Sukhoi SU-57

Slug71 · Fri Aug 11, 2017 4:22 pm

The PAK FA / T-50 has officially been named the SU-57.

“The decision has been taken, the plane has been christened. Su-57 is what we are going to call it now,”

https://www.rt.com/document/598d850cfc7 ... 8b4567/amp

Slug71 · Wed Dec 06, 2017 3:00 pm

Russia’s latest fighter aircraft flew on 5 December for the first time with the NPO Saturn “Product 30” engine, which will be the production standard for the Sukhoi Su-57.

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/artic ... 30-443899/

Slug71 · Sun Mar 11, 2018 7:00 pm

I'm copying your post over here as to not derail the other thread.

Dutchy wrote:
https://www.defensenews.com/air/2017/10/20/indian-air-force-wants-out-of-fighter-program-with-russia/

An old article - 2017 -, what is the status of India in this project, will they get the Su-57 or will they pass?

Who knows. Just another acquisition they are so back and forth on. A lot probably depends on how much the SU-57 evolves toward the FGFA standard and if they can get the technology transfer stuff agreed on. From what I understand (from articles I've read), the changes made to the later test/development and early production frames, are supposed to address a number of the 40+ changes that India wants for the FGFA project.

IIRC, the technology transfer stuff was agreed on. Now it's just up to the airframe requirements. I think new engines was one of the changes that India wanted, which is happening. I'm pretty sure all the test/development frames are completed now too. The next frames should be early production frames. And with only 12 aircraft on order by Russia for now, most of those frames could have changes that previous ones did not have.

Ozair · Thu May 10, 2018 9:58 pm

Some undisclosed source analysis of the stealth characteristics of the Su-57 as well as some poorly researched and inaccurate tactical analysis by Tyler Rogoway...

More at the link.

Close-up photos of Russia's new 'stealth' jet reveal its true purpose — and it's a big threat to the US

Russia's "fifth-generation," "combat-tested," "stealth" fighter jet has a lot of dubious claims made about it, but recent close-up photography of the plane from Russia's Victory Day parade on May 9 reveals it's just not a stealth jet.

Russia has tried to sell the plane as a stealth jet to India, but India backed out. Considering a shrinking economy and defense spending, it's unclear now if Russia will ever produce the Su-57 in reasonable quantities.

Business Insider asked a senior scientist working on stealth aircraft how to evaluate the plane's stealth, and the results were not good.

http://www.businessinsider.com/russian- ... &IR=T&IR=T

keesje · Fri May 11, 2018 11:27 am

Ozair wrote:
Some undisclosed source analysis of the stealth characteristics of the Su-57 as well as some poorly researched and inaccurate tactical analysis by Tyler Rogoway...

More at the link.

Close-up photos of Russia's new 'stealth' jet reveal its true purpose — and it's a big threat to the US

Russia's "fifth-generation," "combat-tested," "stealth" fighter jet has a lot of dubious claims made about it, but recent close-up photography of the plane from Russia's Victory Day parade on May 9 reveals it's just not a stealth jet.

Russia has tried to sell the plane as a stealth jet to India, but India backed out. Considering a shrinking economy and defense spending, it's unclear now if Russia will ever produce the Su-57 in reasonable quantities.

Business Insider asked a senior scientist working on stealth aircraft how to evaluate the plane's stealth, and the results were not good.

http://www.businessinsider.com/russian- ... &IR=T&IR=T

Reading the article, the style, words, assumptions, this article seems more we vs them patriotic than factual. As far as I can tell, this a fantastic fighter with a lot of export potential, just like it's SU30-35 series predecessors.

estorilm · Fri May 11, 2018 5:39 pm

Ozair wrote:
Some undisclosed source analysis of the stealth characteristics of the Su-57 as well as some poorly researched and inaccurate tactical analysis by Tyler Rogoway...

More at the link.

Close-up photos of Russia's new 'stealth' jet reveal its true purpose — and it's a big threat to the US

Russia's "fifth-generation," "combat-tested," "stealth" fighter jet has a lot of dubious claims made about it, but recent close-up photography of the plane from Russia's Victory Day parade on May 9 reveals it's just not a stealth jet.

Russia has tried to sell the plane as a stealth jet to India, but India backed out. Considering a shrinking economy and defense spending, it's unclear now if Russia will ever produce the Su-57 in reasonable quantities.

Business Insider asked a senior scientist working on stealth aircraft how to evaluate the plane's stealth, and the results were not good.

http://www.businessinsider.com/russian- ... &IR=T&IR=T

Saw this yesterday - love it!

It's true though - partially, at least about the shortcuts they've taken while slapping a big "5th gen" sticker on it. Looks the part, but isn't. As far as it being a lethal F-22 and F-35 killing machine? Doesn't that kinda go directly against their first claims of essentially-failed stealth capabilities? Even if their sensors are good, they're not good enough to render the SU-57 lethal at BVR without adequate stealth. That's the entire purpose of un-compromised stealth in the original core design of the airframe. Everything else can be upgraded later, the airframe really can't be.

Oh well, I feel slightly vindicated. I was literally just talking about the joints, hinges, fairings, seams, etc on this forum a month or so ago. It never seemed remotely on the same design/engineering/fab level as the F-22 personally.

FWIW the new paint does look good though - except I can't help but feel like its only purpose is to hide all those ugly mfg and design shortcuts lol.

On another note, after all the points they make about areas lacking - I'm shocked they still haven't mentioned the giant round engine fairings - top and bottom. :lol:

Ozair · Sat May 12, 2018 12:04 am

keesje wrote:

Reading the article, the style, words, assumptions, this article seems more we vs them patriotic than factual.

I agree. I'm not a fan of undisclosed sources making claims.

keesje wrote:
As far as I can tell, this a fantastic fighter with a lot of export potential, just like it's SU30-35 series predecessors.

While the Su-57 has export potential I don't see it being anywhere near as successful as the Su-27/30/35 on the export market. For starters one of the major operators of the 27/30 and now 35 is China who are very very unlikely to ever operate the SU-57. Additionally an Indian procurement is in doubt and so combined that wipes out the two largest export operators, having over half of the total export of the aircraft.

Where will be SU-57 see sales? Probably Indonesia in 10-15 years, Vietnam, Algeria and maybe a couple of the stans. Iran is an outside chance but improves if Saudi Arabia and the UAE eventually get the F-35.

I don't see many other operators. The remaining nations operating small SU-27/30 fleets will likely continue operating that platform for many years to come and I don't see any value for them in the SU-57 when most of their fleets are token anyway.

neutronstar73 · Sun May 13, 2018 12:24 am

Reading the article, the style, words, assumptions, this article seems more we vs them patriotic than factual. As far as I can tell, this a fantastic fighter with a lot of export potential, just like it's SU30-35 series predecessors.

[/quote]

Uhh nope. This thing will have very limited export potential and appeal. If a country wants stealth capability, this won't give it too them. This will have a very limited production run, and I'l predict little, if any, export sales. It looks nice, but looking good isn't the name of the game in the 5th gen fighter market.

I expect too see more countries begging to jump on the F-35 bandwagon.

TranscendZac · Sun May 13, 2018 2:33 am

I just read an article about the recent Red Flag F-35 success and they talked about the Su-57. It is no more stealth than the F/A-18E/F Super Hornet. If the Super Hornet had the upgraded GE engines proposed for it, it would be a formidable fighter. It has extremely good low speed maneuverability. Obviously with the introduction of the F-35, no more investment into the F/A-18 was approved.

The Su-57 is an impressive aircraft, but neither it nor the new J-20 are true 5th gen fighters. And yet, LM, Boeing, and NG are already bidding on 6th gen fighters. Truth is, the U.S. leapfrogged the world when we released the B-2 bomber and F-22 and the world has still not caught up to either one, and replacements for both are already underway. Add to that, the F-35 is becoming quite the weapon system.

keesje · Sun May 13, 2018 7:38 pm

We're back 25yrs, in the good old, clear, cold war. Reason & IQ are out and anything not from here is either inferior or copied. :rotfl:

Balerit · Mon May 14, 2018 6:37 pm

neutronstar73 wrote:
Reading the article, the style, words, assumptions, this article seems more we vs them patriotic than factual. As far as I can tell, this a fantastic fighter with a lot of export potential, just like it's SU30-35 series predecessors.

Uhh nope. This thing will have very limited export potential and appeal. If a country wants stealth capability, this won't give it too them. This will have a very limited production run, and I'l predict little, if any, export sales. It looks nice, but looking good isn't the name of the game in the 5th gen fighter market.

I expect too see more countries begging to jump on the F-35 bandwagon.[/quote]

Are you an expert on stealth? I'd say the Gripen is way better than the F35 and as for the F22, it's old and outdated and technology has moved on. Who knows if the F22 was any good, it never ever went into battle. It can't fly any meaningful distance without huge aux tanks under the wings so there goes the stealth out the window.

The SU57 is new state of the art and just because it doesn't look like an F22 doesn't mean it's useless. Sukhoi has never had the money to go big, not like Boeing or Lockheed. There is a nice documentary on Mig and shows how they managed with tiny budgets, I'll post a link if you're interested.

VSMUT · Mon May 14, 2018 7:42 pm

keesje wrote:
We're back 25yrs, in the good old, clear, cold war. Reason & IQ are out and anything not from here is either inferior or copied.

Lol, I was thinking the exact same :lol:

TranscendZac wrote:
Obviously with the introduction of the F-35, no more investment into the F/A-18 was approved.

Sure, no more investments apart from the lifetime extensions and the Block III upgrades that were announced a few months ago. Oh, and they keep ordering more of them too.

That the Su-57 isn't as optimized for stealth as American fighters can't surprise anyone. Russia will inevitably be on the defensive in a hypothetical war against NATO, and stealth is much less useful for the defending force in such a scenario. The entire Russian strategy with layers upon layers of advanced SAM systems, ground based jammers, tiny river-capable corvettes with massively long-ranged cruise missiles and so on seems to be built on this idea.

Ozair · Mon May 14, 2018 10:58 pm

Balerit wrote:

Are you an expert on stealth? I'd say the Gripen is way better than the F35 and as for the F22, it's old and outdated and technology has moved on.

I'm not sure what your trying to do here except demonstrate a complete lack of understanding of stealth technology. To claim the Gripen is a stealth aircraft or has greater stealth capability than the F-35 is simply false. Conversely, there is overwhelming evidence on the stealth capability and effectiveness of the F-35 and the F-22.

There is a reason the Gripen has never won a competition on its own merits, it is a small lightweight fighter limited in range, payload and sensor capability designed for a niche use case. Small nations in Europe continue to select used F-16s over Gripen aircraft, why would they do that if the Gripen was such a formidable stealth aircraft?

Balerit wrote:
Who knows if the F22 was any good, it never ever went into battle.

Multiple mulitple mulitple Red Flag exercises have more than proven the effectiveness of the F-22 in high end conflict scenarios. Not only that, you don’t hear Allies who have flown and trained against the F-22 claim it isn’t any good. They all celebrate when they get a single kill against the aircraft and splash the footage over Youtube.

Balerit wrote:
It can't fly any meaningful distance without huge aux tanks under the wings so there goes the stealth out the window.

We know the range of the F-22 with and without drop tanks.

A 600nm combat radius without fuel tanks is very respectable and comparable or further than most 4th gen fighter aircraft. Factor in the operator of the aircraft has the largest fleet of A2A refuellers in the world and you see why range is not an issue.

Balerit wrote:
The SU57 is new state of the art and just because it doesn't look like an F22 doesn't mean it's useless. Sukhoi has never had the money to go big, not like Boeing or Lockheed. There is a nice documentary on Mig and shows how they managed with tiny budgets, I'll post a link if you're interested.

No one is claiming the Su-57 isn’t any good but it also clearly needs some work to reach a comparable level to the US 5th gen aircraft, it is new though and has time to improve. For what Russia requires of it the capability will likely be sufficient.

VSMUT wrote:
Sure, no more investments apart from the lifetime extensions and the Block III upgrades that were announced a few months ago. Oh, and they keep ordering more of them too.

Agree, the SH continues to see investment and will remain the backbone of the USN fleet for the next 20 years. Blk III isn’t particularly platform changing though, conformal fuel tanks, a couple of internal cockpit changes, radar and EW updates and perhaps some minor RCS improvements to an already optimised platform. Continued USN procurement of the SH today is primarily about a fleet with too many hours on them as well as a decision to retire the classic fleet from USN service.

This further SH ivestment isn’t about the F-35C. It was always planned that the USN would operate more SH than F-35C aircraft and the USN F-35C procurement number has been static for the last 12 years. We may see that change in the late 2020s early 2030s given the USN likes to stock up on aircraft while they are still in production, as they are doing now today with the SH. Depending on how many operational hours the SH fleet has to fly over the next 15 years will also determine the final production run of F-35C for USN service.

TranscendZac · Tue May 15, 2018 1:37 am

Balerit wrote:
neutronstar73 wrote:
Reading the article, the style, words, assumptions, this article seems more we vs them patriotic than factual. As far as I can tell, this a fantastic fighter with a lot of export potential, just like it's SU30-35 series predecessors.

Are you an expert on stealth? I'd say the Gripen is way better than the F35 and as for the F22, it's old and outdated and technology has moved on. Who knows if the F22 was any good, it never ever went into battle. It can't fly any meaningful distance without huge aux tanks under the wings so there goes the stealth out the window.

I’m not sure what planet you’re living on. Are we talking about the F-22 Raptor? Outdated? Jesus. The rest of the world has NOTHING that can go head to head with it. It seems like many here live in a fantasy where we will see close range air to air engagements like Top Gun. Very likely, any engagement will be BVR in which stealth is everything. If stealth is no big deal, why are Russia and China heavily pursuing it? Neither the Chinese or Russians have the technical expertise to build anything on the Raptor level. This is evidenced by neither being able to reproduce an engine that enables stealth and neither has the experience working with stealth materials. It’s open knowledge the US is already pursuing 6th gen fighter designs, all while the only two countries attempting to develop 5th gen fighters, China and Russia, are failing at producing F-22 level stealth. It just is what it is. Why is the rest of the world hell bent on thinking the US is somehow inferior militarily? The US is not perfect by any means, but I’d like to see just how peaceful the planet would be if China or Russia were dominant military powers.

rheinwaldner · Tue May 15, 2018 6:34 am

Ozair wrote:
There is a reason the Gripen has never won a competition on its own merits

Your conclusion about Gripen can't have much merits if your starting point is so unqualified...

Merits = capability per price point.

Which Gripen export did not happen based on merits? I know for a fact, that the Gripen was selected based on merits in Switzerland.

Balerit · Tue May 15, 2018 8:08 am

I think you guys are falling for the American propaganda. Stealth aircraft are not invisible, they have reduced radar signatures and only from head on. They can be detected from below and from the side. Have a look at how much smaller the SU 57 vertical stabilizers are compared to the F22, this alone gives it an advantage. Even cell phone technology can detect stealth aircraft.

The F22 is 20 years old, that is ancient in terms of technology. Besides the F22 only caught up with the SU27 and Mig 29 in performance and they have been around since the 80's. The F22 still doesn't have the supermaneuverability of the older aircraft. The Gripen E is already touted as 6th generation. Again don't fall for the hype of '5th generation' which is really just a term the Russians invented to catalogue the F22 and doesn't mean anything magical. In fact 5th generation means too expensive and underperforming hence the term 6th generation for light weight highly agile fighters with multi link data systems which Gripen has had from the word go.

keesje · Tue May 15, 2018 8:11 am

Mine is best because I identify with it. :bored:

The Russians never had a problem developing original powerful fighters. Dismissing them was part of the cold war culture we were raised & educated in, as part of that cold war. No doubts; they are bad, we are good, we need to defend ourselves, everywhere in the world, protecting our freedom, rights, interests, oil..

I assume looking back everyone can see the big lines. The Russians were kind of suspicious & defensive after a war they didn't start, but wiped away 20-25 mln of their population. Imagine 25mln, everyone was traumatized.. The major background of the ColdWar was the WWII, not because they're evil do'ers commies, out to steal your freedom.

:old:

I would take all the stealth "ours is always better" stories with a grain of salt. The russian engineers still know exactly what they are doing. If in a few years huge R&D budgets are needed in the USA for a new sixth gen fighter. The same folks from these articles will stumble over each other telling you what an extremely high threat the Su-57 is for your safety and investing in our freedom & way of living is absolutely essential. Some flag waving, FUD by professional marketeers and there come the billions again..

ThePointblank · Tue May 15, 2018 9:49 am

Balerit wrote:
I think you guys are falling for the American propaganda. Stealth aircraft are not invisible, they have reduced radar signatures and only from head on. They can be detected from below and from the side. Have a look at how much smaller the SU 57 vertical stabilizers are compared to the F22, this alone gives it an advantage. Even cell phone technology can detect stealth aircraft.

Stealth aircraft have significantly reduced radar signatures from the side and rear aspect, if designed correctly. They also must be manufactured carefully as well to exacting tolerances, and all indications is that the Russians struggle mightily in getting tolerances perfect.

Balerit wrote:
The F22 is 20 years old, that is ancient in terms of technology. Besides the F22 only caught up with the SU27 and Mig 29 in performance and they have been around since the 80's.

The Russians have stagnated for decades, since the 1980's. Their engines for example, can't match American engines from 20 years ago in terms of performance, reliability, and fuel efficiency.

Russian avionics have also significantly lagged behind their Western counterparts as well; again, they are still decades behind. They lack the refinement in the man-machine interface and data collection and processing capabilities Western fighters have enjoyed for decades. If a pilot can't easily read all of the information coming in from various sources quickly and easily, he can't quickly and easily get a sense of the battlespace around him; he's effectively blind to the world around him, and in combat, that's bad news.

Ditto radar technology; the Russians still don't have a fielded fighter AESA radar, and the ones they do have in development can't match the power, range and performance of the current American AESA radars; the N036 Byelka AESA being developed and fitted to the Su-57 and the Zhuk-AE are decidedly inferior to the F-22's AN/APG-77 in terms of power and performance, and the APG-77 radar is over 20 years old!

Fighters are a careful package that balances raw performance, sensor capabilities, and the man-machine interface. The Russians have and still struggle mightily with all three aspects.

Balerit wrote:
The F22 still doesn't have the supermaneuverability of the older aircraft.

Supermanueverability means jack as missiles can still outmanoeuvre any jet fighter out there; there's no way you can dodge a missile that can pull 20G's minimum in a turn.

And all of those cool aerobatic maneuvers the Russians like to display bleed tons of energy in an actual fight; in a dogfight, energy is life, and a target flying very slow is a easy target for an opponent. Not to mention that all of the cool maneuvers are all done with no weapons, and a very reduced fuel state... hardly useful in an actual fight.

Remember what was said about the Su-30's supposed supermanueverability against the F-15? It was noted by a USAF pilot in a presentation after an exercise with the Indians that the post-stall manuevers using vectored thrust of the Su-30MKI's the Indians flew were useless once the USAF pilots figured out a better tactic that allowed the F-15's to just drill the Su-30's with guns as the Su-30's became a sitting duck.

Balerit wrote:
The Gripen E is already touted as 6th generation. Again don't fall for the hype of '5th generation' which is really just a term the Russians invented to catalogue the F22 and doesn't mean anything magical. In fact 5th generation means too expensive and underperforming hence the term 6th generation for light weight highly agile fighters with multi link data systems which Gripen has had from the word go.

Bill Sweetman? Is that you? :roll:

Ozair · Tue May 15, 2018 12:05 pm

rheinwaldner wrote:
Ozair wrote:
There is a reason the Gripen has never won a competition on its own merits

Your conclusion about Gripen can't have much merits if your starting point is so unqualified...

Merits = capability per price point.

Which Gripen export did not happen based on merits? I know for a fact, that the Gripen was selected based on merits in Switzerland.

No mate, the Gripen was not selected for Switzerland on its merits, it was selected on cost. How do we know this? Well a simple review of the released evaluation shows us that the Gripen "did not meet the threshold of "meets minimum expected capabilities"" for every single mission capability set. What was the standard it was being measured against? F/A-18C already in Swiss service.

It fell short on Air Policing, Defensive Counter Air, OCA/AI/DA mission set, Reconnaissance and Air to ground strike. So in the original evaluation the Gripen fell short on every single mission set. But wait, even the upgraded proposed Gripen NG MS21 variant also fell short on every single capability mission set.

Why would the Swiss chose the Gripen when it fell so short against the other aircraft in the competition as well as against the standard for measuring its capability? Cost cost and nothing other than cost. In case you'd like to, the evaluation is available here, http://files.newsnetz.ch/upload//1/2/12332.pdf

keesje · Tue May 15, 2018 4:07 pm

ThePointblank wrote:
They lack the refinement in the man-machine interface and data collection and processing capabilities Western fighters have enjoyed for decades.

I see a lot of the pre occupied cold war generation classics coming by. Being there when things changed, I can tell you a different story. Shortly after the fall of the Iron curtain, the west (unified Germany) came into possession of MIG29A's and had a chance to check them out and verify the assumption made in fighter engagement guidelines. Those were not the most advanced Soviet variants. They included an inferior radar, limited navigation and communications equipment and a limited internal fuel range with no air-to-air refuelling capability. The "export versions" the Russian always kept the best for themselves.

Still, direct engagements trails / tests proved a cold shower for NATO. The MIG29's vector queuing helmets & Vympels proved lethal. The rules of engagement of e.g. 4 F16s approaching 4 MIG29 were rapidly "upgraded" from tactical maneuvers into "back-off, come back another day". And AIM-9X was pressed into production.

Another eye opener was the approach of our AWACS coordinated air defense system. They knew where they where all the time. Their mission #1 was, to send in a line of MIG23's as low and fast as possible, pull up and offload a cloud of AAM towards the AWACS. In simulations it became clear some of the MIG23's would probably have been intercepted by fighters & SAM's.. and our crucial AWACS controls centers would have been toast within 20 minutes.

rheinwaldner · Tue May 15, 2018 4:50 pm

Ozair wrote:
rheinwaldner wrote:
Ozair wrote:
There is a reason the Gripen has never won a competition on its own merits

Your conclusion about Gripen can't have much merits if your starting point is so unqualified...

Merits = capability per price point.

Which Gripen export did not happen based on merits? I know for a fact, that the Gripen was selected based on merits in Switzerland.

No mate, the Gripen was not selected for Switzerland on its merits, it was selected on cost. How do we know this? Well a simple review of the released evaluation shows us that the Gripen "did not meet the threshold of "meets minimum expected capabilities"" for every single mission capability set.

Oh dear, you are making beginners mistakes. Too bad you missed the end of the story. That report is and was outdated and represents not the final results that lead to the Gripen selection. In that report a vaguely defined version of the Gripen E/F was considered. The final scores from 2012 are in public too and prove that you are wrong. The Gripen did win on merits. So please adjust your anti-Gripen rhetoric for the next time.

Anyway you still miss the proper definition of wining on merits. Merits are relevant in relation to the price. The number of Rafales Switzerland would have gotten for the budget (that politically had a chance in the public vote) would not have offered more capabilities than the number of Gripens, that could be acquired by the same budget.

So beside the fact, that you are principally wrong (Gripen has won based on merits at least in Switzerland) I even challenge you to present any Gripen export, where the Gripen has not won based on merits.

Ozair · Tue May 15, 2018 10:14 pm

rheinwaldner wrote:
Oh dear, you are making beginners mistakes. Too bad you missed the end of the story. That report is and was outdated and represents not the final results that lead to the Gripen selection. In that report a vaguely defined version of the Gripen E/F was considered. The final scores from 2012 are in public too and prove that you are wrong. The Gripen did win on merits. So please adjust your anti-Gripen rhetoric for the next time.

Rheinwaldner, please provide said final scores if you think they exist. I have provided source evidence to support my claims. Please do so to support yours.

As for your claim, no it doesn’t exist. The following article, written in 2013, provides a clear understanding of how the competition was conducted and over what period. One of the highlights of the article.

As for the Gripen, Saab told the Swiss that it had scheduled 98 upgrade items for the MS21 version of 2015, including AESA radar and infrared search and track. But these were not enough to push the Swedish jet above the MEC level in any of the five roles. The November 2009 report therefore recommended the Rafale as the New Fighter Aircraft.

https://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news ... ning-point

rheinwaldner wrote:
Anyway you still miss the proper definition of wining on merits. Merits are relevant in relation to the price.

Only in the definition you decided to inject in an earlier reply. If I go to any online dictionary I get the following descriptions for merit
“the quality of being particularly good or worthy, especially so as to deserve praise or reward.”
“the quality of being good and deserving to be praised or rewarded, or an advantage that something has”
“to deserve something”
“the advantages something has compared to something else”

If we take that further and consider the phrase on your own merits, which is essentially the reference for what I stated, we have the following definition,
“according to the qualities you have or have shown, without considering any other information or comparing you to someone else”

rheinwaldner wrote:
The number of Rafales Switzerland would have gotten for the budget (that politically had a chance in the public vote) would not have offered more capabilities than the number of Gripens, that could be acquired by the same budget.

No, given the Gripen couldn’t accomplish the actual required missions sets including air policing, the conclusion you draw there is invalid. If Gripen couldn’t conduct the air policing mission but the Rafale could, the extra Gripen the Swiss could have had over the Rafale does not suddenly make it capable of completing the mission.

Do you know why it failed in air policing for instance? It ran out of fuel… The jet did not have sufficient fuel, and could not fly at sufficient speed with a minimal load out to meet the timeframe required for the air policing mission.

rheinwaldner wrote:
So beside the fact, that you are principally wrong (Gripen has won based on merits at least in Switzerland)

No, I think what I have provided demonstrates quite clearly that the Gripen was not the best selection for Switzerland and that the selection was based almost exclusively on the cost of the airframe and not on the capability.

rheinwaldner wrote:
I even challenge you to present any Gripen export, where the Gripen has not won based on merits.

Thailand – Sole source. They wanted to diversify away from the F-16 that dominates their fighter fleet numbers for political reasons.

South Africa – Sole sourced bribery - https://sites.tufts.edu/corruptarmsdeal ... arms-deal/

Brazil – Political choice after US NSA scandal

The National Security Agency scandal directly affected a Brazilian government decision to award a multibillion-dollar defence contract to Sweden's Saab over US company Boeing, analysts have said.
Brazilian president Dilma Rousseff awarded Saab the $4.5bn (£2.7bn) contract for 36 Gripen NG fighter jets for its its Air Force.
"Dilma had been favouring the Boeing plane and a lot of people thought she would announce her decision during her state visit to Washington," said David Fleischer, a political scientist at the University of Brasilia. "Boeing was very close, but then the NSA booted them out of the air."
Rousseff's visit was cancelled, after leaks by NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden alleged that the US spied on Brazilian officials, including her and state-run oil company Petrobras.
The revelation made it politically impossible for Rousseff to go with Boeing, said Carl Meacham, director of the Americas programme at the Washington-based Center for Strategic and International Studies.

https://www.ibtimes.co.uk/brazil-choose ... al-1429662

Czech Republic – No final evaluation of contenders took place, the decision was made primarily on economic offsets and financing arrangements

Hungary – Was going to select F-16s until Sweden offered a generous offset and lease deal. The capability of the airframe had nothing to do with it, and actually delayed the signing of the deal because the initially offered A version was not capable enough.

Rheinwaldner I have no dislike for the Gripen but I see it for what it is, a small lightweight fighter. The Gripen E will bring new capabilities to the airframe but that comes at a cost, with the Gripen E increasing in empty weight by nearly 15% from conception to first flight and the price increasing significantly.

ThePointblank · Wed May 16, 2018 1:39 am

keesje wrote:
ThePointblank wrote:
They lack the refinement in the man-machine interface and data collection and processing capabilities Western fighters have enjoyed for decades.

I see a lot of the pre occupied cold war generation classics coming by. Being there when things changed, I can tell you a different story. Shortly after the fall of the Iron curtain, the west (unified Germany) came into possession of MIG29A's and had a chance to check them out and verify the assumption made in fighter engagement guidelines. Those were not the most advanced Soviet variants. They included an inferior radar, limited navigation and communications equipment and a limited internal fuel range with no air-to-air refuelling capability. The "export versions" the Russian always kept the best for themselves.

Still, direct engagements trails / tests proved a cold shower for NATO. The MIG29's vector queuing helmets & Vympels proved lethal. The rules of engagement of e.g. 4 F16s approaching 4 MIG29 were rapidly "upgraded" from tactical maneuvers into "back-off, come back another day". And AIM-9X was pressed into production.

Another eye opener was the approach of our AWACS coordinated air defense system. They knew where they where all the time. Their mission #1 was, to send in a line of MIG23's as low and fast as possible, pull up and offload a cloud of AAM towards the AWACS. In simulations it became clear some of the MIG23's would probably have been intercepted by fighters & SAM's.. and our crucial AWACS controls centers would have been toast within 20 minutes.

Pay attention to what the Russians are claiming in the Su-57 versus the F-22 and the F-35 in the avionics department, in particular, the sensor processing area and sensor fusion.

The level of information available to F-22 pilot is vastly superior to that of any other aircraft besides F-35. F-22’s design gave emphasis on sensor fusion and deep integration since beginning. The F-35 takes that to another level, adding more sensors and data links to the mix. There’s more to it than combining data from different sensors on a single display; the avionics need to also make sense of the raw information coming in, correlate it with information coming in elsewhere, and then present that to the pilot in a way that is easy to read and understand.

Remember, it was noted that a key factor that has been observed in the past few decades is that many pilots that get shot down are actually unaware of the attack until they’re struck. In the 1970's, when gun combat and rear-aspect missiles still reigned supreme, the US Air Force identified that out of 112 air-to-air engagements sampled, 80% of aircrew were unaware of the impending attack. The Russians still haven't learned this lesson well, as the Russians have not significantly upgraded the Su-57's missile warning and defense systems compared to previous legacy Russian jets; they are still using a UV based MAWS which have limited effectiveness and warning capability against longer ranged missiles until the missile is literally seconds out. The West have already moved on to using Infra-red based sensors, which can detect, track and classify threats from much greater ranges.

Also note that despite the Russians boasting of having a FLIR mounted in the nose of their aircraft, this technology isn't new, and that the systems they are using are decidedly dated against Western counterparts.

I will also point out that the Russians don't have a good domestic targeting pod; the best they were able to try is attempt to secure a license to produce a licensed copy of the French Damocles targeting pod; it should be noted that even at the time they were trying to a license, the Damocles targeting pod was already decidedly inferior compared to the Northrop Grumman/Rafael LITENING and the Lockheed Martin Sniper XR targeting pods.

TranscendZac · Wed May 16, 2018 1:53 am

To me, the Russians always have a ‘lipstick on a pig’ approach to their fighter jets. They bring them to airshows in the most stripped out configurations, do some impressive maneuvering, make bold claims against the West, and somehow they have the superior jet? Rubbish. The Su-57 is more of a 4.5 gen than a 5th gen. Quite honestly, if the F-18E had upgraded engines with thrust vectoring, it would be close to par with the Su-57. Forget comparisons between the F-22/F-35 and the Su-57. It isn’t in the same league in so many areas of design and tech implementation.

rheinwaldner · Wed May 16, 2018 7:00 am

Ozair wrote:
Rheinwaldner, please provide said final scores if you think they exist. I have provided source evidence to support my claims. Please do so to support yours.

https://www.handelszeitung.ch/unternehm ... -entscheid
Gripen final evaluation report:
- Operational effectiveness: 5.81
- Operational ability: 6.87
- Overall rating: 6.36

The beginner mistakes you are making are these:
- Your outdated report covers flight test with the D version in 2008 and very early 2009 offerings of the NG. But the decision was in 2011. The clarity of how capable the E/F would become have improved significantly in these two years. The finals scores are much better all across the criterias (see above) than in the outdated report.

- In the linked article there are e.g. these statements: in the early reports, the comparison was done for Gripen C/D. To judge Gripen NG only imaginary estimations were possible. Feedback about the ongoing development showed, that the estimations will be outclassed by the final product. The defence minister vehemently denied, that the ratings were whitewashed. The Gripen E/F met every requirements in its entirety.

- Also does the outdated report not present the full picture. It does not show the score about maintenance, noise, infrastructure at all.

So again, your basic claim is wrong.

Ozair wrote:
The following article, written in 2013, provides a clear understanding of how the competition was conducted and over what period. One of the highlights of the article.
As for the Gripen, Saab told the Swiss that it had scheduled 98 upgrade items for the MS21 version of 2015, including AESA radar and infrared search and track. But these were not enough to push the Swedish jet above the MEC level in any of the five roles. The November 2009 report therefore recommended the Rafale as the New Fighter Aircraft.

https://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news ... ning-point

This quote just repeats the same outdated and uninformed conclusions that were already in the 2009 reports.

Ozair · Wed May 16, 2018 11:55 am

rheinwaldner wrote:
Ozair wrote:
Rheinwaldner, please provide said final scores if you think they exist. I have provided source evidence to support my claims. Please do so to support yours.

https://www.handelszeitung.ch/unternehm ... -entscheid
Gripen final evaluation report:
- Operational effectiveness: 5.81
- Operational ability: 6.87
- Overall rating: 6.36

Thank you. It is nice to have the numbers and given the obscurity of the reference and my lack of German I hadn't seen it. But...

I still don't agree with the assessment. The timing is off and the ability of the Swiss to up the ranking based on some more powerpoint slides, which in 2011/12 was all the Girpen E was, is suspect. Appreciate Saab knew more details but with hindsight the development of the E model to date has shown how off those assessments were.

I am happy to acknowledge the updated numbers although the irony of the whole process is obviously there is still no Gripen in Swiss service and the competition is being restarted. Will be interesting to see what the new evaluation presents on findings.

keesje · Wed May 16, 2018 8:23 pm

Stealth aircraft have significantly reduced radar signatures from the side and rear aspect, if designed correctly. They also must be manufactured carefully as well to exacting tolerances, and all indications is that the Russians struggle mightily in getting tolerances perfect

Because you can spot some spaces on photos? Get real, these are the guys that have been putting space stations in orbit for decades..

Ozair · Wed May 16, 2018 9:39 pm

keesje wrote:

Because you can spot some spaces on photos? Get real, these are the guys that have been putting space stations in orbit for decades..

What do space stations have to do with designing stealth aircraft?

ThePointblank · Thu May 17, 2018 3:07 am

keesje wrote:
Stealth aircraft have significantly reduced radar signatures from the side and rear aspect, if designed correctly. They also must be manufactured carefully as well to exacting tolerances, and all indications is that the Russians struggle mightily in getting tolerances perfect

Because you can spot some spaces on photos? Get real, these are the guys that have been putting space stations in orbit for decades..

The Russians have not shown good quality control on the Su-57, nor have paid attention to the fine details.

Look at every other stealth aircraft out there; do you see large gaping gaps? Misaligned panels? Exposed rivets? How about that IRST that's sticking out on the nose, that isn't properly shaped for low observability? How about the exposed engine blades from the front?

How are the Russians fitting the various sections of the Su-57 together? It looks mostly hand-done; not good for solid quality control and perfect alignment of panels.

Are the Russians hand-painting their aircraft? The paint jobs that we do see appear fairly crude and it’s very diversity of colour patterning means it’s going to be subject to divergent thermal as well as RF behaviours, due to the size of pigment balls.

How about the design tolerances of the various sections?

Compare that to the construction of the F-35; they are using laser alignment techniques, coupled to indoor GPS using a computer controlled robotic mating system to assemble the F-35 components together. The entire aircraft is painted using a specialized robot which uses lasers and optical scanners to check paint thickness. LM also has patented a unique laser ablation system to clean every nut that goes into the F-35 to pristine condition and tolerance.

Getting the basic shape to achieve some level of low observability is easy; it's the very fine details that can cause significant reductions in the aircraft's radar signature. The Russians haven't demonstrated that capability. Even the Chinese have managed to figure this out... their aircraft looks far more refined in terms of the small details.

TranscendZac · Thu May 17, 2018 3:16 am

ThePointblank wrote:
keesje wrote:
Stealth aircraft have significantly reduced radar signatures from the side and rear aspect, if designed correctly. They also must be manufactured carefully as well to exacting tolerances, and all indications is that the Russians struggle mightily in getting tolerances perfect

Because you can spot some spaces on photos? Get real, these are the guys that have been putting space stations in orbit for decades..

The Russians have not shown good quality control on the Su-57, nor have paid attention to the fine details.

Look at every other stealth aircraft out there; do you see large gaping gaps? Misaligned panels? Exposed rivets? How about that IRST that's sticking out on the nose, that isn't properly shaped for low observability? How about the exposed engine blades from the front?

How are the Russians fitting the various sections of the Su-57 together? It looks mostly hand-done; not good for solid quality control and perfect alignment of panels.

Are the Russians hand-painting their aircraft? The paint jobs that we do see appear fairly crude and it’s very diversity of colour patterning means it’s going to be subject to divergent thermal as well as RF behaviours, due to the size of pigment balls.

How about the design tolerances of the various sections?

Compare that to the construction of the F-35; they are using laser alignment techniques, coupled to indoor GPS using a computer controlled robotic mating system to assemble the F-35 components together. The entire aircraft is painted using a specialized robot which uses lasers and optical scanners to check paint thickness. LM also has patented a unique laser ablation system to clean every nut that goes into the F-35 to pristine condition and tolerance.

Getting the basic shape to achieve some level of low observability is easy; it's the very fine details that can cause significant reductions in the aircraft's radar signature. The Russians haven't demonstrated that capability. Even the Chinese have managed to figure this out... their aircraft looks far more refined in terms of the small details.

Excellent post. In regard to the J-20, I don’t believe this aircraft is significantly stealth, at least not currently. Still flying with a very non stealth engine configuration and non stealth thrust vectoring set up. Nice aircraft, but certainly not in the same league as F-22 and F-35. I think the F-22 bashers on here seem to forget nothing anyone else has is as capable stealth wise as the F-22, and performance wise, and yet we have had the thing flying since the early 1990s. What exactly do these people think the US is currently working on that will replace the F-22? Lessons learned from it and the F-35, not to mention the B-21 program tech will be integrated, and likely already is in the active design studies of the 6th gen fighter. Interesting article that was on popular mechanics (certainly not a bastion of the latest military tech, but interesting info nonetheless).

https://www.popularmechanics.com/milita ... placement/

Slug71 · Thu May 17, 2018 5:35 am

TranscendZac wrote:
ThePointblank wrote:
The Russians have not shown good quality control on the Su-57, nor have paid attention to the fine details.

Look at every other stealth aircraft out there; do you see large gaping gaps? Misaligned panels? Exposed rivets? How about that IRST that's sticking out on the nose, that isn't properly shaped for low observability? How about the exposed engine blades from the front?

How are the Russians fitting the various sections of the Su-57 together? It looks mostly hand-done; not good for solid quality control and perfect alignment of panels.

Are the Russians hand-painting their aircraft? The paint jobs that we do see appear fairly crude and it’s very diversity of colour patterning means it’s going to be subject to divergent thermal as well as RF behaviours, due to the size of pigment balls.

How about the design tolerances of the various sections?

Compare that to the construction of the F-35; they are using laser alignment techniques, coupled to indoor GPS using a computer controlled robotic mating system to assemble the F-35 components together. The entire aircraft is painted using a specialized robot which uses lasers and optical scanners to check paint thickness. LM also has patented a unique laser ablation system to clean every nut that goes into the F-35 to pristine condition and tolerance.

Getting the basic shape to achieve some level of low observability is easy; it's the very fine details that can cause significant reductions in the aircraft's radar signature. The Russians haven't demonstrated that capability. Even the Chinese have managed to figure this out... their aircraft looks far more refined in terms of the small details.

Excellent post. In regard to the J-20, I don’t believe this aircraft is significantly stealth, at least not currently. Still flying with a very non stealth engine configuration and non stealth thrust vectoring set up. Nice aircraft, but certainly not in the same league as F-22 and F-35. I think the F-22 bashers on here seem to forget nothing anyone else has is as capable stealth wise as the F-22, and performance wise, and yet we have had the thing flying since the early 1990s. What exactly do these people think the US is currently working on that will replace the F-22? Lessons learned from it and the F-35, not to mention the B-21 program tech will be integrated, and likely already is in the active design studies of the 6th gen fighter. Interesting article that was on popular mechanics (certainly not a bastion of the latest military tech, but interesting info nonetheless).

https://www.popularmechanics.com/milita ... placement/

The US has always had the budgets to spend on research and development and design of their military projects. This is especially helpful when you do not have the technology like we have today. It's not so much that other countries don't have the ability to achieve the same. The Germans technically invented stealth in WW1 iirc. Many military vehicles are based off a design from little old South Africa.

Computers and software have come a long way since the F-22. Among everything else associated with the processes, including the sciences and chemistry. FAR better than what was used to design the F-22. This has both simplified and reduced costs on the R&D side for most part. Many things stay in constant development. The US maintains the edge there because of their budget. But most of the advantages the US gained through experience, is no longer the benefit it was. Most of the above mentioned advancements (like CAD and computing hardware) are available to just about any country. There is no doubt in my mind that the Chinese or Russia could develop a capable stealth fighter.

They did not just draw the aircraft on a napkin or doodle around on photoshop and pick a design. Their fighters also went through years of r&d, design, and testing. Never mind the expertise and billions that have been invested in their projects.
I'm curious on what evidence you guys base your (expert) opinions on? You seem to know more than these aircraft manufacturers do, despite their resources.

Another thing to consider, is that Sukhoi never designed the SU-57 to be as stealthy as the F-22. They've openly stated this and said they sacrificed some stealthy elements for maneuverability. The goal (ambitious or not), is for it to be on par with the F-35 when it reaches FOC. Which is not for a few years yet (at least until the id-30 is ready).
I've also read articles in the past that claimed the prototypes wouldn't wear any special paint due to cost and the non-importance during the early phases. Makes sense, and all indications point to them not even having a livery picked out yet, since its changed several times. The prototypes were assembled "by hand". It's been stated that the prototypes could have differences among each other due to data from test results. Possibly including any changes proposed by India's requests. Which may well still stand. As mentioned in another thread, even the early production frames might have changes over the prototypes. The aircraft is still essentially the T-50. Way too early to judge its capabilities and design.
A lot of the access panels have already been changed from square to jagged seams.

Heres a nice artist(by Dr.Snufflebug) rendition on another forum of a production SU-57 with the Izd.30 engines,

VSMUT · Thu May 17, 2018 9:08 am

ThePointblank wrote:
Compare that to the construction of the F-35; they are using laser alignment techniques, coupled to indoor GPS using a computer controlled robotic mating system to assemble the F-35 components together. The entire aircraft is painted using a specialized robot which uses lasers and optical scanners to check paint thickness. LM also has patented a unique laser ablation system to clean every nut that goes into the F-35 to pristine condition and tolerance.

Is that why they also made mistakes such as forgetting to paint the inside of holes that they drilled, causing corrosion?

ThePointblank wrote:
Getting the basic shape to achieve some level of low observability is easy; it's the very fine details that can cause significant reductions in the aircraft's radar signature. The Russians haven't demonstrated that capability. Even the Chinese have managed to figure this out... their aircraft looks far more refined in terms of the small details.

It's also the very fine details that cause the price to skyrocket.

2 points though:

1. For a defensive doctrine, they don't need all the fine details. The US F-22s and F-35s aren't going to come barging into Russian airspace with radars alight, so stealth is secondary.

2. We still haven't seen a final production variant, so any talk of ill-fitting panels (something I still don't see as being the case) and poor paint jobs is irrelevant. They were always planning, and did, do structural modifications to the prototypes. Why bother with expensive stealth coatings if you know that it will be ruined anyway? Thats Lockheed Martin levels of wastefulness.

keesje · Thu May 17, 2018 12:02 pm

At some point you have to ask yourself if the added value of details justify the costs.
If lobby's, industry, fear & patriotism allow to spend $60 Billion on 200 aircraft,
maybe there to an incentive to go for perfection, to harvest the budgets.

http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/why-america-simply-cant-build-anymore-f-22-raptors-21264

Maybe the time has come to start playing down the F22 a bit and talk up the J-20 and Su-57 to secure budgets.

keesje · Thu May 17, 2018 2:02 pm

I'm amazed by the two large side looking EASA antenna's on the sides of the Su-57 next to the big one in front. The amount of data that comes in from those and it's target acquisition, tracking and jamming capability must require huge computer and data integration power. Has this configuration been done before on fighter aircraft?

Btw I still remember looking at the huge Zaslon phased array radar of the MIG31 30+ years ago. Combined with equally huge missiles is was a kind of shock for the west. It was basically designed to take out B52's etc. above Siberia. That's why the Russians showed it off at the Paris Airshow in those cold war days.

sovietjet · Thu May 17, 2018 3:42 pm

ThePointblank wrote:
The Russians have not shown good quality control on the Su-57, nor have paid attention to the fine details.

Look at every other stealth aircraft out there; do you see large gaping gaps? Misaligned panels? Exposed rivets? How about that IRST that's sticking out on the nose, that isn't properly shaped for low observability? How about the exposed engine blades from the front?

How are the Russians fitting the various sections of the Su-57 together? It looks mostly hand-done; not good for solid quality control and perfect alignment of panels.

Are the Russians hand-painting their aircraft? The paint jobs that we do see appear fairly crude and it’s very diversity of colour patterning means it’s going to be subject to divergent thermal as well as RF behaviours, due to the size of pigment balls.

How about the design tolerances of the various sections?

Compare that to the construction of the F-35; they are using laser alignment techniques, coupled to indoor GPS using a computer controlled robotic mating system to assemble the F-35 components together. The entire aircraft is painted using a specialized robot which uses lasers and optical scanners to check paint thickness. LM also has patented a unique laser ablation system to clean every nut that goes into the F-35 to pristine condition and tolerance.

Getting the basic shape to achieve some level of low observability is easy; it's the very fine details that can cause significant reductions in the aircraft's radar signature. The Russians haven't demonstrated that capability. Even the Chinese have managed to figure this out... their aircraft looks far more refined in terms of the small details.

No offense, but this all sounds like uneducated hand waving conclusions. How close have you been to a T-50? About the only things I agree on is the IRST, they really should look into making it fit better into the airframe. The engine blades as well, although the rumor is they will have a "blocker" in place similar to how the Super Hornet does it.

Good quality control? What quality control? These are still prototypes, and as an engineer I can tell you the products I design do not go through quality control when they are still prototypes. Do you have access to Sukhoi's quality control plan? Do you know what their requirements are and if the prototypes have been built to it? No, you don't, and it's unlikely to matter for these jets. Once the Su-57 is in full production, then they will have proper quality control.

Large gaping gaps and misaligned panels? Please show me where. Did you take a micrometer and measure the gaps on it? How do you know? Do you have access to their drawings showing the GD&T and alignment tolerances? If so, I'd be really interested in seeing those. Oh yea, and I'll say it again, these are prototypes, not even pre-production yet.

Exposed rivets? Look at the F-22...

Hand done assembly? Of course it is! They are prototypes. Now, obviously during production, even on the F-35, there is still a lot of manual labor. But, we haven't actually seen anything regarding how the T-50/Su-57 will be assembled. I doubt they will have expensive indoor GPS and lasers, but who knows... there are many ways to make a pie.

Paint? You seem to know a lot about how they painted the current prototypes. Maybe you painted them? Pigment balls? What size are the pigments of the paint they use? I tried to figure it out from photos on a.net but the resolution just isn't high enough. Perhaps you know more. Let's not forget the paint on all of these is more for demo purposes. They are changing the paint schemes and panels on them all the time. What is the point of proper stealth coatings at this point?

I'll just leave this right here, and you can tell me all about exposed rivets, quality control, gaps, paint quality (some of it is even missing altogether), and etc...

My point with all of this, is that we should give the Su-57 the benefit of a doubt, because it is better to be prepared than to underestimate it. I seriously doubt the Russians are too stupid to design a stealth jet. They might not have the money for it, but I'd bet they know the way to do it.

rheinwaldner · Thu May 17, 2018 7:51 pm

Ozair wrote:
Thank you. It is nice to have the numbers and given the obscurity of the reference and my lack of German I hadn't seen it. But...

I still don't agree with the assessment. The timing is off and the ability of the Swiss to up the ranking based on some more powerpoint slides, which in 2011/12 was all the Girpen E was, is suspect. Appreciate Saab knew more details but with hindsight the development of the E model to date has shown how off those assessments were.

I am happy to acknowledge the updated numbers although the irony of the whole process is obviously there is still no Gripen in Swiss service and the competition is being restarted. Will be interesting to see what the new evaluation presents on findings.

You are right, to find these numbers was a real struggle. Even within the Swiss sources the official statements were hard to extract because of all the smoke and mirrors articles, that were pushed with a left-wing agenda.

On thing about the timing - if in the 2011 the Gripen E was still very much a Powerpoint-solution (and I can agree with that), how meaningful can then be the 2009 baseline of the evaluation? Surely not enough to judge about the Gripen Es merits.

And, if the Gripen E in 2011 was still very much a Powerpoint-solution, it means that Gripen E is a large leap forward vs Gripen Demo (= MS21 from the 2009 evaluation), which flew since 2008. And indeed, there are various indications, that the Gripen E is a big leap forward. One being, that the initial plan to build the Es from older Cs was shelved somewhere in between.

Ozair · Thu May 17, 2018 10:29 pm

rheinwaldner wrote:
On thing about the timing - if in the 2011 the Gripen E was still very much a Powerpoint-solution (and I can agree with that), how meaningful can then be the 2009 baseline of the evaluation? Surely not enough to judge about the Gripen Es merits.

Consider the differences between the MS21 Gripen NG offered in 2009 and that later update in 2011/12. What changed other than more clarification on a few of the internal systems such as the IRST and Radar? No change to the thrust, internal fuel and wingspan (at that time) and yet all of a sudden the jet now exceeds in areas it was clearly found wanting because of the indicated improvements…

rheinwaldner wrote:
And, if the Gripen E in 2011 was still very much a Powerpoint-solution, it means that Gripen E is a large leap forward vs Gripen Demo (= MS21 from the 2009 evaluation), which flew since 2008.

The Gripen E today is a reflection of promises unfulfilled. It increased in weight by nearly 15% since the initial NG and then E proposals with no corresponding increase in payload, fuel load or thrust. It therefore carries forward the same issues the C had of having to trade payload for range. That is why it hasn’t won a competition. When placed against the larger aircraft the marginal increase in costs of the competition are overbalanced by the payload/range/capability increase they offer.

rheinwaldner wrote:
And indeed, there are various indications, that the Gripen E is a big leap forward. One being, that the initial plan to build the Es from older Cs was shelved somewhere in between.

The decision on not using in service C aircraft to convert to E was due to availability reasons. Sweden wants to maintain the current fleet to the levels required and not lose numbers as airframes were cannibalised for parts.

This new contract means that the equipment that should be reused instead will be acquired new,” Saab said in a statement, adding; “This […] is intended to secure availability so that the Swedish Armed Forces can keep the Gripen C/D fleet in operational service while Gripen E is being delivered and put into operational service in the Swedish Air Force.”

http://www.janes.com/article/76467/grip ... nufactured
Noting the Swedes had already cannibalised two Gripen A to remanufacture to one Gripen C. Plus frankly it made no economic sense given how little was going to be used anyway.

According to the officials, the only items able to be cross-decked are the windscreen and canopy, the outer elevons, the ejection-seat, the internal gun and conveyor system, and some other ancillary equipment. As such, it was always the case that the original 2013 contracts would need to be amended to reflect this.

The cynic in me says the program moved forward on the prospect and sales pitch of remanufacture to reduce costs and slowly over time advocated the improvements and benefit of new build. Similar to the SH where the program was funded on the promise of commonality and reusability but in the end the aircraft are different with little hardware commonality.

It is now every bit a new build aircraft but a new build aircraft essentially without a market to sell to given the cost of the aircraft is little different to that of its competitors while being short of payload/range. Not everyone needs a medium or heavy fighter aircraft but the solution to that for many operators appears to be used F-16s and not Gripen C/Es, despite the marketing and internet fever that accompanies the Saab offering.

Ozair · Fri May 18, 2018 12:23 am

keesje wrote:
I'm amazed by the two large side looking EASA antenna's on the sides of the Su-57 next to the big one in front. The amount of data that comes in from those and it's target acquisition, tracking and jamming capability must require huge computer and data integration power. Has this configuration been done before on fighter aircraft?

Not on a fighter aircraft but the capability is limited to specific scenarios. The side arrays have a lot less TR modules than the frontal array and the purpose of them is to allow continual guidance of a missile while the aircraft is flying perpendicular to the threat. This in principal is a good idea against older aircraft but is unlikely to be effective against modern AESA radars and stealth aircraft for two reasons.

First the radar won’t provide enough energy on target to find a stealth aircraft.
Second, a beaming manoeuvre can be effective against Pulse Doppler radars (with a whole lot of assumptions). A truly modern AESA radar in a fighter jet is not using PD, it is FMCW, for a host of reasons that make it significantly more capable. We don’t have any information on whether Russia has gone to FMCW for their first AESA but the PESA’s appear to be PD. A FMCW is not imapcted by beaming if implemented correctly.

Finally, as per Slug’s post below consider the impact placing a radar head on the side of the aircraft does to RCS. There is a reason that US stealth fighters have their AESA panels aligned in the way they do as it results in reduced radar performance but improved RCS reduction.

Slug71 wrote:
Another thing to consider, is that Sukhoi never designed the SU-57 to be as stealthy as the F-22. They've openly stated this and said they sacrificed some stealthy elements for maneuverability. The goal (ambitious or not), is for it to be on par with the F-35 when it reaches FOC. Which is not for a few years yet (at least until the id-30 is ready).

This is the point that people keep forgetting. The Su-57 very likely did not have the requirement to meet F-22/35 RCS reduction, which as Slug said has been stated by Russia (the Russians believe the RCS of the Raptor if somewhere in the 0.1-0.5 region, not the 0.0001 figures the USAF indicates). For a host of reasons including cost, complexity and almost certainly a different set of base requirements that revolved around the compromises the designers had to make to meet them, the SU-57 appears to be meeting their requirements.

Within that context, the information coming out on the SU-57 has essentially dried up. Unlike the developments of the F-22 and F-35 we have essentially zero information on the requirements used to develop the jet, no idea of the budget spent to develop the jet and not a lot of insight into many of the systems that have been observed on the various prototype aircraft. We still haven’t seen any evidence the SU-57 has opened its weapons bays in flight and conducted any separation tests from them. We know it is waiting for a better engine, which has flown a couple of times but there is little information on when it will actually be present on production aircraft. We have little insight to overall production numbers and expectations other than Russia has ordered an initial twelve.

Therefore the ambiguity around the capabilities of the SU-57 isn’t surprising, we have about as much or less info on the J-20 and Russia and China are clearly not as open in the release of defence budgets and industrial development as the west.

The final thing to remember is that a 5th gen fighter is not just about stealth, much of the advance made sits within systems integration and the fusion of information to the pilot, and subsequently the ability of that pilot to share that information to his wingman and the battlespace. Russia has significantly lagged in data links and while they have come along recently I don’t believe they have yet attained western levels for force and information integration, at least in the air battle context. We also wouldn’t know if they have because the release of this info is so scarce.

keesje · Fri May 18, 2018 10:11 am

Where do you think this Su-57 might be superior to the F22?

The YF-22 is almost 30 years ago, time flies!

I always wonder what's so stealthy about the F22's huge tail.

Obviously it had to be so big at the time.

ThePointblank · Fri May 18, 2018 10:29 am

VSMUT wrote:
It's also the very fine details that cause the price to skyrocket.

2 points though:

1. For a defensive doctrine, they don't need all the fine details. The US F-22s and F-35s aren't going to come barging into Russian airspace with radars alight, so stealth is secondary.

2. We still haven't seen a final production variant, so any talk of ill-fitting panels (something I still don't see as being the case) and poor paint jobs is irrelevant. They were always planning, and did, do structural modifications to the prototypes. Why bother with expensive stealth coatings if you know that it will be ruined anyway? Thats Lockheed Martin levels of wastefulness.

1. It doesn't matter if you have an defensive or offensive doctrine for the aircraft.

Low observeability features enhance aircraft survivability. By achieving significant reductions in the aircraft's radar signature to, it reduces the ability of an opponent to detect you at range. The US Air Force uses the terminology “find, fix, track, target, engage, assess” (F2T2EA) to describe the kill chain. Successfully breaking the “kill chain” at just one point can result in mission success.

If you are fighting defensively, it means that if you have low observability features, you can dictate the terms of engagement against an opponent that doesn't have those features. You can pick and choose when to start the fight, and when to leave the fight at will. And if you have the ability to engage the enemy at the time and place of your choosing, you can also dictate the terms of the engagement and setup a scenario where you have the advantage in the fight.

2. We've seen the level of quality control coming out of Russia for their other combat aircraft.

Remember that the Algerians in the past made such a fuss, rejecting deliveries, followed by cancelling a purchase for MiG-29's in recent memory. One of the reasons cited was lack of quality control.

The Indians have complained about the quality control issues with their MiG-29K fleet, which has lead to poor serviceability rates.

Also, the Chinese in the past have rejected large numbers of Su-30MKK's over quality control issues. We've also heard that in regards to quality control comparing the Chinese to the Russians, it was noted by Russian technicians visiting China to look at Chinese license production of the Su-27, that the Chinese were putting together their copies of the Su-27 with better fit and finish than the Russians were, and made much more extensive use of composites in the airframe itself.

It’s important to use precision manufacturing, because if you get it wrong, you destroy the entire point of stealth. Getting the fine production quality details correct requires a fine level of manufacturing tolerances you have to aim for, and if you don’t have those, you’ve got a less effective stealth fighter.

Achieving a high level of engineering precision and tolerances also means you can achieve a very high production rate as you reduce the amount of rework required, and for those in the field, it means less time spent conducting maintenance because the technician in the field also doesn't have to spend time reworking spare parts to get them to fit. Less time spent on maintenance means higher availability in the field, which means a higher mission readiness rate. A higher mission readiness rate means that the commander of a squadron can be confident of taking more of of his aircraft into battle, at any rate, for any mission that's required.

VSMUT · Fri May 18, 2018 11:05 am

ThePointblank wrote:
1. It doesn't matter if you have an defensive or offensive doctrine for the aircraft.

It does matter. An active radar gives your location away thousands of kilometers away, regardless of how stealthy your aircraft is. A stealth aircraft can't use it's radar if it wants to remain stealthy, hence why it is almost completely useless in this scenario. The intruding aircraft won't be running into Russian airspace with active radars, and hence the Russians won't have to contend with avoiding US radars with expensive stealth technology.

ThePointblank wrote:
2. We've seen the level of quality control coming out of Russia for their other combat aircraft.

Remember that the Algerians in the past made such a fuss, rejecting deliveries, followed by cancelling a purchase for MiG-29's in recent memory. One of the reasons cited was lack of quality control.

The Indians have complained about the quality control issues with their MiG-29K fleet, which has lead to poor serviceability rates.

Also, the Chinese in the past have rejected large numbers of Su-30MKK's over quality control issues. We've also heard that in regards to quality control comparing the Chinese to the Russians, it was noted by Russian technicians visiting China to look at Chinese license production of the Su-27, that the Chinese were putting together their copies of the Su-27 with better fit and finish than the Russians were, and made much more extensive use of composites in the airframe itself.

1. Mikoyan is a shitty company not exactly known for quality. That is one reason why Sukhoi got the PAK-FA project - the same manufacturer that builds commercial aircraft to western standards. Coincidentally, the PAK-FA is built at the same factory that builds the SuperJet.

2. The Algerian MiG-29s didn't come with "quality defects". They were re-manufactured second-hand aircraft, and Algeria ordered newly-built ones. The entire ordeal led to several businessmen being jailed for fraud. That was why they were returned.

3. The Russian Flankers with worse quality than the Chinese were Su-27SKs/J-11s, not Su-30MKKs. This was 25 years ago, not relevant today. In fact, Russian quality today is good enough that Airbus sources components from several Russian aerospace companies.

You still haven't provided a single shred of evidence that the PAK-FA is of "bad quality". You only point to examples of other aircraft a long time ago, and other manufacturers that aren't even involved.

ThePointblank · Fri May 18, 2018 11:55 am

VSMUT wrote:

It does matter. An active radar gives your location away thousands of kilometers away, regardless of how stealthy your aircraft is. A stealth aircraft can't use it's radar if it wants to remain stealthy, hence why it is almost completely useless in this scenario. The intruding aircraft won't be running into Russian airspace with active radars, and hence the Russians won't have to contend with avoiding US radars with expensive stealth technology.

Not if you are using a radar that has LPI...

Also, the very networked nature of US aircraft means that they can use tactics, such as having one aircraft scan the air space, while the other aircraft fly nearby passively, using targeting information being provided by both onboard passive sensors, and datalinks.

VSMUT wrote:
3. The Russian Flankers with worse quality than the Chinese were Su-27SKs/J-11s, not Su-30MKKs. This was 25 years ago, not relevant today. In fact, Russian quality today is good enough that Airbus sources components from several Russian aerospace companies.

You still haven't provided a single shred of evidence that the PAK-FA is of "bad quality". You only point to examples of other aircraft a long time ago, and other manufacturers that aren't even involved.

These were Su-30MK2's, which were manufactured by KnAAPO. The Chinese rejected a number of them, and the Russians resold the rejected aircraft after reworking them to Venezuela.

This can most easily be seen by looking at the delivery timeframes; there is literally no way KnAAPO could have been able to deliver aircraft the very same year the contract was signed, let alone deliver 10 aircraft within a year of the order being signed at the rate of production the factory was capable of. Even more evidence is that the remaining 14 aircraft were only delivered 2 years after the order was placed, which is in line with generally expected lead times for a number of critical aircraft components. If you looked at the other export orders, you will see that deliveries usually take place at around the 2 year mark after contract signature.

keesje · Fri May 18, 2018 4:38 pm

Using radar is something that makes you visible. Maybe one of the platforms is less dependent on using it's radar for some missions.

jupiter2 · Fri May 18, 2018 9:16 pm

Why do certain posters on this forum believe that it would be Russia being the defending nation in any conflict ?

Since when has NATO, or any Western nation shown any inclination to invade Russia ? The whole purpose of NATO is that it provides a united defensive front against potential adversaries, of which there is realistically only one, Russia, or historically, the former Soviet Union. I could undertsand Russian natives of possibly believing such a scenario, it seems to have been resurrected by the current political leadership to build their profile at home by seemingly standing up to evil west, but there has been no such sign from the west. The only thing that NATO has done is reinforce defensive positions in former eastern bloc countries, which are now members of NATO and our themselves concerned aboout a possible engagement against an increasingly hostile and beligerent Russia.

Simply put, Western nations, NATO, have nothing to gain from a war with Russia and only contemplate a defensive engagement against a Russian agressor. Nobody would be a "winner" and there appears only one nation developing enhanced dooms day weapons (as if convential nukes aren't bad enough) and publically showing them off. These actions only encourage western nations to develop similar weapons or been seen as having a tactical disadvantage. Another arms race isn't required and only hightens the already strained relations between Moscow and the west.

ThePointblank · Sat May 19, 2018 2:21 am

keesje wrote:
Using radar is something that makes you visible. Maybe one of the platforms is less dependent on using it's radar for some missions.

Unless your radar is LPI and frequency agile, which significantly reduces the ability of passive sensors to detect emissions by masking the radar's emissions in the background noise.

Balerit · Sat May 19, 2018 1:12 pm

jupiter2 wrote:
Why do certain posters on this forum believe that it would be Russia being the defending nation in any conflict ?

Since when has NATO, or any Western nation shown any inclination to invade Russia ? The whole purpose of NATO is that it provides a united defensive front against potential adversaries, of which there is realistically only one, Russia, or historically, the former Soviet Union. I could undertsand Russian natives of possibly believing such a scenario, it seems to have been resurrected by the current political leadership to build their profile at home by seemingly standing up to evil west, but there has been no such sign from the west. The only thing that NATO has done is reinforce defensive positions in former eastern bloc countries, which are now members of NATO and our themselves concerned aboout a possible engagement against an increasingly hostile and beligerent Russia.

Simply put, Western nations, NATO, have nothing to gain from a war with Russia and only contemplate a defensive engagement against a Russian agressor. Nobody would be a "winner" and there appears only one nation developing enhanced dooms day weapons (as if convential nukes aren't bad enough) and publically showing them off. These actions only encourage western nations to develop similar weapons or been seen as having a tactical disadvantage. Another arms race isn't required and only hightens the already strained relations between Moscow and the west.

Where have you been for the last 20 years and you obviously didn't take history at school? Have you not heard of Napoleon or Hitler and Sweden under Carolus Rex, all in different eras, each little over a century apart. Carolus was in the Great Northern War in the early 1700's, Bonaparte during the early 1800s, and Hitler in the mid 1900s.

Nato has encircled Russia completely and even has warships in the Black Sea. When last did Russia try surrounding America? This has to be the most outlandish post that I've read in a long time.

Ozair · Sat May 19, 2018 9:40 pm

keesje wrote:
Where do you think this Su-57 might be superior to the F22?

I'm not sure much is. Some areas may be comparable but again this comes down to the issue of cost. The SU-57 appears to have grabbed all the stealth low hanging fruit but not taken the refinement to the level of F-22/35 and it is that last 20% that gives you the additional order of magnitude reductions. To do that though obviously doesn't come cheap, as you pointed out earlier, the F-22 had a development program that, including post FOC work, is well above US$35 billion. Has Russia spent that much, half that much, even a third that much, we just don't know? While cost is not easy to compare across countries and programs some lessons need to be paid for, you can't gain that knowledge through espionage or visual comparison, it has to be learnt, developed and incorporated.

keesje wrote:
I always wonder what's so stealthy about the F22's huge tail.

Obviously it had to be so big at the time.

Well that is the YF-22 tail and the size is primarily due to maneuverability. It wasn't necessarily a "have to do at the time" decision, just a design compromise that every fighter aircraft design has to make.

The F-22 tail is smaller, 20% less area, than the YF-22 while the vertical stabilizers are angled intentionally to reduce RCS, use rudders instead of all moving and the height improves high AoA control ability. The SU-57 has smaller vertical stabilizers that are all moving and also compensates with the levcons. I'm not convinced yet the levcons are a good idea for RCS reduction but may be necessary to balance out the smaller vertical stabilizers. I'm also not sure yet how the levcons impact high AoA maneuverability.

keesje · Sat May 19, 2018 11:16 pm

Ozair wrote:
keesje wrote:
Where do you think this Su-57 might be superior to the F22?

I'm not sure much is. Some areas may be comparable but again this comes down to the issue of cost. The SU-57 appears to have grabbed all the stealth low hanging fruit but not taken the refinement to the level of F-22/35 and it is that last 20% that gives you the additional order of magnitude reductions. To do that though obviously doesn't come cheap, as you pointed out earlier, the F-22 had a development program that, including post FOC work, is well above US$35 billion. Has Russia spent that much, half that much, even a third that much, we just don't know? While cost is not easy to compare across countries and programs some lessons need to be paid for, you can't gain that knowledge through espionage or visual comparison, it has to be learnt, developed and incorporated.

keesje wrote:
I always wonder what's so stealthy about the F22's huge tail.

Obviously it had to be so big at the time.

Well that is the YF-22 tail and the size is primarily due to maneuverability. It wasn't necessarily a "have to do at the time" decision, just a design compromise that every fighter aircraft design has to make.

The F-22 tail is smaller, 20% less area, than the YF-22 while the vertical stabilizers are angled intentionally to reduce RCS, use rudders instead of all moving and the height improves high AoA control ability. The SU-57 has smaller vertical stabilizers that are all moving and also compensates with the levcons. I'm not convinced yet the levcons are a good idea for RCS reduction but may be necessary to balance out the smaller vertical stabilizers. I'm also not sure yet how the levcons impact high AoA maneuverability.

Interesting. Maybe the 3D vectoring engines of the SU-57 eliminate the need for large vertical stabilizers. I think you don't have to be a specialist to understand one would like them to be as small as possible from a RCS perspective. Su-57 directional control seems ok, even at very low speed and AoO of 90 degrees. https://youtu.be/_9Rrim49lFM

jupiter2 · Sat May 19, 2018 11:36 pm

Balerit wrote:
jupiter2 wrote:
Why do certain posters on this forum believe that it would be Russia being the defending nation in any conflict ?

Since when has NATO, or any Western nation shown any inclination to invade Russia ? The whole purpose of NATO is that it provides a united defensive front against potential adversaries, of which there is realistically only one, Russia, or historically, the former Soviet Union. I could undertsand Russian natives of possibly believing such a scenario, it seems to have been resurrected by the current political leadership to build their profile at home by seemingly standing up to evil west, but there has been no such sign from the west. The only thing that NATO has done is reinforce defensive positions in former eastern bloc countries, which are now members of NATO and our themselves concerned aboout a possible engagement against an increasingly hostile and beligerent Russia.

Simply put, Western nations, NATO, have nothing to gain from a war with Russia and only contemplate a defensive engagement against a Russian agressor. Nobody would be a "winner" and there appears only one nation developing enhanced dooms day weapons (as if convential nukes aren't bad enough) and publically showing them off. These actions only encourage western nations to develop similar weapons or been seen as having a tactical disadvantage. Another arms race isn't required and only hightens the already strained relations between Moscow and the west.

Where have you been for the last 20 years and you obviously didn't take history at school? Have you not heard of Napoleon or Hitler and Sweden under Carolus Rex, all in different eras, each little over a century apart. Carolus was in the Great Northern War in the early 1700's, Bonaparte during the early 1800s, and Hitler in the mid 1900s.

Nato has encircled Russia completely and even has warships in the Black Sea. When last did Russia try surrounding America? This has to be the most outlandish post that I've read in a long time.

How has NATO have Russia encircled ? Is NATO prominent in the "Stans", Mongolia, China, North Korea, along the Pacific and Artic coasts ? Do you think there aren't Russian subs on both coasts of the U.S. or along the Atlantic coast of Europe, Mediterranean Sea, or the Black Sea ?

Has NATO invaded any Russian territory, or directly threatened Russia with openly offensive measures ? Did Russia not invade Georgia as a precursor to stop Georgia from joining NATO ? Did Russia annex Crimea from Ukraine and then directly support with arms and personnel fighting against Ukranian forces defending Ukranian soil. This because the Ukranian people ousted the pro Russian leader and replaced him with a leader who was more aligned with the west, as the people wanted ? Then those pro Russian forces shot down MH17 with a Russian missile.

The deterioration of E.U./NATO/U.S.A. and Russian relations has only started since the Russian aggression in Georgia and has steadily gone down hill the longer Putin has been in power. It would seem that Putin had a "Make Russia great again" agenda, be it through the military, political influence, propaganda, silencing your domestic enemies, it seems to be whatever it takes and the further he goes, the further Russia seems to be drifting back to the days of the U.S.S.R. without the smaller nations making the Union. This is precisely why most of the former Eastern Bloc countries joined NATO, to prevent Russia from once again ruling them from Moscow and to have their own freedom.

It is precisely why Russia developed the weapons they showed off recently, they aren't defensive weapons, they are all first strike weapons. Weren't the nukes everyone had before enough to wipe everyone out good enough ?

As for the SU-57, it looks the goods as most Russian aircraft do, but it seems it's the details that leave it trailing a bit behind.

Ozair · Sun May 20, 2018 2:44 am

keesje wrote:
Interesting. Maybe the 3D vectoring engines of the SU-57 eliminate the need for large vertical stabilizers.

Probably and as already indicated that is a design compromise. You potentially gain some maneuverability but you increase weight, offset the centre of gravity and increase maintenance costs.

keesje wrote:
I think you don't have to be a specialist to understand one would like them to be as small as possible from a RCS perspective.

Not really. If the whole panel is deflected at an angle, and that matches to the planform of the rest of the jet, what difference does it make what size it is? Remember that planform design is not about reducing reflections to zero but about directing energy to specific known directions.

keesje wrote:
Su-57 directional control seems ok, even at very low speed and AoO of 90 degrees. https://youtu.be/_9Rrim49lFM

Don't confuse air show stunts with actual operational performance. There is a big difference between the two including the configuration and relaxation of the FCS to accomplish those maneuvers, maneuvers which are tactically essentially useless.

Who is online

Popular Searches On Airliners.net