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

weasel1962

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2195
  • Joined: 07 Jun 2012, 02:41
  • Location: Singapore

Unread post23 Apr 2020, 00:47

What happens when one gives anyone incl Sukhoi a monopoly? The whole purpose of UAC (besides facilitating bungs) is to manage the whole Russian aircraft industry a little better. I think having Mig around is about competition. Russia is still a buyer.
Offline

madrat

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2605
  • Joined: 03 Mar 2010, 03:12

Unread post23 Apr 2020, 03:35

What kind of argument is 'Your entire argument that Russia needs a "small LO fighter" to be successful is rubbish and is entirely unjustified'? You did not have any better argument in your points than mixelflick.

For your information the Russians no longer controlled the Su-33 development as it was centered around the Crimean peninsula. The carrier was built there. The training was conducted there at NITKA. The Ukraine transferred one of the prototypes to China. The exclamation point was when China poached the engineering talent around the Crimean test site. The only realistic route for Russia to improve it was to turn it into an Su-35S Super Flanker off shoot. MiG-29K exists because it was a monetary decision. It wasn't old recycled Soviet junk. It wasn't some kind of drawback in capability. MiG-29K was much more mature technology than what was available in the Su-33.

Honestly, some of the pointed arguments around here sound more like trolling than honest discussion. Attacking mixelflick was cancerous to the forum and I hope you people - you know who you are - check yourself.
Offline

hythelday

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

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

Unread post23 Apr 2020, 05:16

madrat wrote:What kind of argument is 'Your entire argument that Russia needs a "small LO fighter" to be successful is rubbish and is entirely unjustified'? You did not have any better argument in your points than mixelflick.


Read last paragraph in my last post. It has numbered arguments 1), 2), and 3). You can counter them, instead of vague hints that I don't have an argument.

madrat wrote:For your information the Russians no longer controlled the Su-33 development as it was centered around the Crimean peninsula. The carrier was built there. The training was conducted there at NITKA. The Ukraine transferred one of the prototypes to China. The exclamation point was when China poached the engineering talent around the Crimean test site. The only realistic route for Russia to improve it was to turn it into an Su-35S Super Flanker off shoot. MiG-29K exists because it was a monetary decision. It wasn't old recycled Soviet junk. It wasn't some kind of drawback in capability. MiG-29K was much more mature technology than what was available in the Su-33.


I am at a loss as to what are you trying to say here. The Russians no longer controlled Su-33 development, but could still control MiG-29K development? Because it was not trialed at NITKA? What?

madrat wrote:Honestly, some of the pointed arguments around here sound more like trolling than honest discussion. Attacking mixelflick was cancerous to the forum and I hope you people - you know who you are - check yourself.


No, I will not, because his theory that Russia would have been better off with a small LO platform instead T-50 is unjustified rubbish.
Last edited by hythelday on 23 Apr 2020, 13:51, edited 3 times in total.
Offline

Corsair1963

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

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

Unread post23 Apr 2020, 05:24

Russia is no longer a "Super Power" and can't hope to keep up with China and the US on a one for one basis. Clearly, developing two Stealth Fighters (Hi/Low or Heavy/Light) was out of the question....

So, clearly developing a mid-sized stealth fighter along the lines of the J-31 and F-35. Which, could be mass produced and sold in respectable numbers. Would have been the most viable option. (and most likely to succeed)

Instead they developed the PAK-FA (Su-57) that flopped and blew it all.....

:shock:
Offline

weasel1962

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2195
  • Joined: 07 Jun 2012, 02:41
  • Location: Singapore

Unread post23 Apr 2020, 07:28

hythelday wrote: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.


It took 12 years from unveiling to first delivery for the Mig-35, which has been inducted into Russian service despite the success of the Sukhoi and zero exports. Same will happen with the Mig-41.
Offline

mixelflick

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

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

Unread post23 Apr 2020, 14:57

madrat wrote:What kind of argument is 'Your entire argument that Russia needs a "small LO fighter" to be successful is rubbish and is entirely unjustified'? You did not have any better argument in your points than mixelflick.

For your information the Russians no longer controlled the Su-33 development as it was centered around the Crimean peninsula. The carrier was built there. The training was conducted there at NITKA. The Ukraine transferred one of the prototypes to China. The exclamation point was when China poached the engineering talent around the Crimean test site. The only realistic route for Russia to improve it was to turn it into an Su-35S Super Flanker off shoot. MiG-29K exists because it was a monetary decision. It wasn't old recycled Soviet junk. It wasn't some kind of drawback in capability. MiG-29K was much more mature technology than what was available in the Su-33.

Honestly, some of the pointed arguments around here sound more like trolling than honest discussion. Attacking mixelflick was cancerous to the forum and I hope you people - you know who you are - check yourself.


He really doesn't bother me, honestly. That much venom usually means something isn't right at home, perhaps he lost his job or a friend during this COVID thing? Maybe both?? You just don't know nowadays. Could use some anger management classes though, that's for sure. I hope he gets better, but its going to be a long road..
Offline

mixelflick

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

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

Unread post11 May 2020, 16:05

Update as of 3 days ago.. Now they're saying the first batch of SU-57's with arrive "by the mid 2020's" with 4th gen engines. Aircraft with 5th gen engines however, will only be delivered "after the mid-2020's".

https://www.aerotime.aero/ina.hladyshav ... -mid-2020s

"Deputy Minister of Defence of Russian Federation Alexei Krivoruchko specified that deliveries would be carried out in two steps. For the first set of deliveries, planned to be completed by the middle of the 2020s, Su-57 jets would be equipped with fourth-generation engines.

"In the second stage, after the completion of tests, supplies of the engine and fifth-generation power units with increased fuel efficiency and lower life cycle costs will begin," Krivoruchko explained. Deliveries of Su-57 fighters with the fifth-generation engines will begin after the mid-2020s..."

I don't know whether to laugh or cry for them, to be honest. I've never seen so many date estimates come and go as I have on this program. From its first flight, they've painted a rosy picture. First it was going to be in service by 2013. Then every year after that came new guidance. The last estimate was given after the first production version crashed late last year. Despite the crash, they said deliveries would remain on track with new examples being delivered in 2020.

That sounds iffy now (at best).The program might not be on life support, but sounds like its in critical condition. I wonder if the the SU-57 will eventually be a casualty of chronically low oil prices, COVID 19 and too much vodka.
Offline

milosh

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1033
  • Joined: 27 Feb 2008, 23:40
  • Location: Serbia, Belgrade

Unread post11 May 2020, 16:22

Not that simple at all.

In 2010s, Sukhoi CEO Pogosyan wanted to sell Su-57 with 117 to RuAF. Saturn CEO Chepkin praised 117 as 5gen by its parameters but 117 couldn't deliver what RuAF want and that is similar cruising capability at Mach 2 as MiG-31. As I already explain RuAF isn't so interested in Su-57 as Su-27 replacement but it is very interested as MiG-31 replacement.

That would need beast of engine, something like F119 but smaller, it would be more like F120 in dimensions. This is why we believed it would be variable cycle but it was confirmed it will not be. So they need create really astonishing engine to achieve what RuAF want.

Btw you have info about AL-51 from year or more ago where they said engine will be ready for serial production at 2025 at best (Russian newspaper close to government) so this statement only confirm that.
Last edited by milosh on 11 May 2020, 16:35, edited 1 time in total.
Offline

loke

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 958
  • Joined: 14 Nov 2008, 19:07

Unread post11 May 2020, 16:28

mixelflick wrote:
I don't know whether to laugh or cry for them, to be honest. I've never seen so many date estimates come and go as I have on this program.

Hmm the Indian Tejas LCA program still holds the world record IMHO... of course it is still early days and the Su-57 program may still win this competition but as of today I would say the Tejas program has a significant lead over the Su-57 program.
Offline

skyward

Enthusiast

Enthusiast

  • Posts: 71
  • Joined: 01 Jun 2006, 13:33

Unread post11 May 2020, 20:14

loke wrote:
mixelflick wrote:
I don't know whether to laugh or cry for them, to be honest. I've never seen so many date estimates come and go as I have on this program.

Hmm the Indian Tejas LCA program still holds the world record IMHO... of course it is still early days and the Su-57 program may still win this competition but as of today I would say the Tejas program has a significant lead over the Su-57 program.


Comparing India vs Russia fighter program is even more laughable.
Offline

nutshell

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 469
  • Joined: 04 May 2016, 13:37

Unread post20 May 2020, 23:39

skyward wrote:
loke wrote:
mixelflick wrote:
I don't know whether to laugh or cry for them, to be honest. I've never seen so many date estimates come and go as I have on this program.

Hmm the Indian Tejas LCA program still holds the world record IMHO... of course it is still early days and the Su-57 program may still win this competition but as of today I would say the Tejas program has a significant lead over the Su-57 program.


Comparing India vs Russia fighter program is even more laughable.


Both have the tendency to not deliver tbh.
Offline

falcon.16

Enthusiast

Enthusiast

  • Posts: 99
  • Joined: 11 Sep 2018, 20:10
  • Location: Spain

Unread post21 May 2020, 19:43

milosh wrote:Not that simple at all.

In 2010s, Sukhoi CEO Pogosyan wanted to sell Su-57 with 117 to RuAF. Saturn CEO Chepkin praised 117 as 5gen by its parameters but 117 couldn't deliver what RuAF want and that is similar cruising capability at Mach 2 as MiG-31. As I already explain RuAF isn't so interested in Su-57 as Su-27 replacement but it is very interested as MiG-31 replacement.

That would need beast of engine, something like F119 but smaller, it would be more like F120 in dimensions. This is why we believed it would be variable cycle but it was confirmed it will not be. So they need create really astonishing engine to achieve what RuAF want.

Btw you have info about AL-51 from year or more ago where they said engine will be ready for serial production at 2025 at best (Russian newspaper close to government) so this statement only confirm that.


Current engines, only have marginal supercruise, 1.2 or 1.3M i think have read it. Russia wants get at least around 1.5M, 1.6M supercruise. Forget 2.0M.

But it seems have some problems with materials on new engines told Piotr Butowski. I think this journalist know wells what happend inside program.

https://aviationweek.com/defense-space/ ... -uncertain

Though there is no official information on the topic, the next-generation engine program faces serious obstacles. The main one is the lack of modern materials that would enable the planned engine characteristics. Replacing planned materials with those that are available is likely to adversely affect the engine’s weight and performance.
Offline

mixelflick

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

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

Unread post22 May 2020, 16:24

falcon.16 wrote:
milosh wrote:Not that simple at all.

In 2010s, Sukhoi CEO Pogosyan wanted to sell Su-57 with 117 to RuAF. Saturn CEO Chepkin praised 117 as 5gen by its parameters but 117 couldn't deliver what RuAF want and that is similar cruising capability at Mach 2 as MiG-31. As I already explain RuAF isn't so interested in Su-57 as Su-27 replacement but it is very interested as MiG-31 replacement.

That would need beast of engine, something like F119 but smaller, it would be more like F120 in dimensions. This is why we believed it would be variable cycle but it was confirmed it will not be. So they need create really astonishing engine to achieve what RuAF want.

Btw you have info about AL-51 from year or more ago where they said engine will be ready for serial production at 2025 at best (Russian newspaper close to government) so this statement only confirm that.


Current engines, only have marginal supercruise, 1.2 or 1.3M i think have read it. Russia wants get at least around 1.5M, 1.6M supercruise. Forget 2.0M.

But it seems have some problems with materials on new engines told Piotr Butowski. I think this journalist know wells what happend inside program.

https://aviationweek.com/defense-space/ ... -uncertain

Though there is no official information on the topic, the next-generation engine program faces serious obstacles. The main one is the lack of modern materials that would enable the planned engine characteristics. Replacing planned materials with those that are available is likely to adversely affect the engine’s weight and performance.


If they're hell bent on upper end of the super-cruise range (mach 1.5 or more), it will likely consume them. Because it sure sounds like they're going to spend a hell of a lot of $ for what, .2 or .3 more mach? Now, if that comes along with a significant reduction in RCS and/or IR signature, that's one thing. But quite another to spend so much time/money to get a bit more speed. It would be like LM/Pratt re-designing the F-35 to bump its super-cruise up a bit more..... for what? Adds a hell of a lot more expense, for a little more capability. Makes no sense...
Offline

falcon.16

Enthusiast

Enthusiast

  • Posts: 99
  • Joined: 11 Sep 2018, 20:10
  • Location: Spain

Unread post22 May 2020, 23:14

mixelflick wrote:
falcon.16 wrote:
milosh wrote:Not that simple at all.

In 2010s, Sukhoi CEO Pogosyan wanted to sell Su-57 with 117 to RuAF. Saturn CEO Chepkin praised 117 as 5gen by its parameters but 117 couldn't deliver what RuAF want and that is similar cruising capability at Mach 2 as MiG-31. As I already explain RuAF isn't so interested in Su-57 as Su-27 replacement but it is very interested as MiG-31 replacement.

That would need beast of engine, something like F119 but smaller, it would be more like F120 in dimensions. This is why we believed it would be variable cycle but it was confirmed it will not be. So they need create really astonishing engine to achieve what RuAF want.

Btw you have info about AL-51 from year or more ago where they said engine will be ready for serial production at 2025 at best (Russian newspaper close to government) so this statement only confirm that.


Current engines, only have marginal supercruise, 1.2 or 1.3M i think have read it. Russia wants get at least around 1.5M, 1.6M supercruise. Forget 2.0M.

But it seems have some problems with materials on new engines told Piotr Butowski. I think this journalist know wells what happend inside program.

https://aviationweek.com/defense-space/ ... -uncertain

Though there is no official information on the topic, the next-generation engine program faces serious obstacles. The main one is the lack of modern materials that would enable the planned engine characteristics. Replacing planned materials with those that are available is likely to adversely affect the engine’s weight and performance.


If they're hell bent on upper end of the super-cruise range (mach 1.5 or more), it will likely consume them. Because it sure sounds like they're going to spend a hell of a lot of $ for what, .2 or .3 more mach? Now, if that comes along with a significant reduction in RCS and/or IR signature, that's one thing. But quite another to spend so much time/money to get a bit more speed. It would be like LM/Pratt re-designing the F-35 to bump its super-cruise up a bit more..... for what? Adds a hell of a lot more expense, for a little more capability. Makes no sense...


Russians does not consider to current engine like 5th generation, because not good IR emissions. For this they need the new engine, not only because will be faster, will be lighter and better management of IR emissions.
But Butowski tell that they have problems with the development, maybe they will have to get a more basic version of the new engine.

A new engine needs many years of development and new engine is not an evolution, they was very optimistic with the previous dates for full production of the new engines.
Offline

jessmo112

Enthusiast

Enthusiast

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

Unread post23 May 2020, 09:30

hythelday wrote:
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.


If you will allow me to enter into this amazing discussion I have a few questions for you?

1. If Russia needed the Mig then why not now?

2. Doesnt Russia have vast territory to defend, And could use a decently priced point defence fighter? Could they afford a force of all heavy fighters During the Soviet era?
If they didnt buy all flankers and foxbats then, what makes you think they can do it now?

3. As long as you have former clients that have hundreds of these planes, why would you NOT want to replace them?

4. And finally How hard is it to take an F-35 planform and put 2 Su-27 engines in it? How hard would it be to throw some stealth coatings on it, and an internal IRST and call it a day. Again I consider myself ignorant, I am at my worst an armchair enthusiast, at my best a aviation blog
Groupie.If my questions show my ignorance please excuse me.
PreviousNext

Return to Modern Military Aircraft

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 25 guests