Did two Su-57s Deploy to Syria?

a reply to: Slys13
I'd say there closer to a Block III Hornet or the Silent Eagle RCS wise than to the F-22 or F-35... if that.
The aircraft has so many design issues, almost looks like the gave up half way through designing it...
The planform is pretty decent, the air intakes ar bad, the bumps for vertical stabilizers are just comical, the leading edge has unoptimized flight control surfaces and the aft section defies description.
With RCS every mistake counts. There's no good enough.

a reply to: spy66

So, you do realize WHY the Budapest Memorandum was agreed upon, right?

Ah well, since everything written isn't permanent, don't mind Ukraine getting nuclear weapons back again...

They used to have the third largest arsenal in the world after all and making a Fatboy - modernized, of course - is pretty damned easy. If you have the Plutonium. Oh. oops.

But, written agreements are not forever. No big deal.

a reply to: mightmight

With RCS every mistake counts. There's no good enough.

That's pretty inane. Every single example you used decided on a "good enough" approach to varying requirements. Each decided on a compromise between signature and other requirements. This one is clearly optimized for FCS and not any sort of all-aspect reduction. The fact you think the BlockIII SH is anywhere close to this design on RCS is "just comical."

originally posted by: Slys13
a reply to: Zaphod58

Even if they are testing it and trying to gather f22/35 data IAM sure they have sum idea allready if the rcs if the su57....Iam sure it can't be far off if the f23... Again

The Russians have used the Su 35 that have been a test bed for the PAK FA technology in Syria so i bet they have gather some knowledge of the SU 57s capabilities.

I personally think that the SU-35s can see the F-22 on its radar. THe last encounter the SUs did come in from behind and at a very elevated altitude compared to the F-22 who was harassing the Su 25 at a low altitude. I dont think the F-22 is stealthy from behind.

originally posted by: RadioRobert
a reply to: mightmight
That's pretty inane. Every single example you used decided on a "good enough" approach to varying requirements. Each decided on a compromise between signature and other requirements. This one is clearly optimized for FCS and not any sort of all-aspect reduction. The fact you think the BlockIII SH is anywhere close to this design on RCS is "just comical."

You admit it yourself, at best the Su-57 is optimized for frontal RCS, just like the Block III Hornet or the Silent Eagle. Neither of those aircraft are 5th Gen Fighters. The point is not if the SU-57 good enough to go up against conventional 4.5th Gen fighters with this approach (it probably is), but that they didnt built a true VLO aircraft, not even close in fact. Its RCS will not be comparable to US 5th Gen Fighters. Looks dont matter, the devil is in the details.

a reply to: mightmight

The SHornet and even Silent Eagle can't touch this design even in the frontal corner. Nose on, I bet it presents pretty favourably with the latest US VLO designs. From other aspects neither of those first two is even marginally focused on signature control. You really can't even make a comparison. And then there is the whole "Oh, I have to carry weapons/fuel" problem for the marketing wizards at Boeing to overcome when talking to real customers who fight in the real world and not on a PowerPoint slide.
Will the F-22 and F-35 have better all-aspect stealth? Yes. Across a wider range of bands? Almost certainly. Does that make this design ineffective? No.
Since most combat aircraft flying today and in the foreseeable future are designs dating to the 70's, 80's, and 90's with minimal attention to signature, I think the Russians hit a pretty good compromise on signature, price , and performance (if they pour in the money to see this through). I'm sure the Russians will happily put even their underpowered, poor-finish current preproduction model up against a SuperHornet Block III in combat configurations.
I also wouldn't read too much into the fit and finish on preproduction models.

originally posted by: spy66
I personally think that the SU-35s can see the F-22 on its radar. THe last encounter the SUs did come in from behind and at a very elevated altitude compared to the F-22 who was harassing the Su 25 at a low altitude. I dont think the F-22 is stealthy from behind.

Any stealth aircraft can be seen on radar if your close enough. I'm unaware of the AWACS situation on both sides, but its equally possible that the S-35's were vectored in behind and use their IRST's to get close. The F-22 was supposed to have lateral SARS arrays that would have helped but it was shelved some time back. The F-22 pilot may have lost situation awareness and forgot to check 6 too.

It is less stealthy from the rear, and the YF-23 had better all around stealth

originally posted by: spy66

originally posted by: Slys13
a reply to: Zaphod58

Even if they are testing it and trying to gather f22/35 data IAM sure they have sum idea allready if the rcs if the su57....Iam sure it can't be far off if the f23... Again

The Russians have used the Su 35 that have been a test bed for the PAK FA technology in Syria so i bet they have gather some knowledge of the SU 57s capabilities.

I personally think that the SU-35s can see the F-22 on its radar. THe last encounter the SUs did come in from behind and at a very elevated altitude compared to the F-22 who was harassing the Su 25 at a low altitude. I dont think the F-22 is stealthy from behind.

You don't suppose the Frogfoot drivers maybe called them in to their location? I also don't think the F22 is in full stealth mode at the moment either.

a reply to: Flipper35

Its possible, but I do not think they would have deployed the F-22 to a combat zone with its lundberg reflectors on.

originally posted by: RadioRobert
a reply to: mightmight

The SHornet and even Silent Eagle can't touch this design even in the frontal corner. Nose on, I bet it presents pretty favourably with the latest US VLO designs. From other aspects neither of those first two is even marginally focused on signature control. You really can't even make a comparison. [...]

I actually agree with you on most of this.
The original claim was that the RCS of the SU-57 might be comparable to the YF-23 or current US 5th Gen Fighters. It isnt though, the Su-57 is not a fully optimized stealth aircraft. Its design philosophy and probably also its overall RCS are more comparable to stealthified 4.5th Gen jets than to true full aspect stealth fighters.
The argument on whether or not the frontal RCS is closer to the frontal RCS of the Silent Eagle or to the F-22/F-35 doesnt change that. But we do disagree on that point, i dont believe for a minute that they got the frontal rcs anywhere close to US 5th Gen levels while pretty much botching the rest of the aircraft. Neither of us can proof this though the discussion is moot.
As said i agree with you on the rest, the Su-57 will be a comparatively decent aircraft. Keep in mind though, going forward, the first rate western aircrafts wont be 70s, 80s or 90s design with minimal attention to rcs for much longer. It'll take another decade, but the F-35s will be coming off the line in huge numbers and the Su-57 will not be adequate to face that threat. Even if Russia can procure them as planned, which i doubt.
Its probably a decent aircraft but essentially at least a decade too late.

originally posted by: spy66

originally posted by: aethertek
a reply to: spy66

Meh Raptor will see it first, 57 has a lot of lobe leakage.

K~

I dont know. And i dont think we will ever know even if a confrontation does take Place.

Personaly i think the US have braged the F-22 up to a Level it is not even Close to be at. There is no way in hell the US would mention the Raptors weaknes when it comes to stealth, that would not sit well With the tax payers. I also dont think Russia have had all the problems With their SU57 as they have claimed to have had (or Our media have claimed). There is no way russia would send their state of the art 5th generation to a conflict sone were it could be humiliated by the US.

I also think the US will use this opportunity to seek out the SU57 when ever they can, to gather intel on russian progress.

Other allies have gone up against the F-22 when it's not using its full suite and learned the hard way.

Another two PAK-FA (T-50) Su-57s have been noted landing in Syria.

Twitter Link

The F-35 isn't going to compromise the majority of US or allied aircraft anytime soon. Everyone seems content with retaining large numbers of the designs from the 70's, 80's, and 90's for a variety of reasons. Sukhoi seems to have embraced a middle road approach giving them distinct advantages over the older designs that aren't going away any time soon, and hoping to close the gap enough on the high-end to make it viable. Since most every air combat in recent history has been BVR, I think it's a good approach. They hold the ace over nonVLO enemies at range, and once/if they can close to visual range, I think they are probably in a good spot. At minimum, they increase their survivability against the F-35 and everyone else.
This all assumes they spend the money and complete development.
I'm interested to see if we ever get numbers and see what the levcon and thrust-vectoring provides.

originally posted by: RadioRobert
The F-35 isn't going to compromise the majority of US or allied aircraft anytime soon.

No they wont. But they will soon comprise the vast majority of the first hour/day/week air fleet Russia would be facing in a general confrontation.
The legacy bomb trucks will still be there, but they wont be used as stand in assets to achieve Air Superority.

Since most every air combat in recent history has been BVR, I think it's a good approach.
They hold the ace over nonVLO enemies at range, and once/if they can close to visual range, I think they are probably in a good spot. At minimum, they increase their survivability against the F-35 and everyone else.

You cant just pick and chose your opponents for one on one fights. Any legacy jets on the other side would be part of an combined, networked effort to combat the russian air defense. Going forward it we will, for example see concealed 5th Gen asset providing targeting information for BVR AAMs fired by Legacy jets. You cant counter this approach with a half way decent asset optimized for frontal rcs only.

a reply to: mightmight

There aren't enough missiles in the depots to the job the West would need to do shutting down red air against China or Russia in a generational conflict. I doubt Russia has the same qualms about tactical special weapons that we do, so in the event of a generational conflict, all bets are off.
The Su-57 is wouldn't be a stand alone weapon either. Russian forces are in the midst of a large modernization project that doesn't get much press. The also have a large country and large numbers of aircraft. Soviet/Russian plans have always been to deny easy operations or access to the forward airbases as a a means of air superiority. That's what all those supersonic cruise missile carriers are for. They also aren't seemingly adverse to various chemical weapons (easily produced, but not stockpiled) which make operations on a flight ramp brutal. Even something as simple as a crowd control agent like tear gas could lead to everybody running around in MOPPS gear.
They're counting on using their arrays on the air and ground bistatically, and taking away a lot of the edge for platforms like the F-35. They also have probably the best integrated air defense systems in the world. The long and short is, blue air would be stretched extremely thin, and tanking would be more taxed than it already is in a campaign against Russia.
Nothing is a panacea or as cut and dried as you're making it out to be. Don't kid yourself; we'd have our hands full even without a production Su-57.
I like their odds better with them in the mix than without, and that's all they seem to care about.

a reply to: FredT

There are more than the reflectors that can compromise stealth when they're not going for full stealth. The F-117s lights and radio antenna would do the trick nicely.

a reply to: tommyjo

danke.

Any further pix? Or another video? I'd hate for this to have been another case of McClellan's "cannons."

If this is true, they've deployed 40% of the known flying fleet. 33% of all birds at all.

That's pretty damned ballsy.

a reply to: RadioRobert

The F-35 isn't going to compromise the majority of US or allied aircraft anytime soon. Everyone seems content with retaining large numbers of the designs from the 70's, 80's, and 90's for a variety of reasons

The only reason the F-35 is not going to compromise the majority of US or allied aircraft in the short term, is because even if 160 aircraft are built per year it will take a couple of decades to replace all legacy fighters. 160 aircraft per year is the current plan for post-2023, a production rate that hasn't been seen since the F-16 era. An enormous amount of aircraft - enough to fill a carrier to capacity in a few months.

Buying them faster isn't affordable, so they will have to make do with what they can get, which means integration of 4th generation platforms and 5th generation platforms. Nothing to do with "being content", except for maybe Canada and countries which cannot afford it (Poland). It's possible that a single year of F-35 full-rate will produce more aircraft than the entire Su-57 production run. I am aware this is an unfair comparison due to a variety of reasons, but an issue with these numbers is the aircraft will go to a variety of users (approx. 50% non-US in early production) all across the world, but the production rate is still going to be eye-watering.

These will be Block 4 and beyond aircraft post 2023 which will have a variety of upgrades and greater weapons integration than the F-35 of today.

Regarding NBCs, the NATO response to any significant Russian use should be nuclear. It has to be this way, it has to be standard policy, and it is, otherwise they will be tempted to test NATO. What I would like to see is internal nuclear weapons carriage on the F-35, mounted in a cruise missile similar to JSM, then have a nuclear sharing agreement with Western Europe.

But once we start talking about a realistic war with Russia, we have to start talking about everything else not just fighters, and unfortunately that's outside of my area of knowledge (at this stage, at least). Agree that any conflict with Russia would be hand-full, I don't think NATO is well prepared enough.

I like how you bring up the context of how Russia can use these fighters, because direct platform to platform comparisons are sometimes useless because they will not be operated in the same way. i.e. Russia probably doesn't need a F-22 clone, cannot build a F-22 clone, instead they have their own unique geopolitical situation, unique industry strengths and weaknesses, their own budget, and their own unique military doctrine.

Other points:
1. In any sustained conflict, production of munitions will be massively increased.
2. NATO has far more smart and precision weapons than Russia. The RuAF still mainly relies on the R-27, a SARH missile. By comparison, basically every NATO nation has AMRAAM. Even Australia probably has more AMRAAMs than Russia has R-77s. Russia does seem to have a tendency to implement a small number of very high end equipment to an even greater extent than the US does, often with lower end equipment retained by the majority of the forces - R-27 and R-77 is a good example. Another good example is Su-35S, Su-30SM, Su-34, Su-57, and Su-27. First four are in production for the RuAF and the Su-57 and Su-35S are significantly more advanced than the Su-30SM.

I wonder why this is the case, possible factors:
- Sustaining industry to continue their relevance into the 21st century.
- Propaganda.
- Some kind of high-low mix.
- Fighting lower end wars, where a smaller number of high-end is more beneficial for propaganda purposes (against their own people and to potential adversaries), generate sales, to minimize losses, maybe cheaper since less aircraft are needed, and minimize risk of friendly fire incidents or international incidents.
- Not enough money for large numbers.

Point is, NATO lacking high-end platforms like the F-35 is also something that faces Russia to a huge extent and this includes all their fancy bi-static radars, missiles, and aircraft.

a reply to: spy66

If it was that important the Russians would have shot at the F-22 already. Its not like the russians havent had the chance to do so.

What pisses of the Russians are all the spy Plains the US send towards russia in the black sea. THe Russians dont want US spy Plains that can spy on their Communications habits. THe US have escalated their present in the black sea With a New missile destroyer as well this week.

Russia is welcome to spy on the United States anytime they wish, as long as they are in international waters, and this is exactly what they do.

a reply to: C0bzz

The only reason the F-35 is not going to compromise the majority of US or allied aircraft in the short term, is because even if 160 aircraft are built per year it will take a couple of decades to replace all legacy fighters. 

I wasn't slamming the F-35. I was simply saying the bulk of combat aircraft won't be the F-35 any time soon. Between cost and countries wanting to continue their own industrial base, most F-35 customers are still looking to maintain legacy aircraft for a long time. The Su-57 is a step in the right direction regardless.

Regarding NBCs, the NATO response to any significant Russian use should be nuclear

Should be, but if RuAF hits major air bases in Germany, France, and England with nonlethals like BZ, Mustard, or even tear gas, do you think the West has the stones to go nuclear? I'd hesitate to say yes. And if I've got doubts, they've got doubts. That makes it more likely than less.

Russia probably doesn't need a F-22 clone, cannot build a F-22 clone, instead they have their own unique geopolitical situation, unique industry strengths and weaknesses, their own budget, and their own unique military doctrine. 

Correct. They don't have the base. Integrating the systems they are trying to do with this program is already taxing. That doesn't mean they can't -- it just means they have to throw time and money at it. Just like we did with the F-35.

Russia does seem to have a tendency to implement a small number of very high end equipment to an even greater extent than the US does, often with lower end equipment retained by the majority of the forces 

Keeps them in the game industrially and saves them money. Just having the capability is what they're after. If they want to build more or think they need more, that's a lot easier to do than decide later to develop it.

I just think it's ridiculous to say that because Russia and China's new aircraft probably aren't going to have the same level of capability as the F-22 or F-35, they're useless or not any better than an F-18, etc. Those countries don't need an F-22. For one they need legs because they lack the quantity of tankers to have the luxury of tanking support for all their operations. Two is development and operational cost. And neither one plans to give the USAF or naval air the courtesy of going one-on-one with the USAF in fair fights. They're going to fight their way and extend you. They'll use their advantage in IRBM's and cruise missiles and make you come to engage them on their own turf where you're stretched thin. And that moves all your valuable support (AWACS, tankers, etc) closer to the frontier where they have a better chance of overwhelming a specific area with numbers in the air and air defense sites on the ground.
Another thing to not forget is China and Russia are less likely to be shy in the event of armed conflict. They aren't going to sit and wait for the US to build up for six months or a year at staging areas. We've never had anyone try to really take the fight to us and have to be back on our heels. Those two powers could do that. And as preemptive first day fighters go, the J-20 and Su-57 represent a great step forward for them.

I very much doubt that the US and NATO "dont" have higher spec platforms in use over there than the F22..Its like a game of cards.Dont show all your hand until you know your going to win.Plus sats cant be blocked ..But they are on known orbits.