Russian Su-57 Aircraft Thread (PAK-FA and IAF FGFA)

[pmc]

Nominally, per capita income is almost equal between China and Russia. However, when it comes to PPP, Russia's per capita income is actually about 40-50% higher than China's. All other things equal, one dollar of Russian defense spending should go further than one dollar of Chinese expenditure.

However, as you have mentioned, China has almost x10 the population. China's overall military spending is 3-5 times higher and also possesses a much larger, more diverse, advanced, and sophisticated manufacturing base, so it would be impossible for Russia to produce and acquire military assets at the same scale and pace as China. Russia can no longer rely on the quantative oriented doctrine that the USSR relied on and has to shift to a qualitative focus.

We already went through it. . Russia already demonstrated producing very sophisticated German and Korean automobiles with more features at prices lower than Chinese based on there respective domestic websites.
Russia manufacturing especially Aviation is away from expensive cities. so average per capita income not apply. There is no practical evidence that Chinese spending more on domestic aviation than Russia when look at entire production chain.

the word long haul is used for aircraft with greater than 7 hours in air. it need alot of experience and tests to certify plane for long durations. the IL-96 can stay in air 24hours. The radius of action 6K km for airborne command post. it gives you idea of ranges Russian working. so dont assume J-20 and PAK-FA built for same standards.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

08/05/2021

UAC delivered two Tu-214 aircraft to the customer​

Tu-214 is a long-haul narrow-body passenger aircraft with high fuel efficiency and comfort level.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

“Today VASO is provided with orders from federal agencies under the Il-96-300 program. There are 4 machines in production in varying degrees of readiness and there are prospects for additional loading of the enterprise with new contracts. The production of a new passenger Il-96-400M is underway. This program will allow developing the platform and the modernization potential of the aircraft, as well as ensuring the development of competencies for the creation of this type of aircraft, ”said Yuri Borisov.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

“The aircraft’s radio complex will make it possible to deliver orders to the troops, including strategic aviation, mobile, and silo launchers, submarines, and carriers of strategic nuclear weapons within a radius of 6,000 kilometers (3,700 miles),” the outlet reported.

 

[Wangxi]

Are these criticisms of the SU-57 fair or exaggerated ?

First thread

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1414959550889877506

Second thread

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1426038400000303106

 

[Xizor]

Are these criticisms of the SU-57 fair or exaggerated ?

First thread

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1414959550889877506

Second thread

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1426038400000303106

Not good criticism. Fifth gen equals money. There is nothing called a cheap Fifth gen fighter. Russia may have high PPP Industrial military sector but still ... technology is a money matter. Lets have the Russians raise the sticker price of their stealth fighter to 80 or 100 million. There is no way amateurs and outsiders can guess stealth or capabilities of a fighter, anyway.

 

[MarKoz81]

Are these criticisms of the SU-57 fair or exaggerated ?

First thread

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1414959550889877506

Second thread

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1426038400000303106

The criticism is fair but it exaggerates the problem because Su-57 officially has frontal RCS of "1,0 - 0,1 m2". Stealthy Su-57 is the same as F-35 having better stealth than F-22. It's an unsubstantiated rumor allowed to circulate for propaganda reasons.

Russians claim that radar VLO is not a decisive characteristic and that Su-57 will achieve 0,1m2 which is sufficient. Personally I think they're going to get it just below 1,0m and that's it because of the flaws in design. It's an improvement over 10-15m2 RCS of Flankers but 1,0m2 results still in 150-200 km detection range for modern radars.

Below are graphics from AusAirPower - a website referenced in the Twitter thread. It demonstrates detection ranges depending on RCS and radar power. Note that distances are in nautical miles (1nm = 1,85km)





The first principle of stealth is not "parallel design" but using surfaces that reflect radar waves away from the source. If a wave hits the surface at 30 degrees it will reflect at 30 degrees in the opposite direction. The only way to get the wave back hitting the surface at 90 degrees or hit a corner reflector where the wave will two (or more) times and reflect back at near 90 degrees. Parallel design is just an easy way to control the direction of reflections so the aircraft has a minimum RCS to "hide" in the air if necessary.

The most important aspect in air-to-air combat is the frontal aspect because that's the aspect in which radar detects targets - stealth was invented when active homing missiles weren't standard. It is also the aspect in which air gets into the turbines and turbines with many rotating angled surfaces are giant corner reflectors. This is why the s-duct is more important than "parallel design" and why J-10B/C and Rafale have it.

Another major problem is the niche between the engines - also a corner reflector. This is why VLO planes are bulky and flat. Su-75 has a much better design than Su-57.

I'm of an opinion that Su-57s will end up in MiG-31 regiments. I think MiG-41 is not happening but for propaganda reasons it can't be stated openly which is also why it remains a ridiculous concept with hypersonic speeds etc.

Below is my table listing new and modernized aircraft in the RuAF in the period of 1991-2020.



No new aircraft until 2010 and the last decade is all old designs - Su-30SM, Su-35 and Su-34. This means that the production lines are using old technology and it is very difficult to maintain high production rate (36 - 40 new aircraft annually) of old constructions and at the same time introduce new technology for a radically different type of airframe.

On one hand Russia is coming out of a 20-year-long collapse of industry and their recent achievements are very impressive but on the other hand Su-57 is a poor man's imitation of proper stealth aircraft. It's prototype flew in 2010.

Recently there has been an additional order of 76 Su-34Ms that will replace Su-24M and MRs. Su-30SMs are being modernized to SM2 standard unifying engines and systems with Su-35S. There's no more free space for Su-57s of which there is supposed to be 78 until 2028 unless some MiG-31s are withdrawn from service. MiG-31 has game-changing kinematics - 24km ceiling and 2,3Ma cruise speed but its systems are outdated and were not modernized (the modernization of Zaslon radar was allegedly a a failure). Su-57 with S-70s will be an alternative to provide coverage of airspace in a more economical manner. And for that Su-57 doesn't need VLO.

And that's probably why we have images like this one:



Russia is in the unenviable situation of having to pretend it's a technological superpower for propaganda and internal reasons while being forced to be extremely frugal and practical - much more so than China. That's why Russian weapon's systems are so confusing. They make perfect sense in my view - but on the condition that you completely ignore the narratives about them. Take just hard data and the picture is much clearer. Or who knows.... I might be completely wrong in my speculations.

 

[Blitzo]

Are these criticisms of the SU-57 fair or exaggerated ?

First thread

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1414959550889877506

Second thread

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1426038400000303106

The spirit of the tweets is not unreasonable, which is basically arguing that the stealth shaping and stealthy details of the the Su-57's RF VLO reduction measures is inferior to F-22, F-35 and even J-20.

The way in which the author phrased the tweets and the selection of pictures and focus on specific details, IMO doesn't do himself any favours (IMO to be fair one has to examine the production standard Su-57s eventually to check if there are any differences or not from the prototypes), but the broad thrust of the argument is fair.

That said, of the various things working against Su-57 as a contemporary 5th generation fighter in the modern global military aviation scene, its RF VLO reduction measures is only one of them. Production/procurement scale, speed of rollout, sensors/networking/payload advancement, are all significant factors as well.

 

[pmc]

On one hand Russia is coming out of a 20-year-long collapse of industry and their recent achievements are very impressive but on the other hand Su-57 is a poor man's imitation of proper stealth aircraft. It's prototype flew in 2010.

If there was collapse in industry. there wont be any aviation exports for 20 years. so your statement is inaccurate. remember its aviation industry we talking about. slight mistake in design, parts or process can have a big failure. you can start with Airbus and Boeing.

Russia is in the unenviable situation of having to pretend it's a technological superpower for propaganda and internal reasons while being forced to be extremely frugal and practical

I am not sure why you think there approach is frugal. look at quantity of fighters with TVC. TVC is expensive luxury that West cannot adopt on wider scale. RuNavy has TVC fighters.
Russians never been frugal with spending. take anything from Olympic/FIFA from ground up to complex industrial projects where things in whole supply chains are indigenously created in locations that spread wider in geography.
There wont be F-35 like project in Russia where more than 50% parts are from outside. Russia is only country that can certify aviation product with European standards without majority of European parts.

 

[ZeEa5KPul]

The spirit of the tweets is not unreasonable, which is basically arguing that the stealth shaping and stealthy details of the the Su-57's RF VLO reduction measures is inferior to F-22, F-35 and even J-20.

You seem to be on a Russia rah-rah kick lately and while I've mostly resisted the urge to quibble with you, I find it difficult to let the implicit disrespect of "even" pass without comment. The RCS design principles and workmanship of the J-20 are up there with the best of them; I'm sure you've looked at pictures of the J-20 side-by-side with the F-22 like I have. If you've arrived at a different conclusion then I would ask you to point out the deficiencies that you've observed.

 

[Blitzo]

You seem to be on a Russia rah-rah kick lately and while I've mostly resisted the urge to quibble with you, I find it difficult to let the implicit disrespect of "even" pass without comment. The RCS design principles and workmanship of the J-20 are up there with the best of them; I'm sure you've looked at pictures of the J-20 side-by-side with the F-22 like I have. If you've arrived at a different conclusion then I would ask you to point out the deficiencies that you've observed.

Have I? I don't think I've written too much about Russian systems recently.

As for J-20's RCS reduction measures -- considering the greater experience and greater number of past aircraft that the US had developed, flown and put in service stealth aircraft prior to F-22 and F-35, yes I do think it is correct to put "even" is correct for J-20 given it was China's first stealth aircraft design that flew and entered service.

If you interpret the word "even" to mean that I think J-20's RCS reduction measures are significantly inferior to F-22 or F-35, I think you would benefit from recalibrating your gauge for what is perceived as disrespect, or better yet, to care less about "respect" or "disrespect" and consider the accuracy of statements instead.

 

[ZeEa5KPul]

Have I? I don't think I've written too much about Russian systems recently.

That's the impression I got from our recent discussion about the J-20 participating in the China-Russia exercises as well as your recent comments at WarCollege. You put a lot of stock in Russia's "accumulated knowledge" from its decades of experience, which isn't invalid, but you completely discount the pitiful state of Russia's defense industry during the noughties, China's late-comer advantage, and and the vast difference in the scale of resources the two countries are putting toward their defense industries and how that difference compounds over time.

In the following I'll compare the F-22 and J-20 to keep things simple.

This theme of privileging accumulated knowledge over all other considerations shows up again here:

As for J-20's RCS reduction measures -- considering the greater experience and greater number of past aircraft that the US had developed, flown and put in service stealth aircraft prior to F-22 and F-35, yes I do think it is correct to put "even" is correct for J-20 given it was China's first stealth aircraft design that flew and entered service.

Let's say X made the greatest typewriters in the world. X's typewriters were without equal, each crafted with loving care and exquisite precision. But then the personal computer came along and word processors were the next big thing. X got a good start on those as well, but Y entered that game (a little later, a little sloppier). If we were to compare X and Y's word processors, we might still expect that X's are mildly better, but we don't really consider X's experience with typewriters to be a factor. Because obsolescence is a thing.

That the US built and flew the F-117 before the F-22 is good for the US, but that's the obsolete typewriter in this scenario. Just as you would argue that America's experience with the F-117 and earlier start on the F-22 gives it the advantage, I could argue that since China was the late-mover (with access to the vastly improved technology that developed over the intervening period) and had a benchmark to measure against, that gives it the advantage.

We really can't know which is correct given our lack of knowledge of the two systems and expertise in RF stealth. To say definitively that the F-22 holds enough of an edge in RF stealth to merit the dismissive "even" preceding the J-20 would require a detailed explanation as to why, not just "more experience" handwaving. Note that this doesn't discount the possibility that you're right about your assessment, or even that the J-20 is a piece of trash - but that would need to be demonstrated convincingly.

To make a gesture of sticking to the topic, I can obviously point out the RF deficiencies of the Su-57: the exposed fan blades, the unshaped nose and spherical IRST, and the poor workmanship of the airplane.

I think you would benefit from recalibrating your gauge for what is perceived as disrespect, or better yet, to care less about "respect" or "disrespect" and consider the accuracy of statements instead.

On that note, how do you think I should interpret the example of Block-3/4 F-35 kill ratios you threw out to Mohsin? 10:1 and 7:1 against the PLA of 2030 - why, do you think the PLA would put up J-7s against them?

 

[Blitzo]

That's the impression I got from our recent discussion about the J-20 participating in the China-Russia exercises as well as your recent comments at WarCollege. You put a lot of stock in Russia's "accumulated knowledge" from its decades of experience, which isn't invalid, but you completely discount the pitiful state of Russia's defense industry during the noughties, China's late-comer advantage, and and the vast difference in the scale of resources the two countries are putting toward their defense industries and how that difference compounds over time.

If you're talking about the recent warcollege thread from today that I commented on, the question in that specific thread didn't ask about the future trajectories of the respective nations' aerospace industries.

In the following I'll compare the F-22 and J-20 to keep things simple.

This theme of privileging accumulated knowledge over all other considerations shows up again here:

Let's say X made the greatest typewriters in the world. X's typewriters were without equal, each crafted with loving care and exquisite precision. But then the personal computer came along and word processors were the next big thing. X got a good start on those as well, but Y entered that game (a little later, a little sloppier). If we were to compare X and Y's word processors, we might still expect that X's are mildly better, but we don't really consider X's experience with typewriters to be a factor. Because obsolescence is a thing.

That the US built and flew the F-117 before the F-22 is good for the US, but that's the obsolete typewriter in this scenario. Just as you would argue that America's experience with the F-117 and earlier start on the F-22 gives it the advantage, I could argue that since China was the late-mover (with access to the vastly improved technology that developed over the intervening period) and had a benchmark to measure against, that gives it the advantage.

We really can't know which is correct given our lack of knowledge of the two systems and expertise in RF stealth. To say definitively that the F-22 holds enough of an edge in RF stealth to merit the dismissive "even" preceding the J-20 would require a detailed explanation as to why, not just "more experience" handwaving. Note that this doesn't discount the possibility that you're right about your assessment, or even that the J-20 is a piece of trash - but that would need to be demonstrated convincingly.

To make a gesture of sticking to the topic, I can obviously point out the RF deficiencies of the Su-57: the exposed fan blades, the unshaped nose and spherical IRST, and the poor workmanship of the airplane.

You seem to have interpreted the word "even" to mean that I am looking down on J-20's RF VLO measures, whereas it is meant to be the opposite. That's the whole point of why I talked about the accumulated experience of the US in the past prior to F-22 and F-35.
Because J-20's RF VLO measures are already very impressive, compared to "even" the F-22 and F-35 given that J-20 was China's first flying stealth aircraft.

On that note, how do you think I should interpret the example of Block-3/4 F-35 kill ratios you threw out to Mohsin? 10:1 and 7:1 against the PLA of 2030 - why, do you think the PLA would put up J-7s against them?

It should be interpreted as a hypothetical to demonstrate my point.
The specific absolute ratios doesn't really matter, it's more of the relative effectiveness between a block 4 vs a block 3 for that particular discussion.
If you want to interpret it as something like 2:1 and 1:1 or something instead, I don't really care.