane of choice for most customers. More importantly, those were new-build planes, not refurbished ex-Soviet surplus, and foreign interest (and HARD CASH) paid for them helped along the development of more advanced versions for the Russian Air Force, Su-30MKI being the genesis of all of this (btw Su-30MKI alone amouts for more Flanker exports that Russia-era Fulcrums).
3) Flankers are desired because they are capable while being not much more expensive to run (if at all) than a Fulcrum. A small Russian fighter would be neither economical, nor effective. What small but powerful and reliable engine are they going to put into small airframe? What small, but powerful and effective radar are going to put into Russian small fighter? Etc. Russia did not build their version of F-16 because they didn't have the tech. And Fulcrum is a MX nightmare ($$$).

Your theory that picking Flanker over Fulcrum as a fighter to develop was a strategic mistake is rubbish.
PreviousNext

Return to Modern Military Aircraft

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google Adsense [Bot] and 24 guests