Regardless of how you feel about the plane, it sure does nice demonstrations. The conditions seemed perfect too.

https://youtu.be/47YW7IMl9Og

Ozair wrote:

What changed other than more clarification on a few of the internal systems such as the IRST and Radar?

A lot, considering "that in 2011/12 all that the Girpen E was some more powerpoint slides"....

But ok, we understand that in Ozair´s Air Force the Gripen would not be selected based on merits...

But that was not your claim. You said, that nobody selected it based on merits. And that is wrong. The quotes from the most qualified persons are in this thread, that show for the Swiss it met the requirements and offered the best package.

Also, you have to say, that in cases where no other aircraft was even considered, simply the merits of the Gripen deal must have been so overwhelming, that no other guy was considered from the start.

ThePointblank wrote:

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

Emissions are detectable, no matter how many abbreviations you add to them. All it takes is computing power, and we know for a certain that the Russians (among others) have worked on this.

ThePointblank wrote:

These were Su-30MK2's, which were manufactured by KnAAPO. The Chinese rejected a number of them

There is not a single trace of this on the internet. Are you just making stuff up now? Again, how much does Lockheed Martin pay you? Obviously too much. Reminds me of that one time you posted a photo of a dusty and very clearly disused static test facility and claimed that it was the Sukhoi assembly line

ThePointblank wrote:

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.

China themselves received their own Su-30MKKs under a similar timeframe. It is Lockheed Martin that is unique in being too incompetent to deliver aircraft within a decade, not the Russians in being able to deliver with a few years.

The initial Su-30MKK deal for the PLAAF was signed in late 1999, with the first aircraft flying the same month, and the first 10 being delivered by the end of 2000. The entire batch of 38 aircraft was delivered by the end of 2001. A follow-up order for 24 Su-30MK2s for the PLANAF was placed in 2003, with all having been delivered by the end of 2004. Uganda ordered and received theirs in under 12 months.

The only aircraft to be returned were the 18 original interim Su-30K and Su-30MKs delivered to India.

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?

Since when have ground based SAM systems and jammers, and river patrol corvettes been offensive weapons? Have you noted how NATO has beefed up on offensive stealth capabilities and cruise missiles, and kept invading sovereign nations since 1991? Which alliance has 35 distinctly offensive aircraft carriers, including 11 super carriers?

It matters not what the reason was, or if said invasions were legitimate. What matters is what the Russians see, and for the past 15 years they have seen practically nothing but an aggressive NATO/US that has been encroaching on their interests. The weapons they developed in response clearly reflect an attempt at deterring the west's greatest strengths in an offensive action against Russia.

rheinwaldner wrote:

But that was not your claim. You said, that nobody selected it based on merits. And that is wrong.

Let us be clear on what each of us wrote. I said

Ozair wrote:

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

You said,

rheinwaldner wrote:

Merits = capability per price point.

To which I disagreed. Merit is not about price and never has been about price. Merit as I clearly indicated is about capability.

rheinwaldner wrote:

The quotes from the most qualified persons are in this thread, that show for the Swiss it met the requirements and offered the best package.

Not quite. It clearly wasn’t the best package. It was the cheapest package and we need to be clear that cost overrode every other consideration in this deal.

To demonstrate this,

The parliamentary security commission found that the "choice of jet made by the Federal Council carries the most risks: technically, commercially, financially and in respect of the delivery date", Swiss news agency ATS reported.

https://www.expatica.com/ch/news/countr ... 52430.html

We see that the Gripen was chosen even though it had the most risks. You cannot claim that it was the best package when it clearly demonstrated the most risk of the candidates as found by a Swiss Parliamentary security commission.

Later in the same article we see the actual reason the Gripen was selected,

The purchase price -- 3.126 billion francs (2.6 million euros, $3.25 billion) -- was guaranteed not to change, he said, adding that the Gripen "was the cheapest" option compared with the French Dassault Rafale and the EADS Eurofighter.

Let us be clear then shall we. The Gripen was not the most capable candidate of the three options. We know this for a fact given even with the adjusted rankings it did not beat all contenders. It did not have the lowest risk of the three candidates, very clear from the statement made above, but it was within the budget the Swiss could afford. It is very clear why it was chosen and the merit of the platform had nothing to do with it, just the price.

rheinwaldner wrote:

Also, you have to say, that in cases where no other aircraft was even considered, simply the merits of the Gripen deal must have been so overwhelming, that no other guy was considered from the start.

You are simply glossing over the facts of those procurements that I have already provided. You also know that of the only three, excluding leases, procurements that have occurred for Gripen two were sole sourced (one of which involved clear and convicted bribery) and one was a contentious decision that still keeps surfacing amid bribery claims.

VSMUT wrote:

Emissions are detectable, no matter how many abbreviations you add to them. All it takes is computing power, and we know for a certain that the Russians (among others) have worked on this.

The Russians have not demonstrated the ability to produce a radar that's capable of LPI. Most of the currently available receivers using conventional interception techniques can not efficiently detect and identify LPI radars. These radars have the ability to vary power output, utilize a wide operational bandwidth, frequency agility, antenna side lobe reduction, and advanced scan patterns to effectively hide their emissions in the background radiation clutter; at best, most of the currently available radar receivers may only detect a LPI radar when the emitter is almost right on top of them; that's not good news for the receiver if the emitter is that close to them.

A radar receiver capable of detecting a LPI radar at any reasonable distance must have extremely large processing gain because of the wideband nature of LPI radars. Furthermore, detection may only be possible if the receiver can monitor the emissions for extended periods, and if the receiver can distinguish between a LPI radar's emissions and emissions from other emitters in the area.

This paper explains some of the technical challenges a radar receiver must face when trying to detect and jam LPI radar:

http://cradpdf.drdc-rddc.gc.ca/PDFS/unc ... 98_A1b.pdf

VSMUT wrote:

China themselves received their own Su-30MKKs under a similar timeframe. It is Lockheed Martin that is unique in being too incompetent to deliver aircraft within a decade, not the Russians in being able to deliver with a few years.

The initial Su-30MKK deal for the PLAAF was signed in late 1999, with the first aircraft flying the same month, and the first 10 being delivered by the end of 2000. The entire batch of 38 aircraft was delivered by the end of 2001. A follow-up order for 24 Su-30MK2s for the PLANAF was placed in 2003, with all having been delivered by the end of 2004. Uganda ordered and received theirs in under 12 months.

The only aircraft to be returned were the 18 original interim Su-30K and Su-30MKs delivered to India.

You got your time frames wrong.

The Chinese and the Russians signed the initial deal back in 1996, with technical discussions about the specifications occurring afterwords.

It was only until 1998 was a final contract was settled, hammering out the final details of the contract. The official contract was signed in 1999, with an initial prototype flying shortly afterwords.

Look at how aircraft are produced; there are a number of key components on an airplane that are considered long-term lead items, meaning that the vendor or manufacturer of that item needs considerable notice in order to produce the item; depending on the item, it could be anywhere up to a year and a half to do so, with the usual culprits being the landing gear assembly, avionics, and engines, and that's considered fairly short notice; 2 years is the usual notice period in order to secure good pricing on those items. If you want to expedite production of a long term lead item, be prepared to pay very steep expediting fees... and you may only be able to shave a few months off the notice period...

If you have aircraft that's being constantly produced, and there's plenty of demand, this isn't much of an issue as the backlog of orders will be greater than the lead times for components, allowing them to build the aircraft to order.

I don't see how the Russians can produce aircraft any faster than the West can, especially with the state of Russian aircraft manufacturing over the past two decades. Unless the Russians can forge a landing gear casting or a engine casing faster than the West can (doubtful), it is more likely that the Russians just have aircraft sitting at their factories in either an incomplete state waiting for a customer, or they have a number of rejected airframes for them to rework and fix.

This study talks about the impact of long-term lead items, and how it impacts production of aircraft:
https://dspace.mit.edu/bitstream/handle ... sequence=2

Ozair, you can quote non representative statements as many as you want. The authority to tell whether the Gripen won based on merits, is the Swiss Air Force. And the head of the Swiss Air Force said:
"The aircraft (Gripen) meets conclusively all requirements that we defined upfront".

So you are still wrong and continue to make beginners mistakes. Like quoting opinions from people across the political spectrum (with a clear anti military anything agenda). I know several people from the parliamentary security commission (from your last quote) and what they said in other cases. I can assure you, their output does not validate your claim.

I can only imagine, how you would tick off a novice poster here, who would dare to quote from one of the many anti-F-35 articles. Can you see, that you are picking the same kind of sources about Gripen like somebody who would like to prove that the F-35 is bad?

Ozair wrote:

Merit is not about price and never has been about price. Merit as I clearly indicated is about capability.

Your "indications" were absolutely not convincing:

Indication 1 by Ozair: “the quality of being particularly good or worthy, especially so as to deserve praise or reward.”
-> Gripen was praised by the relevant authorities with no end; "worthy" indicates relative value (value in relation to something else, which primarily must be price especially if the question is deal or no-deal)

Indication 2 by Ozair: “the quality of being good and deserving to be praised or rewarded, or an advantage that something has”
-> Gripen received many praises and has also many advantages, was rewarded with many deals.

Indication 3 by Ozair: “to deserve something”
-> Gripen deserved obviously many deals. A deal can be deserved by generous offset and lease terms. Which makes the Czech and Hungary deals a win based on merits.

Indication 4 by Ozair: “the advantages something has compared to something else”
-> This does not exclude price. Low price is a huge advantage in itself, that needs significant added value from a competitor just to establish balance

Ozair wrote:

Not quite. It clearly wasn’t the best package.

Now you are insulting the Swiss evaluation team. The best package is the best value for the spent money. In Switzerland and elsewhere. You are the only one who understands the merits of a package as something decoupled from price.
Your statements makes as much sense, as saying:
"Your last car deal was clearly not the best package, because you did not select a Rolls-Royce Ghost EWB."

Based on what I see, cutaways, specification this Su-57 seems an impressive platform. No doubt it will have weakpoints, like F22, but I think we shouldn't be carried away by old generalizations, anecdotical evidence, patriotism and selected photo details.

The extra side looking phased array radar capability gives potential to greatly improve air and land mapping, data aquisition, tracking and aiming compared to single antenna equiped aircraft.

It has s s shaped air inlet to absorb radar and an enormous internal weaponsbay between the engines. That configuration is possible because in case of 1 engine out, the remaining engine is aligned to compensate the higher asymetrical effect. 3D thrust also allows the limited size vertical stabilizers, which greatly helps reducing RCS. Best would be none.

rheinwaldner wrote:

I can only imagine, how you would tick off a novice poster here, who would dare to quote from one of the many anti-F-35 articles. Can you see, that you are picking the same kind of sources about Gripen like somebody who would like to prove that the F-35 is bad?

Mate, there probably isn’t much point in us continuing this discussion. I am very respectful of posters here and I have not insulted you in this discussion despite your attempts to do the same. I do engage people who support positions without supporting evidence on the F-35, and the C-17 and the SU-57, and the Tejas etc and in this case you assertion that I am using poor sources is not correct.

For my sources, what I have linked to support my claims are the actual evaluations conducted in 2008/9 by the Swiss, a news report that summarised the whole process, a news report that directly quotes the Swiss Parliamentary security commission findings and multiple sources regarding the export of the jet. That is a good representation of primary and secondary sources and present a clear argument.

In place of that to support your standpoint throughout this whole discussion you have provided a single news report quoting numbers. These numbers are a paper assessment of an at the time not even prototyped aircraft that hadn’t even been ordered by Sweden (and which only mentions updates for the Gripen, no evidence of revised numbers for the other contenders even though those platforms expected future capabilities also changed in that timeframe) and an off the cuff reference by the Swiss MoD. There is not enough evidence to support the claim you have made and you should be able to see why I am sceptical.

At this time I suggest we agree to disagree. If you want to continue this discussion I suggest you create a separate thread or you can PM me and we can discuss it there.

keesje wrote:

The extra side looking phased array radar capability gives potential to greatly improve air and land mapping, data aquisition, tracking and aiming compared to single antenna equiped aircraft.

As already stated I’m not convinced the side arrays provide any meaningful benefit in most cases. The main array reportedly has approx 1550 TR modules with a much larger antenna size, improving gain. The side arrays have only approx 350 TR modules in a much smaller antenna with associated poor gain. The presence of the side arrays of the SU-57 introduce greater weight and requires greater cooling. It may assist in WVR combat where the ranges are short but a stealth aircraft that focuses on winning the close in fight is focusing on the wrong area.

If better radar performance from the side was a requirement a better option would probably have been to incorporate a slightly smaller main array but with a repositioner like that proposed for the Gripen and Eurofighter. It would introduce an additional mechanical failure point but reduce the other issues indicated.

Ozair wrote:

In place of that to support your standpoint throughout this whole discussion you have provided a single news report quoting numbers. These numbers are a paper assessment of an at the time not even prototyped aircraft that hadn’t even been ordered by Sweden (and which only mentions updates for the Gripen, no evidence of revised numbers for the other contenders even though those platforms expected future capabilities also changed in that timeframe) and an off the cuff reference by the Swiss MoD. There is not enough evidence to support the claim you have made and you should be able to see why I am sceptical.

At this time I suggest we agree to disagree. If you want to continue this discussion I suggest you create a separate thread or you can PM me and we can discuss it there.

Suggestion accepted. I can agree with nearly all that you wrote, except that the source that shows satisfaction about the Gripen would not be representative. How much more authorized than the Swiss defence minister does a source need to be, that you would accept the verdict? I will send you a couple of links per PM that show, that the Gripen met all the requirements for the Swiss.

keesje wrote:

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.

And the IRIS-T as well. But in all fairness, tactics where adjusted quickly and German MIG-29 pilots became bored of being cannon fodder, unless the merge was designed to play to the Migs strenght.
In German service they where paired up with ICE F-4F, so in a real war the Mig would make it to the merge. Pretty much tells us that the radar guided missiles where about the polar opposite of the R-73.

Russian can however certainly design and build a stealth fighteron the level Italy or the UK alone could.

Best regards
Thomas

Dave Majumdar of the National Interest has finally uttered what many people were thinking.
http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-bu ... 2s-f-25996

pylon101 wrote:

Dave Majumdar of the National Interest has finally uttered what many people were thinking.
http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-bu ... 2s-f-25996

Pretty much that entire article could have been copied and pasted from 20 years ago. Vague references to "improved algorithms" doesn't mean much.

While I am aware that the often exported downgraded models, the famous pic taken in the 70's from an airliner window on the ground showing that Mig-23's exported to Libya in this case, had the radar of the Mig-21, are we sure they did the same to their Warpac allies?
Given that the East German AF would literally be in the front line in any conflict in Europe, so it's more likely that the ones sent to the East Germans were early production models, as their AF was first in line in the Warpac nations for new equipment. All of these, including the Soviet AF Mig-29's, had limitations but they never got the improvements that Soviet, then Russian Mig-29's received, as by then East Germany no longer existed.

What kind of world would we be in if we started introducing organic compounds to the skin of an aircraft in an attempt to influence how it reacts to A) the air around it and B) the electromagnetic waves that interact with it? Hmmm...

Appears that Russia has released footage of the Su-57 launching a cruise missile via the internal bays. Good news given this is the first visual confirmation of a weapons bay being opened and used in flight.



The missile in question was a Kh-59MK2 which is a decent size and modern capable missile.

Nomadd wrote:

pylon101 wrote:

Dave Majumdar of the National Interest has finally uttered what many people were thinking.
http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-bu ... 2s-f-25996

Pretty much that entire article could have been copied and pasted from 20 years ago. Vague references to "improved algorithms" doesn't mean much.

I also have issues with the article. It makes some logical leaps on not only the capabilities of IRSTs but also makes some simple mistakes regarding US stealth capabilities.

One of the big issues is that an IRST cannot provide a range to a target, it only provides a bearing. It also does not tell you what is out there, just that something is. To determine range the aircraft will require a laser range finder or use the radar to identify the target. So IRSTs work well when used in concert with other systems, not as the single source of identification.

The US stealth side of things is that the aircraft have been designed to be stealthy not only across radar wavelengths but also IR wavelengths. Both the F-22 and F-35 are covered in a special IR paint called topcoat. Additionally both aircraft likely have active cooling systems that use the fuel as heat sinks to cool not only the electronics of the aircraft but potentially large portions of the skin including the leadings edges. The F-35 also has multiple air inlets that are used to cool the aircraft internally as well as add additional cooling air to the exhaust plume, reducing the IR signature.

Finally, the article ignores that the US has long experience with IRSTs. Several century series fighter aircraft were fitted with IRSTs and they have been used across multiple platforms for several aircraft generations. The US are well aware of the capabilities and limitations of IRSTs and it would be naive to assume that they design stealth aircraft but ignore the IR region…

Here's my useless opinion on the T50/SU57. Is it as good as or better than the F22 or F35, who knows. Is it no more than a box of bolts made to look good? Again who knows. Why? Maskirovka. Anyone talking and claiming facts about this aircraft or any other russian aircraft/russian military 'thing' without knowing and understanding this should eat humble pie for breakfast for the next few centuries. Followed by 2 cold showers a day for the rest of his life. Minimum. Anyone talking and claiming facts about the T50 or any other russian military 'thing' has swallowed the Kremlin's bait hook, line and sinker. It doesn't matter whether the facts are right or wrong. That's the beauty of maskirovka, you never really know anything for certain.
Here's my actual opinion, the T50 is a 5th gen aircraft. Why? It is (probably) designed from the ground up for supermanouevrability and high levels of stealth. That is the basic definition for a 5th gen aircraft. Is it more manoeuvrable than the F22 and F35. I think so. The russians have vast amounts of experience with vectored thrust and supermanouevrability, probably more than the US and its allies. But both have run around the same amount of known programs in this realm. Is it as stealthy as other 5th gen aircraft? I don't have access to their rcs data and neither do you, so stop bitching about the F22 being so much stealthier, you don't know. I honestly think it is on par with the F22 and F35. But judging from its shape, I doubt it is as stealthy as say an F22. It also appears to be based off a military doctrine that doesn't prioritise BVR as much, although it looks to have a much bigger emphasis on BVR than its predesessors. Also, those going on about build quality? Jump off a bridge, it's a cliché that all things russian are badly made. But their submarines, SAMS, and IADS seems to be better so..... Psss, most T50's out there are prototypes that don't even use the real engine, they're most probably built largely by hand with engines that don't exactly fit. But shoddy build quality as claimed on this site? No, otherwise it wouldn't have gone this far. Would it?

Conclusions on my useless opinion? The T50 will be an awesome aircraft in the years to come once FULLY developed. I doubt it will be as good as the F22 in BVR, all it needs is 'just enough' (that's probably what they've done) to survive that first long range encounter before engaging at closer ranges. At closer ranges, I think it will be better considering the russians have focused more intently on closer range combat. It will definitely be more than a match for other 5th gen aircraft.

And as for the people hero worshipping the F22 or saying its old and outdated. Why is it then that the USAF and USN are still using 4th gen aircraft designed in the 60s, tested in the 70s and fielded in the 80s so prominently then eh? And whats more, these 'antiques' are still doing their job well. Probably better than how your job is going. Yes, the F22 was designed on computers of yesteryear, but so are its adversaries. As for those hero worshipping it? It's not invisible, that's not even remotely close to how stealth works. Is it invincible, I'm sorry what? I know crack and LSD is nice, but please, stop. It's still the benchmark for fighter aircraft. It has been since the turn of the 21st century and will remain so until something undeniably better comes along. That probably already exists hidden somewhere in Palmdale, Area 51, Tonopah, Boscombe Down, St Dizier and the like. Not that we know or ever will. That next aircraft will probably be the 6th gen aircraft or something similar. So get back to work, stop being delusional over the american 5th gens and understand that what Russia tells you about the T50 is probably a lie or them being economical with the truth, at best. I maintain my point: it is a good aircraft because as far as we know it does the job it was set out to do.

Good day.

I think the russian see the Su-57 as their main front line fighter to succeed the Su27-30 families. They are offering it to Turkey. As a more dedicated interceptor, in the Fiddler, Su-15, Mig25, Mig31 tradition, Mikoyan are developing something new since 2013. Probably also with high speed, range, big radar and LR missiles like it predecessors for homeland defense. No official designation yet. Apparently also a smaller lighter stealth fighter project going on desinated LMFS

This is a very good read of you(anybody) haven't read it yet,

http://fullafterburner.weebly.com/aeros ... amechanger

keesje wrote:

I think the russian see the Su-57 as their main front line fighter to succeed the Su27-30 families.

Yes it seems like they want the SU-57 and Su-35 alongside each other.

Slug71 wrote:

This is a very good read of you(anybody) haven't read it yet,

http://fullafterburner.weebly.com/aeros ... amechanger

keesje wrote:

I think the russian see the Su-57 as their main front line fighter to succeed the Su27-30 families.

Yes it seems like they want the SU-57 and Su-35 alongside each other.

Thnx, lots of additional details on systems and unique capabilities.

keesje wrote:

I think the russian see the Su-57 as their main front line fighter to succeed the Su27-30 families. They are offering it to Turkey. As a more dedicated interceptor, in the Fiddler, Su-15, Mig25, Mig31 tradition, Mikoyan are developing something new since 2013. Probably also with high speed, range, big radar and LR missiles like it predecessors for homeland defense. No official designation yet. Apparently also a smaller lighter stealth fighter project going on desinated LMFS

I have doubts Russia can afford any new aircraft developments at this time. What we see are existing aircraft being upgraded or older aircraft continue to be inducted and while MiG shows off warmed over existing aircraft there is no indications a lightweight fighter concept from Russia will be developed. I actually think that is a shame because Russia would probably have had better success with a smaller lighter weight fighter than they will likely see with export of the Su-57.

Slug71 wrote:

This is a very good read of you(anybody) haven't read it yet,

http://fullafterburner.weebly.com/aeros ... amechanger

There is essentially minimal or no sourcing for anything on that webpage, so it accuracy is very suspect. Where it does provide vague source references the info is from websites and individuals who, within the online community, have indicated or demonstrated multiple times they either don’t have accurate information or are creative in their use of the information. Even the comments on the article allude to that.

Ozair what do you think of the objectivity, argumentation, accurasy, sources and consistency of the posts above, dismissing the SU-57?

keesje wrote:

Ozair what do you think of the objectivity, argumentation, accurasy, sources and consistency of the posts above, dismissing the SU-57?

Keesje it is reasonably easy to determine the posters who are here to discuss and critically assess military aviation and those who are posting for a response. Once you get that distinction then you can weigh that against purported facts and more commonly opinion being provided by posts previously in this thread.

As I have said multiple times, we have no idea on much of the SU-57 given the lack of detail provided by Russia, the amount of disinformation provided and a complete lack of factual information on budget and finances of the project. The information being released on the program has slowed to a trickle over the last few years and in that context it is very hard to make accurate determinations on its current state or plans for the future. In place of that there are eyeball RCS calculations, vague claims on export potential that doesn’t match with requirements or history, poor tactical analysis and the presence of click bait articles from all sides of the debate. Take the good with the bad, critically assess where you can and filter out those that are not worth listening to…

Ozair wrote:

keesje wrote:

I think the russian see the Su-57 as their main front line fighter to succeed the Su27-30 families. They are offering it to Turkey. As a more dedicated interceptor, in the Fiddler, Su-15, Mig25, Mig31 tradition, Mikoyan are developing something new since 2013. Probably also with high speed, range, big radar and LR missiles like it predecessors for homeland defense. No official designation yet. Apparently also a smaller lighter stealth fighter project going on desinated LMFS

I have doubts Russia can afford any new aircraft developments at this time. What we see are existing aircraft being upgraded or older aircraft continue to be inducted and while MiG shows off warmed over existing aircraft there is no indications a lightweight fighter concept from Russia will be developed. I actually think that is a shame because Russia would probably have had better success with a smaller lighter weight fighter than they will likely see with export of the Su-57.

This is why I think (and said a few months ago), that it seems like it would make more sense for Mikoyan to basically take the J-31 and license produce it to their specs. Development costs would be much lower than a clean sheet design and it's already using the MiG's engines. There's also the option of going single engine and using the Izd-30, raising the R&D costs on the downside.

Ozair wrote:

Slug71 wrote:

This is a very good read of you(anybody) haven't read it yet,

http://fullafterburner.weebly.com/aeros ... amechanger

There is essentially minimal or no sourcing for anything on that webpage, so it accuracy is very suspect. Where it does provide vague source references the info is from websites and individuals who, within the online community, have indicated or demonstrated multiple times they either don’t have accurate information or are creative in their use of the information. Even the comments on the article allude to that.

A lot of what he stated is things I've read several times throughout the years though. The article also doesn't come out swinging at its competitors. A good portion is about the Su-57 relative to other Russian jets. With a bit of time it shouldn't be too hard to fact check a lot of it though. I think the biggest flaw is just dated information, some of which no longer applies (FGFA).

Slug71 wrote:

This is why I think (and said a few months ago), that it seems like it would make more sense for Mikoyan to basically take the J-31 and license produce it to their specs. Development costs would be much lower than a clean sheet design and it's already using the MiG's engines. There's also the option of going single engine and using the Izd-30, raising the R&D costs on the downside.

Respectfully, I still think the concept is nuts and the probably of occurring is close to zero.

Slug71 wrote:

A lot of what he stated is things I've read several times throughout the years though. The article also doesn't come out swinging at its competitors. A good portion is about the Su-57 relative to other Russian jets. With a bit of time it shouldn't be too hard to fact check a lot of it though. I think the biggest flaw is just dated information, some of which no longer applies (FGFA).

I’d rather discuss articles that have more scientific rigour and sourcing to them, such as the below link,
http://www.scielo.br/pdf/jatm/v8n1/1984 ... 1-0040.pdf

Ozair wrote:

I’d rather discuss articles that have more scientific rigour and sourcing to them, such as the below link,
http://www.scielo.br/pdf/jatm/v8n1/1984 ... 1-0040.pdf

I a general review of analytic methods. No comparisons, valuations etc.

In your posts the F22 being suprior seems more of a starting point than a conclusion based on objective comaprison & credible sources.

Maybe the most interesting question about the Su-57 is how succesfull Sukhoi is in integrations, compressing and making use of the sensor information the aircraft seems able to generate. Different types of multi functional radars IR/ electro optical, data links. And only 1 pilot that has to fly the aircraft too. There must be a lot of processing power / intelligence / automation in the system to make effective use of everything in a combat situation..

Some say early proto cockpit apparently resembled those of recent Su30's. I lot of development must be spent to create a effective pilot interface.

keesje wrote:

In your posts the F22 being suprior seems more of a starting point than a conclusion based on objective comaprison & credible sources.

What would you like to establish as the baseline for 5th gen fighters keesje?

keesje wrote:

Maybe the most interesting question about the Su-57 is how succesfull Sukhoi is in integrations, compressing and making use of the sensor information the aircraft seems able to generate. Different types of multi functional radars IR/ electro optical, data links. And only 1 pilot that has to fly the aircraft too. There must be a lot of processing power / intelligence / automation in the system to make effective use of everything in a combat situation..

I see nothing in the history of Sukhoi that stands out any more than any other manufacturer such as Dassault, LM, Boeing, The Eurofighter Consortium etc.

keesje wrote:

Some say early proto cockpit apparently resembled those of recent Su30's. I lot of development must be spent to create a effective pilot interface.

Again, not anymore development than that which has gone into other aircraft.

Ozair wrote:

One of the big issues is that an IRST cannot provide a range to a target, it only provides a bearing.

That isn´t true anymore. If you have more than one frequency available to detect the target, you can use the different absorption characteristics to develop a range information right away, if the NCTR database knows the target type. With very little movement and signal phasing analysis you get a fairly good range fairly quick, and two datalinked aircraft can get crossbearings right away anyways.

Not as good as a radar range and nowhere near the precision of a laser, but well enough for a BVR engagement.

best regards
Thomas

Ozair wrote:

keesje wrote:

In your posts the F22 being suprior seems more of a starting point than a conclusion based on objective comaprison & credible sources.

What would you like to establish as the baseline for 5th gen fighters keesje?

keesje wrote:

Maybe the most interesting question about the Su-57 is how succesfull Sukhoi is in integrations, compressing and making use of the sensor information the aircraft seems able to generate. Different types of multi functional radars IR/ electro optical, data links. And only 1 pilot that has to fly the aircraft too. There must be a lot of processing power / intelligence / automation in the system to make effective use of everything in a combat situation..

I see nothing in the history of Sukhoi that stands out any more than any other manufacturer such as Dassault, LM, Boeing, The Eurofighter Consortium etc.

keesje wrote:

Some say early proto cockpit apparently resembled those of recent Su30's. I lot of development must be spent to create a effective pilot interface.

Again, not anymore development than that which has gone into other aircraft.

So, what is your topic of this thread?

It just seems to me that the Su-57 was designed with a strong eye to the ROE used by most of the west. Those ROE tend to strongly require positive identification of the target aircraft. That means that the engagement is long past BVR. If you're WVR, then I can see where the Su-57 would have a much more even playing field to work with in an engagement with a modern western fighter.

LightningZ71 wrote:

It just seems to me that the Su-57 was designed with a strong eye to the ROE used by most of the west. Those ROE tend to strongly require positive identification of the target aircraft. That means that the engagement is long past BVR. If you're WVR, then I can see where the Su-57 would have a much more even playing field to work with in an engagement with a modern western fighter.

Usually, that's just means two different sources identifying the target.

Also, there's more sneakier EW methods as well; look up what Combat Tree did for the F-4 Phantom in Vietnam; it made North Vietnamese MiG's light up like a Christmas tree on a screen, without the MiG pilot knowing that he was already identified as a hostile and being tracked. This allowed F-4 pilots to engage them comfortably at BVR range.

There's also NCTR; in the past, it meant the radar could literally count the fan blades in a engine of an aircraft, and make a highly educated guess as to what engine it is looking at, and then determine what aircraft it is; today, with more powerful AESA radars and more onboard processing power, it probably means more as well.

EW/ESM system is one thing that is used for target ID and can be very good source of information depending on target (how much it emits). Basically, analyze the emissions coming from the target and figure out based upon the emissions signature, what has been turned on emitting on the target, and from there, figure out what aircraft you are looking at.

It's clear that the Russians are behind on the level of technology needed to achieve some of these technologies; take for example, NCTR. NCTR debuted in combat on the F-15 in Desert Storm back in the early 1990's. The Russians only a decade ago demonstrated a fairly rudimentary level NCTR only a decade ago on their radars, and this lag has continued.

I also doubt the Russians have enabled a very high level of sensor fusion on the Su-57; the Russians have not demonstrated an aircraft data bus that matches the old MIL-STD-1553B data bus... let alone using something like IEEE-1394b or fibre optic based systems for more bandwidth.

I expect the Su-57's avionics to be more akin to a 4+ gen fighter designs (Eurofighter, Rafale, Super Hornet-like)... fairly limited sensor fusion based upon correlation of tracks, not using raw information from onboard and offboard sensors and automatically tasking other sensors to analyze tracks... and that's if their sensors are up to it. Their microchip design and production capabilities are far behind the West; even the Chinese have the Russians beat.

I don't dispute what you're saying. I'm looking at it from the mile-high perspective. If they can get the RCS of the -57 down to below super hornet levels, which seems quite doable, then they can make that level of target identification quite difficult. They're trading VERY expensive stealth development for modest stealth development and using the balance to improve the WVR combat abilities of the platform. If you throw in the level of EW that will be in a modern battlefield, I'm not sure that they've made a poor decision. Russia has less money to pour into this sort of development and has to spend it where they can make the best bang for the buck. The -57 absolutely looks like a product of that.

I don't know much at all about the sensor fusion abilities of Russian combat aircraft. I know from looking at a lot of their more numerous older models, just having glass cockpits was a rarity. We do know that their most recent versions of their front line fighters are much better about that sort of things, but, I still don't know how far they've really come. That being said, data busses that have the raw data throughput of the MIL-STD-1552B are not overly difficult to create just using what's out there in the open-source/public domain world. Making it hardened and efficient for use in an airframe is a whole different matter. Their semiconductor capabilities have lagged the west for a good while, and I had almost though that they had abandoned their work in that field until last year's announcement of the Elberus-8s, however, it lags western designs by several generations of process technology and intentionally uses a physical instruction set that is unique, running traditional western software via a software translation layer. They have several RISC chips in production as well, though, again, using older process technologies and running at slower speeds. Using their own home-grown electronics based on those older process technologies will make keeping their electronics cool in their fighters a bit of a challenge. Using an AESA radar requires a heap of DSP and CPU horsepower to do well. With multiple arrays active, that's a lot of power and heat to deal with.

The SU-57 is not as good as an F22. But how many countries have F22s?

A better question would be how good would the SU-57 be against F15s? F16s? Typhoons? Rafales? Gripens?

Maybe many posters are looking at the wrong matchup???

Looks like this program is coming to an end.

https://thediplomat.com/2018/07/russia- ... rd%20Brief

Assuming that everything under the skin has been competently executed, it should be more than a match for most any Gen 4 or 4+ platform out there in a 1v1 scenario. The problems arise when you start dealing with larger formations and supporting systems. How integrated is the rest of the Russian Air Force battlespace management strategy? How does it compare to western setups? When you talk about the F-35 vs the SU-57, you aren't just talking about 1v1 performance in most situations. You're talking about a network of F-35s sharing their sensor data and capabilities for shaping the battlespace. Having multiple sensor systems looking at a target from different points of view can substantially reduce the effective stealth of any airframe, especially one that is heavily optimized for observability from one direction. This works against the F-35 as well, assuming that Russian systems are as capable as western systems in that scenario.

All in all, I think that the SU-57 is a major upgrade over the SU-27 and Mig-29 derived platforms that are currently in use. Is it enough to make a major difference going forward? I don't know for sure, but I doubt that they will be fielded in sufficient numbers in the next decade to make much of a difference. I'm far more concerned about what China is doing in this space.

LightningZ71 wrote:

Assuming that everything under the skin has been competently executed, it should be more than a match for most any Gen 4 or 4+ platform out there in a 1v1 scenario. The problems arise when you start dealing with larger formations and supporting systems. How integrated is the rest of the Russian Air Force battlespace management strategy? How does it compare to western setups? When you talk about the F-35 vs the SU-57, you aren't just talking about 1v1 performance in most situations. You're talking about a network of F-35s sharing their sensor data and capabilities for shaping the battlespace. Having multiple sensor systems looking at a target from different points of view can substantially reduce the effective stealth of any airframe, especially one that is heavily optimized for observability from one direction. This works against the F-35 as well, assuming that Russian systems are as capable as western systems in that scenario.

All in all, I think that the SU-57 is a major upgrade over the SU-27 and Mig-29 derived platforms that are currently in use. Is it enough to make a major difference going forward? I don't know for sure, but I doubt that they will be fielded in sufficient numbers in the next decade to make much of a difference. I'm far more concerned about what China is doing in this space.

Interesting. I don't feel surprised though. They lost a sizable cash injection with the loss of India. They also have sanctions against them and trying to avoid additional ones, putting them under financial strain. Maybe it just wasn't as good as they say/hoped. If so, was Indias change requirements the answer?
Or maybe the SU-35 and MiG-35 is just that good, and additional SU-57s is not justifiable right now. Very little info gets released from Russia and China in general. What they do have from the Su-57 now, is a fleet of development frames that they can gather a lot of data from, in addition to building up their network capabilities. At this point, it probably makes more sense to work on a 6th Gen aircraft. Including pilotless fighters/armed drones. Or maybe their focus has shifted to having a space force. To many questions and variables that will never got answered. But I agree China is a concern. They have the money, desire, and capability to become a superpower.

itchief wrote:

Looks like this program is coming to an end.

https://thediplomat.com/2018/07/russia- ... rd%20Brief

Wow!

I'm not the least bit surprised, but it's still really strange to be reading it for real.

If you look at these elite complicated next-generation aircraft programs, getting something in the air usually isn't incredibly difficult - but getting the systems, sensors, and reliability integrated and up to par for real-world battlefield-ready situations is what sucks the life and cash out of the programs (ahem, F-35?) - and I'm not sure Russia really ever accepted this fact, or possibly they knew it all too well and only wanted something in the air to show everyone as a matter of national pride?

Either way - the thread I started a while ago highlighting engine and non-frontal RCS issues seem to be primary issues hinted at in the article.

Most of us here didn't seem to think the India deal had much of an impact on the overall program, but perhaps Russia was really counting on that program after all?

It just makes the F-22 program even more incredible relatively speaking, especially that P&W were able to develop the F119 - which was ground-tested in nearly-production-form 26 years ago and matches or exceeds the specifications of the izdeliye 30 which Russia is struggling with today - stating a launch of 2020!

So translation, they needed the money from India and perhaps expertise. Now that India has walked away from this, the program is coming to an end. The Syria stunt was just that, just to show India that the plane worked. Too bad, for an enthusiast, the more diversity the better.

Dutchy wrote:

So translation, they needed the money from India and perhaps expertise. Now that India has walked away from this, the program is coming to an end. The Syria stunt was just that, just to show India that the plane worked. Too bad, for an enthusiast, the more diversity the better.

That's what I'm thinking. The money that is. But with all the current politics and sanctions, its possible that had something to do with it too.

On the other hand, Russia never really indicated any plans to build more than the initial 12 either. It was probably dependent on the order from India.

Slug71 wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

So translation, they needed the money from India and perhaps expertise. Now that India has walked away from this, the program is coming to an end. The Syria stunt was just that, just to show India that the plane worked. Too bad, for an enthusiast, the more diversity the better.

That's what I'm thinking. The money that is. But with all the current politics and sanctions, its possible that had something to do with it too.

On the other hand, Russia never really indicated any plans to build more than the initial 12 either. It was probably dependent on the order from India.

What do you mean they never indicated plans to build more than 12?! Russia "indicated" it would be THE world's premier 5th gen fighter, exceeding the raptor and everything else in the skies. This wasn't India's front-line fighter, it was Russia's. India was just a cash infusion - a "bonus" even, but the program was all Russian and national pride / superiority. Obviously the reality of the program came to light the second that India pulled out. Sounds like a lot of stuff happened behind closed doors in the past couple months. Budget-wise the program was probably only about 50% of the way to a deployable fighter, which is simply not an option for Russia right now. India would have only been a drop in the bucket, regardless.

The more I think about it (and it crossed my mind at the time) the aircraft that flew to Syria were probably limited to the point of being near-dangerous. Beyond prototypes - I'd venture a guess that the majority of avionics, especially any offensive/defensive systems, weren't even installed yet. As I mentioned before, I also doubt that any of the internal weapons bays and launchers had been tested as well. FBW software and flight envelopes were probably very primitive versions alsol. Just cool looking shells of an aircraft with the wrong engines, no RAM, and no avionics - all of which generally add up to the VAST majority of cost/complexity with these programs.

I do agree though, part of me is a little sad that these currently deployed 5th gen A/C won't see a real competitor outside of China. And then what? The window of opportunity for advanced truly 5th gen aircraft is coming to a close. It's entirely possible that UCAVs have developed to the point where they're actually cheaper to develop, build, and deploy for countries like Russia. Outside of Japan's request for an advanced "Raptor-type" design, and with this announcement regarding the PAK-FA, the planes we currently see flying might be the end of a century's long history of manned air-to-air combat aircraft.

It seems overenthusiastic Western sources have wrongly quoted the Russian MoD. Nowhere have the Russians said the program is coming to an end. They simply said they will build 12 production/preproduction aircraft and they will not rush to build it in huge numbers. That will take time, given what we know about the Russian industry. Once they are built, who knows what will happen. Let's not forget, initially they said they will build 48 Su-35s, but afterwards more orders were added. I agree, 12 is not enough and a bit of an excuse for "series production", but it is what it is. I really don't think they will abandon this project.

Perhaps you are right they will not completely abandon the project, but in this way, they might get to the series production stage in what, ten years or 15? Clearly, the program is in trouble if they only want to have 12. These 12 will quite possibly be useless in real combat. The new engine will not be built in the foreseeable future.

So, all in all, I think it is quite accurate to say that this program is finished and perhaps a new program will be started with this a/c as a basis.

itchief wrote:

Looks like this program is coming to an end.

https://thediplomat.com/2018/07/russia- ... rd%20Brief

I think what this means is the current version flying now will not enter production. There is a new engine developed for this plane that has only just begun flight testing. It makes sense to continue refining and upgrading the aircraft's systems until a more capable definitive version is ready for mass production. Not to mention that there are virtually no export orders.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IdLctLLbqAY

estorilm wrote:

Slug71 wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

So translation, they needed the money from India and perhaps expertise. Now that India has walked away from this, the program is coming to an end. The Syria stunt was just that, just to show India that the plane worked. Too bad, for an enthusiast, the more diversity the better.

That's what I'm thinking. The money that is. But with all the current politics and sanctions, its possible that had something to do with it too.

On the other hand, Russia never really indicated any plans to build more than the initial 12 either. It was probably dependent on the order from India.

What do you mean they never indicated plans to build more than 12?! Russia "indicated" it would be THE world's premier 5th gen fighter, exceeding the raptor and everything else in the skies. This wasn't India's front-line fighter, it was Russia's. India was just a cash infusion - a "bonus" even, but the program was all Russian and national pride / superiority. Obviously the reality of the program came to light the second that India pulled out. Sounds like a lot of stuff happened behind closed doors in the past couple months. Budget-wise the program was probably only about 50% of the way to a deployable fighter, which is simply not an option for Russia right now. India would have only been a drop in the bucket, regardless.

The more I think about it (and it crossed my mind at the time) the aircraft that flew to Syria were probably limited to the point of being near-dangerous. Beyond prototypes - I'd venture a guess that the majority of avionics, especially any offensive/defensive systems, weren't even installed yet. As I mentioned before, I also doubt that any of the internal weapons bays and launchers had been tested as well. FBW software and flight envelopes were probably very primitive versions alsol. Just cool looking shells of an aircraft with the wrong engines, no RAM, and no avionics - all of which generally add up to the VAST majority of cost/complexity with these programs.

I do agree though, part of me is a little sad that these currently deployed 5th gen A/C won't see a real competitor outside of China. And then what? The window of opportunity for advanced truly 5th gen aircraft is coming to a close. It's entirely possible that UCAVs have developed to the point where they're actually cheaper to develop, build, and deploy for countries like Russia. Outside of Japan's request for an advanced "Raptor-type" design, and with this announcement regarding the PAK-FA, the planes we currently see flying might be the end of a century's long history of manned air-to-air combat aircraft.

Russia only planned to build an initial 12 and left the door open to more. Possibly up to 48 IIRC. But there was no firm plans to go beyond the initial 12 as yet.

Dutchy wrote:

Perhaps you are right they will not completely abandon the project, but in this way, they might get to the series production stage in what, ten years or 15? Clearly, the program is in trouble if they only want to have 12. These 12 will quite possibly be useless in real combat. The new engine will not be built in the foreseeable future.

So, all in all, I think it is quite accurate to say that this program is finished and perhaps a new program will be started with this a/c as a basis.

That's 12 plus the 10/11 development/test frames from what I understand. Worst case, they at least have a number of advanced frames to further develop and test with, as well as work on the nework/datalink capabilities etc.

Slug71 wrote:

estorilm wrote:

Slug71 wrote:

That's what I'm thinking. The money that is. But with all the current politics and sanctions, its possible that had something to do with it too.

On the other hand, Russia never really indicated any plans to build more than the initial 12 either. It was probably dependent on the order from India.

What do you mean they never indicated plans to build more than 12?! Russia "indicated" it would be THE world's premier 5th gen fighter, exceeding the raptor and everything else in the skies. This wasn't India's front-line fighter, it was Russia's. India was just a cash infusion - a "bonus" even, but the program was all Russian and national pride / superiority. Obviously the reality of the program came to light the second that India pulled out. Sounds like a lot of stuff happened behind closed doors in the past couple months. Budget-wise the program was probably only about 50% of the way to a deployable fighter, which is simply not an option for Russia right now. India would have only been a drop in the bucket, regardless.

The more I think about it (and it crossed my mind at the time) the aircraft that flew to Syria were probably limited to the point of being near-dangerous. Beyond prototypes - I'd venture a guess that the majority of avionics, especially any offensive/defensive systems, weren't even installed yet. As I mentioned before, I also doubt that any of the internal weapons bays and launchers had been tested as well. FBW software and flight envelopes were probably very primitive versions alsol. Just cool looking shells of an aircraft with the wrong engines, no RAM, and no avionics - all of which generally add up to the VAST majority of cost/complexity with these programs.

I do agree though, part of me is a little sad that these currently deployed 5th gen A/C won't see a real competitor outside of China. And then what? The window of opportunity for advanced truly 5th gen aircraft is coming to a close. It's entirely possible that UCAVs have developed to the point where they're actually cheaper to develop, build, and deploy for countries like Russia. Outside of Japan's request for an advanced "Raptor-type" design, and with this announcement regarding the PAK-FA, the planes we currently see flying might be the end of a century's long history of manned air-to-air combat aircraft.

Russia only planned to build an initial 12 and left the door open to more. Possibly up to 48 IIRC. But there was no firm plans to go beyond the initial 12 as yet.

Are you telling me that the Russians planned to build only 12 and developed an aircraft for that? You build a fighter with the prospects of at least 200-400 a/c or 500 or 1.000, not 12, that is plain ridiculous. Far too expensive to do it like this. No there is something seriously wrong here and it aint the official Russian propaganda.

sovietjet wrote:

It seems overenthusiastic Western sources have wrongly quoted the Russian MoD. Nowhere have the Russians said the program is coming to an end. They simply said they will build 12 production/preproduction aircraft and they will not rush to build it in huge numbers. That will take time, given what we know about the Russian industry. Once they are built, who knows what will happen. Let's not forget, initially they said they will build 48 Su-35s, but afterwards more orders were added. I agree, 12 is not enough and a bit of an excuse for "series production", but it is what it is. I really don't think they will abandon this project.

Since India withdrew, I think that has put the program in financial difficulty. While I agree they won't abandon it completely - I think the program is finished for the time being. I doubt Russia itself can afford to bring into service a large number of these planes. And it doesn't really have the need for it. Russia has strategic missile forces, that is deterrent enough

cpd wrote:

sovietjet wrote:

It seems overenthusiastic Western sources have wrongly quoted the Russian MoD. Nowhere have the Russians said the program is coming to an end. They simply said they will build 12 production/preproduction aircraft and they will not rush to build it in huge numbers. That will take time, given what we know about the Russian industry. Once they are built, who knows what will happen. Let's not forget, initially they said they will build 48 Su-35s, but afterwards more orders were added. I agree, 12 is not enough and a bit of an excuse for "series production", but it is what it is. I really don't think they will abandon this project.

Since India withdrew, I think that has put the program in financial difficulty. While I agree they won't abandon it completely - I think the program is finished for the time being. I doubt Russia itself can afford to bring into service a large number of these planes. And it doesn't really have the need for it. Russia has strategic missile forces, that is deterrent enough

The Russians don't have the money to complete development of the Su-57. The aircraft still needs a new engine, and further development of the avionics suite. That stuff gets expensive to develop and test, and with the Indians pulling out with their financial stake, the Russians no longer have the resources to continue development.

I think however, the Su-57 is now officially dead, and you can start the process of burying it in the ground; it's not likely the Russians will ever find the funds to finish development, and by the time they might be able to, the aircraft will be decades out of date.

Dutchy wrote:

Slug71 wrote:

estorilm wrote:

What do you mean they never indicated plans to build more than 12?! Russia "indicated" it would be THE world's premier 5th gen fighter, exceeding the raptor and everything else in the skies. This wasn't India's front-line fighter, it was Russia's. India was just a cash infusion - a "bonus" even, but the program was all Russian and national pride / superiority. Obviously the reality of the program came to light the second that India pulled out. Sounds like a lot of stuff happened behind closed doors in the past couple months. Budget-wise the program was probably only about 50% of the way to a deployable fighter, which is simply not an option for Russia right now. India would have only been a drop in the bucket, regardless.

The more I think about it (and it crossed my mind at the time) the aircraft that flew to Syria were probably limited to the point of being near-dangerous. Beyond prototypes - I'd venture a guess that the majority of avionics, especially any offensive/defensive systems, weren't even installed yet. As I mentioned before, I also doubt that any of the internal weapons bays and launchers had been tested as well. FBW software and flight envelopes were probably very primitive versions alsol. Just cool looking shells of an aircraft with the wrong engines, no RAM, and no avionics - all of which generally add up to the VAST majority of cost/complexity with these programs.

I do agree though, part of me is a little sad that these currently deployed 5th gen A/C won't see a real competitor outside of China. And then what? The window of opportunity for advanced truly 5th gen aircraft is coming to a close. It's entirely possible that UCAVs have developed to the point where they're actually cheaper to develop, build, and deploy for countries like Russia. Outside of Japan's request for an advanced "Raptor-type" design, and with this announcement regarding the PAK-FA, the planes we currently see flying might be the end of a century's long history of manned air-to-air combat aircraft.

Russia only planned to build an initial 12 and left the door open to more. Possibly up to 48 IIRC. But there was no firm plans to go beyond the initial 12 as yet.

Are you telling me that the Russians planned to build only 12 and developed an aircraft for that? You build a fighter with the prospects of at least 200-400 a/c or 500 or 1.000, not 12, that is plain ridiculous. Far too expensive to do it like this. No there is something seriously wrong here and it aint the official Russian propaganda.

Russia significantly cut their order several times, down to just 12. Then only 12 were purchased. Beyond that there has been no indication that they WOULD buy more, other than what they "envisioned". I've always thought that it would be dependent on the India deal materializing.

Russia is also facing additional sanctions which is going to pinch the wallet. I don't think the program is over though.
I think the project is just paused for now while the study extensive design changes. Too big for the "update as you go" approach they seem to have, and likely also due to data analysis. Or no responsibility to please a "partner".
Too many variables. I don't question their ability though.

I wouldn't be too surprised to see a heavily updated version roll out in a few years. Possibly even two versions. Lowering(/enlarging) the weapons bay level with the bottom of the engines, would significantly increase the volume of the weapons bay. Good bay for a fighter bomber/strike fighter.
Eventually the Su-34 will need replacing too.

JFYI ridiculous spinning like this actually makes things look WORSE for your government's decision, not better.