Russian Military News, Reports, Data, etc.

anzha said:

I would strongly suggest anyone advocating Russian technological and manufacturing prowess over Chinese consider how many Su-57s have been placed into service vs J-20s. In addition, the scale of the planned Su-57 buy is...76? I do believe it's strongly suspected the Chinese already have that many in service, not 6 or 7 years from now, but today.

The Russians talk a lot, but rarely deliver on the timelines they claim.

The Americans bicker and air their wildly dirty laundry in public (or near enough) including their massive screw-ups.

The Chinese, by and large, make a public statement and then stick to it. They don't make a public statement until they are certain they can fulfill it.

Click to expand...

Do they really need 1000s of 5th gens? the UAC director states a maybe on 100s of Su-57s you got to also keep in mind that they still have productions with other aircrafts in consideration to include like the Su-70s and the Su-LTE If the Chinese are not developing 3 stream cycle engines like the U.S. and Russia among other things thats on them. They showcase some scramjet missiles but we will all know which will be the 1st scramjet missile in service by the end of this year.

Does the J-20 had any block upgrades like the F-35 or new features to the Su-57 being tested in 2022-2024?

Bob Smith said:

Russians are entirely truthful about everything they say and can do so much on a $1.5 trillion economy. What I would expect from a Russian larping as an Israeli.

Click to expand...

I am laughing pretty badly at being called an Israeli when I have argued with a Vietnamese user that is larping as an Israeli whom goes by Ronny/Stealthflanker/mig-31bm and eloise on other forums. If you want to know more about me here you go.

Inst said:

For the air defense role it doesn't matter how crappy your payload is, especially if you have other stealth fighters in your stable for the interception / HARM function.

The lightweight stealth fighter concept is more to serve two purposes.

-First, for China itself, a lightweight stealth fighter with poor payloads presumably would also have low cost, and would give China the ability to have "flying mine"-type stealth fighters like the F-35, but be able to put them into service in large numbers. I've previously proposed China buying Su-57 to provide "skeet" fighters to distract and absorb Western fire, but the Su-57 is still a large platform. A lightweight stealth fighter, in contrast, can perform this "skeet" function infinitely better than the Su-57, provided it can be cheap enough. Here, the stealth fighter's poor payload is not actually an issue, because this fighter isn't intended as strike, but rather air defense with an attritional mission.

-Second, for export buyers, lightweight stealth fighters provide an affordable alternative to the F-35 when the F-35 is becoming prolific. The proposed aircraft is also a mainly non-stealth strike fighter, which should satisfy the needs of most export partners, while at the same time avoiding terrible arms races (which is a plus for the proposed lightweight stealth fighter).

Click to expand...

Well your assumptions on low cost need to be achieved and there is some point at which it doesn't become cost effective. Not gonna assume where. Also the major cost factor is the pilot. If that light weight fighter is piloted, it is pointless against higher end threats. No serious airforce facing competent adversaries bothers with light weight fighters for a reason. India is the only exception BUT the LCA was a 1980s initiated project and the thinking then was very different. It is still effective against Pakistan even today particularly if low cost, high and cheap production is achieved (it isn't).

Sorry but you're way off here. There is no purpose for China. Partly why it never got behind the JF-17 despite initially promising it would induct them and then changed to induct token numbers to what are we thinking?! The minimum is the J-10. Spam them with cheap light weight fighters is not an option when you need to train and feed all those pilots to make that strategy even viable.

panzerfeist1 said:

Do the Chinese even have 3 stream cycle engines or pulse detonation engines for aircrafts, photonic radars, or any of that in development I can let you take a lucky guess which of those countries do before talking about 6th gens

I might be going ooh and aah with the darksword uav as well but they dont have anything comparable to the Su-70 that is also going to enter service.

Click to expand...

Yes China has photonic radar in development. Likely further ahead of Russia although KRET and other Russian institutions have also shown and revealed a lot of promise in this field. I mean China is far ahead in quantum computing and communications tech which certainly are relevant and useful even if peripherally. China also even bothered to show a preliminary military optimised photonic radar at a trade show. That's one step beyond what Russia and US have shown.

Combined cycle engines well at least TRCC again China tested one one or two years ago and have plenty of research for various types of combined cycle engines. Variable cycle? That seems to be a department China is behind or well behind US and Russia on. Both US and Russia are near to fielding variable cycle turbofans. China has long revealed and recognised they have a variable cycle engine program. You wouldn't expect less given how much necessity and funding is behind this stuff.

Pulse detonation? I think only the US has that and experimented on it. If we're to believe SR-72 and/or Aurora rumours of using pulse detonation and exotic varieties of scramjets/ combined cycle engines, then sure they have certain useful applications. It's almost certainly an area the US is ahead of the other two in.

I don't think the Darksword and S-70 are comparable. S-70 is a flying wing loyal wingman (of full and proper size to accompany range of fighters) whereas the Darksword seems to be even larger at least in fuselage and length and feature canards or levcons. China's Sharp Sword or GJ-11 UAV is a flying wing but used only for strike. It's as easy to be dismissive of Russia and accuse it of showing off more than it has or has achieved to useful degrees, as it is to say that for China. Perhaps even easier but I'll leave that up to the individual and how biased they are.

I generally agree that Russia is severely underestimated by the West and not in small part due to Western propaganda. It however also doesn't quite enjoy has much funding as the West or China on science and tech programs but Russia manages to hold its weight particularly in nuclear technologies, missile tech, aircrafts, engines, and space related tech. It is impressive for the number of people there are and the amount of funding they have after the fall of the USSR and then all the political attacks it endured.

In the areas you mentioned, Russia is firmly at least second place. Where it falls in respect to China and the US is in production rate and acquisition numbers for modern fighters and some other pieces of military hardware. That is how the situation is stacked against Russia currently. But rather than dismissing it here (like even some members have done) I think it is worth remembering that Russia has the resources to sustain a massive population and can potentially turn those deficient aspects around. It needs to continue building its economy which is something it has no serious barriers to except by its own doing. Essentially, Russia can be a combination of the best of all worlds if it plans and organises appropriately. Which is why the West is still honestly worried about Russia since it has long term promise and for the short term it has nukes to rely on just in case and is keeping up with the best (and often also wealthiest) in a host of important technology fields. Give it time and good leaders, it'll still be as much of a superpower as the USSR was, just with even superior industrial practices and economy.

ougoah said:

Well your assumptions on low cost need to be achieved and there is some point at which it doesn't become cost effective. Not gonna assume where. Also the major cost factor is the pilot. If that light weight fighter is piloted, it is pointless against higher end threats. No serious airforce facing competent adversaries bothers with light weight fighters for a reason. India is the only exception BUT the LCA was a 1980s initiated project and the thinking then was very different. It is still effective against Pakistan even today particularly if low cost, high and cheap production is achieved (it isn't).

Sorry but you're way off here. There is no purpose for China. Partly why it never got behind the JF-17 despite initially promising it would induct them and then changed to induct token numbers to what are we thinking?! The minimum is the J-10. Spam them with cheap light weight fighters is not an option when you need to train and feed all those pilots to make that strategy even viable.

Click to expand...

JF-17 is still cheaper than the J-10.

Ultralightweight vs lightweight, or for that matter, lightweight vs heavyweight is a question of range and payload. Lightweight fighters are generally short-legged or have crap bomb payloads. Here, I'm proposing a crap bomb payload to begin with, and I'm willing to put up with mediocre range.

The point ultimately is that China already has a mediumweight stealth fighter in the FC-31, and a heavyweight stealth fighter in the J-20. Unlike the Russian Checkmate platform, there's nothing that goes full hog on stealth and is ultra cheap at the same time. The FC-31 might be able to compete with the F-35, but as to how well it'll do vs Checkmate is another question. And there is no space for another stealth fighter unless we're looking to go 6th gen, or as I'm saying, go export.

But as is, the most successful Chinese export fighter in recent times is the JF-17. It suggests Chinese ultralightweights are competitive, which is why I'm calling for a quasi-6th gen export fighter. The PLAAF can pick up a few of this proposed JF-36 to meet skeet and ultra-stealth needs, but the real point is to, as with the JF-17, to provide proving grounds for true 6th gen technologies, since the JF-17 proved DSI for the J-10B and J-20, as well as LERX for the J-20.

If, say, the laser paradigm matures early, we might not end up seeing a sixth gen successor to the J-20, with 6th gen aircraft more resembling the H-20 and JH-7 with larger bulk providing more space for lasers and generators to power the lasers.

If it doesn't, however, work on a JF-36 export fighter could prove vital technologies for a J-20 successor that implements technologies and ideas found in the JF-36, but with a far superior payload and range.

Or, in other words, force Pakistan and Argentina to pay for part of China's sixth gen development.

Gloire_bb said:

RuAF doesn't see anything wrong with 57's ability to counter F-35 and 22. It's what it itself ordered and wanted to obtain, after all.
LTS, on the other hand, is made to meet the expectations of foreign customers.

Click to expand...

Checkmate and Su-57 are very different fighters. The Su-57 is a good enough stealth fighter that's an incredible dogfighter WVR. Checkmate looks more like a good enough WVR dogfighter that's possibly a half level of stealth beyond the F-35.

In other words, they compliment each others strengths and weaknesses.

@panzerfeist1

There's the Su-30 version of the J-20 in the works. Since the strike J-20 is a striker, not a dogfighter, it can have its RCS further emphasized. But that may take until 2025 or 2027 for maturity; the current challenge is the WS-15s with TVC, which apparently took their first flights.

As a final aside, since the JH-XX seems to have been shelved, it seems a rather perfect platform to produce a sixth gen NGAD counter from. If, say, the JH-XX were designed for four middle-weight engines (WS-19), you'd have 49 tons of thrust to work with and plenty of power for a laser-centric high stealth platform. The very high thrust would also permit exceptional weight and fuel capacity, allowing the JH-XX to rival NGAD in terms of range and payload.

Inst said:

JF-17 is still cheaper than the J-10.

Ultralightweight vs lightweight, or for that matter, lightweight vs heavyweight is a question of range and payload. Lightweight fighters are generally short-legged or have crap bomb payloads. Here, I'm proposing a crap bomb payload to begin with, and I'm willing to put up with mediocre range.

The point ultimately is that China already has a mediumweight stealth fighter in the FC-31, and a heavyweight stealth fighter in the J-20. Unlike the Russian Checkmate platform, there's nothing that goes full hog on stealth and is ultra cheap at the same time. The FC-31 might be able to compete with the F-35, but as to how well it'll do vs Checkmate is another question. And there is no space for another stealth fighter unless we're looking to go 6th gen, or as I'm saying, go export.

But as is, the most successful Chinese export fighter in recent times is the JF-17. It suggests Chinese ultralightweights are competitive, which is why I'm calling for a quasi-6th gen export fighter. The PLAAF can pick up a few of this proposed JF-36 to meet skeet and ultra-stealth needs, but the real point is to, as with the JF-17, to provide proving grounds for true 6th gen technologies, since the JF-17 proved DSI for the J-10B and J-20, as well as LERX for the J-20.

If, say, the laser paradigm matures early, we might not end up seeing a sixth gen successor to the J-20, with 6th gen aircraft more resembling the H-20 and JH-7 with larger bulk providing more space for lasers and generators to power the lasers.

If it doesn't, however, work on a JF-36 export fighter could prove vital technologies for a J-20 successor that implements technologies and ideas found in the JF-36, but with a far superior payload and range.

Or, in other words, force Pakistan and Argentina to pay for part of China's sixth gen development.

Click to expand...

Still doesn't address the fact that pilots would need to be trained and fed for such a fighter role. China doesn't need to use that same method for testing tech. It could do so without providing an export model and/or ultralightweight (aka lightweight) fighter. All that could be done on a mid weight which inherently get better performance. The checkmate is a mid weight btw according to my definitions i.e. it's in the class of F-35, J-10, F-18, Rafale and not in the class of JF-17, Gripen, Tejas. It's definitely larger and much bulkier than F-16 in no small part due to internal bays.

Anyway enough has been said on this lightweight vs midweight topic.

ougoah said:

Still doesn't address the fact that pilots would need to be trained and fed for such a fighter role. China doesn't need to use that same method for testing tech. It could do so without providing an export model and/or ultralightweight (aka lightweight) fighter. All that could be done on a mid weight which inherently get better performance. The checkmate is a mid weight btw according to my definitions i.e. it's in the class of F-35, J-10, F-18, Rafale and not in the class of JF-17, Gripen, Tejas. It's definitely larger and much bulkier than F-16 in no small part due to internal bays.

Anyway enough has been said on this lightweight vs midweight topic.

Click to expand...

Except China already has a middleweight in the FC-31, which is coming along fine and may make an excellent carrier plane. To go where I'm asking, i.e, to get a superior stealth aircraft to both the F-35 and Checkmate, you'd need a clean sheet design. It's not worth scrapping the FC-31 and starting again from scratch.

It might be, however, worth designing a successor to the JF-17 to achieve the stated objectives.

Lurky McLurker said:

love that "mig 41" design. if it is close to this itll be one of the best looking combat aircraft ever, imo

Click to expand...

But it is not a MiG and even less a MiG-41 (which was supposed to be the MiG-31's successor). From all we know it is from Sukhoi and called LTS = Lightweight Tactical Aircraft:

By the way ..