2x Russian SU-57 PAK-FA show up in Syria

Ozair · Wed Feb 28, 2018 8:17 pm

Slug71 wrote:
To be fair, the Flankers and SU-57 is a lot more maneuverable than the Raptor or SH. It's true that Sukhoi sacrificed some stealth for maneuverability.

What is your evidence for that claim? If you look at the specifics of each of the jets named, they all have similar characteristics and G ratings while the US aircraft have higher AoA than Flankers. All can conduct pretty much the same manoeuvres with each having a different low speed highlight (which is tactically useless…).

Ozair wrote:
The SU-57's senor suite IS *supposed* to be able to track the F-22.

Stepping away from the propaganda, there is absolutely nothing to indicate that is possible. There is nothing revolutionary or unique about the sensor suite on the Su-57 to make that happen.

Yes a Su-57 will track an F-22 if it gets close enough, but that scenario in the real world is almost certainly not going to occur.

sovietjet · Wed Feb 28, 2018 9:30 pm

Ozair wrote:
Yes a Su-57 will track an F-22 if it gets close enough, but that scenario in the real world is almost certainly not going to occur.

The IRST is designed exactly for that, short to midrange detection based on the heat signature. Yes, the F-22 design has taken that into consideration to improve the heat signature of the airplane. But, putting it simply, at shorter distances this advantage disappears. You say that scenario is not going to occur, but what if it does? Putting it simply, the F-22 has quite the advantage over 4th, and 4++ generation jets like the Su-30 or Su-35 because they don't have stealth. But the Su-57 does, albeit with some obvious exceptions in the rear part. If the Su-57 and F-22 are approaching each other from far away, it is the front profile RCS that matters. I'd say from the front the Su-57 RCS is probably respectably low, perhaps enough to get into mid to low range against an F-22. This is of course debatable, but I think we can all agree the Su-57 is optimized to have lowest RCS from the front. So, it becomes "stealth vs stealth", and if they can't detect each other from far away then logically they will end up close to each other by the time they do detect each other. As you said there is nothing too revolutionary or unique about the Su-57 sensor suite, perhaps it is more sensitive, perhaps more efficient or stealthy, but neither is the F-22 sensor suite which is now 20+ years old. To put it simply, do you think an F-22 can detect another F-22 at far distances? I think not, and this would apply to any stealth aircraft. Once they get close, the advantage might be to the Su-57. It has IRST, it has a helmet mounted "look-shoot" capability, it has an ECM suite, it is arguably a little more maneuverable, and it has a better datalink. These are all things that, in theory, should give advantage to the Su-57 at shorter distance fights.

Slug71 · Wed Feb 28, 2018 10:13 pm

Ozair wrote:
Slug71 wrote:
To be fair, the Flankers and SU-57 is a lot more maneuverable than the Raptor or SH. It's true that Sukhoi sacrificed some stealth for maneuverability.

What is your evidence for that claim? If you look at the specifics of each of the jets named, they all have similar characteristics and G ratings while the US aircraft have higher AoA than Flankers. All can conduct pretty much the same manoeuvres with each having a different low speed highlight (which is tactically useless…).

Respectfully disagree. I'm not trying to turn this into a pissing contest, but show me 1 video of a US fighter that can maneuver as well as a SU-35 or T-50/SU-57?

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

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uAlaLKZ33xU

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QpxRi8RNXm8

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vfYElZi9QTk

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H0mt2mI5LDY

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_9Rrim49lFM

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GS3hBnqDlAs

Love them or hate them, theres is no denying their amazing maneuverability. There is absolutely no aircraft other than the F-22 that gets close to that. The F-22 too is very impressive. Not very tactically useless when you have to dodge missiles or forced into a WVR dogfight because EW and radar have caught up with stealth which we are seeing happening.

Ozair wrote:
Slug71 wrote:
The SU-57's senor suite IS *supposed* to be able to track the F-22.

Stepping away from the propaganda, there is absolutely nothing to indicate that is possible. There is nothing revolutionary or unique about the sensor suite on the Su-57 to make that happen.

Yes a Su-57 will track an F-22 if it gets close enough, but that scenario in the real world is almost certainly not going to occur.

It's MORE likely to happen with systems catching up to each other and being able to track stealth targets. The easiest way to lose a fight, is to underestimate your opponent.

Andre3K · Wed Feb 28, 2018 11:15 pm

To everyone claiming the US doesn't have full fledged 3d thrust vectoring, I suggest you check out the F-15 Active. Also the F-16 MATV. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qmIQAOG789E

Ozair · Wed Feb 28, 2018 11:41 pm

sovietjet wrote:
The IRST is designed exactly for that, short to midrange detection based on the heat signature. Yes, the F-22 design has taken that into consideration to improve the heat signature of the airplane. But, putting it simply, at shorter distances this advantage disappears.

The respective IRST used by the SU-57 is widely acknowledged to be the same used on the SU-35. How does this IRST determine range? Via the use of a laser rangefinder, same as every other IRST. Until the SU-57 is within the laser rangefinder range, which for the specific system fitted to the SU-57 is 20km, it is unlikely to be able to detect the F-22, if the IRST can even find the jet at that range anyway.
http://www.knaapo.ru/products/su-35/

Not only that but as mentioned in the other thread the IRST increases RCS when used, increasing the front RCS aspect of the aircraft

sovietjet wrote:
You say that scenario is not going to occur, but what if it does? Putting it simply, the F-22 has quite the advantage over 4th, and 4++ generation jets like the Su-30 or Su-35 because they don't have stealth. But the Su-57 does, albeit with some obvious exceptions in the rear part.

There are no indications that the SU-57 has gone beyond LO stealth. Forget shaping and RAM treatment, VLO stealth is a whole level below that necessitate changes and customization of nearly every external system, the alignment and build quality of the airframe etc.

We don’t see that on current SU-57 prototypes.

If that specific scenario does occur then the respective F-22 driver deals with it, hoping that his training and experience, which ultimately decide most WVR engagements anyway, allows him to come out on top.

sovietjet wrote:
If the Su-57 and F-22 are approaching each other from far away, it is the front profile RCS that matters. I'd say from the front the Su-57 RCS is probably respectably low, perhaps enough to get into mid to low range against an F-22. This is of course debatable, but I think we can all agree the Su-57 is optimized to have lowest RCS from the front. So, it becomes "stealth vs stealth", and if they can't detect each other from far away then logically they will end up close to each other by the time they do detect each other.

Why are they approaching each other from the front? Why do you need to limit the entire airspace around the jets to accommodate one single aspect engagement profile? How does the SU-57, or the F-22, know that its aspect is exactly pointed front to its adversary?

sovietjet wrote:
As you said there is nothing too revolutionary or unique about the Su-57 sensor suite, perhaps it is more sensitive, perhaps more efficient or stealthy, but neither is the F-22 sensor suite which is now 20+ years old.

The F-22 has been continually upgraded through its service life. The Russians are working on their first airborne fighter sized AESA in a production jet. Russian AESA module development is significantly behind western designs and manufacturing techniques. Russian companies are under significant sanctions for just these exact advanced systems and sensors that are required for fighter applications.

sovietjet wrote:
To put it simply, do you think an F-22 can detect another F-22 at far distances? I think not, and this would apply to any stealth aircraft.

There are too many variables to answer that question including the nebulous term far.

sovietjet wrote:
Once they get close, the advantage might be to the Su-57. It has IRST, it has a helmet mounted "look-shoot" capability, it has an ECM suite, it is arguably a little more maneuverable, and it has a better datalink. These are all things that, in theory, should give advantage to the Su-57 at shorter distance fights.

FYI, there is no evidence that the SU-57 has a better datalink than the F-22. Given the Russians still have not produced a tactical datalink that rivals Link-16 while the F-22 has the IFDL which is significantly more advanced as well as LPI, I have very large doubts .

You are making huge assumptions in claiming what will occur. At this point in time I will go with the nation that has four in service manned stealth aircraft and a host of unmanned stealth platforms over the nation that has zero of either.

Slug71 wrote:
Respectfully disagree. I'm not trying to turn this into a pissing contest, but show me 1 video of a US fighter that can maneuver as well as a SU-35 or T-50/SU-57?

I am not going to waste my time looking at youtube vids of aircraft that do not represent production weights or configurations. Nor am I going to bother worrying about low and slow portions of demos that, again, have no tactical value… Plenty of aircraft do low and slow stunts at airshows around the world and in most cases do not represent production weights and configurations for these aircraft. To attempt to claim an aircraft is manoeuvrable from an airshow, or youtube in general, is flawed.

Slug71 wrote:
Not very tactically useless when you have to dodge missiles or forced into a WVR dogfight because EW and radar have caught up with stealth which we are seeing happening.

There is no indication that EW and radar have caught up with stealth. If so, why are nations around the world continuing to develop and field stealth aircraft? They could save literally billions of dollars and avoid the compromises that come with operating stealth airframes if they believed that. Instead the development of systems from Russia, China, USA, Japan, Korea, India, France, Turkey etc all point to stealth being a key aspect of military aircraft development and has become a mandatory in service requirement.

meecrob · Thu Mar 01, 2018 12:04 am

sovietjet wrote:
Ozair wrote:
Yes a Su-57 will track an F-22 if it gets close enough, but that scenario in the real world is almost certainly not going to occur.

The IRST is designed exactly for that, short to midrange detection based on the heat signature. Yes, the F-22 design has taken that into consideration to improve the heat signature of the airplane. But, putting it simply, at shorter distances this advantage disappears. You say that scenario is not going to occur, but what if it does? Putting it simply, the F-22 has quite the advantage over 4th, and 4++ generation jets like the Su-30 or Su-35 because they don't have stealth. But the Su-57 does, albeit with some obvious exceptions in the rear part. If the Su-57 and F-22 are approaching each other from far away, it is the front profile RCS that matters. I'd say from the front the Su-57 RCS is probably respectably low, perhaps enough to get into mid to low range against an F-22. This is of course debatable, but I think we can all agree the Su-57 is optimized to have lowest RCS from the front. So, it becomes "stealth vs stealth", and if they can't detect each other from far away then logically they will end up close to each other by the time they do detect each other. As you said there is nothing too revolutionary or unique about the Su-57 sensor suite, perhaps it is more sensitive, perhaps more efficient or stealthy, but neither is the F-22 sensor suite which is now 20+ years old. To put it simply, do you think an F-22 can detect another F-22 at far distances? I think not, and this would apply to any stealth aircraft. Once they get close, the advantage might be to the Su-57. It has IRST, it has a helmet mounted "look-shoot" capability, it has an ECM suite, it is arguably a little more maneuverable, and it has a better datalink. These are all things that, in theory, should give advantage to the Su-57 at shorter distance fights.

To be fair though, what you described sounds more like a WWII encounter than a modern one. Tactics have changed from "fly as fast and as high as possible and come out of the sun on your enemy." I don't have any military tactics training or anything aside from combat flight simulators, but even I can guess they would be planning something more sophisticated than a combat air patrol. You are not taking into account satellite recon, AWACS, etc. that are available to both air forces. I have no idea if this would work in real life, but I'll say it as an example of how SU-57's could be handled in a modern battlefield: Use your satellites to find the SU-57 bases, then plan a full ground attack on them with 4th gen planes with fighter and AWACS support, and have F-22's flying top cover a ways away. If any SU-57's manage to get airborne or are vectored in from another task, they will not see the F-22's and will not have the optimal RCS to avoid detection, because they would not be flying directly at the F-22's. If any SU-57's survive (which I'm guessing they will), just wash, rinse and repeat until they are all destroyed. It is a war of attrition, not strictly technology. The US can survive longer in a war of attrition. Having said all that, I really miss the days of WWII dogfights...

estorilm · Thu Mar 01, 2018 1:01 pm

Ozair wrote:
Scorpius wrote:
I initially pointed out to you that these aircraft imply different concepts of application. In the case of the T-50, emphasis is placed on better aerodynamic qualities to the detriment of stealth technology. Have you seen the aerobatics on the T-50?

The T-50 hasn’t exhibited anything in aerodynamic qualities that we haven’t seen from Flankers, Raptors or SH previously.

Scorpius wrote:
About the superiority of the United States in engines and computer equipment - you are here in error. First of all, I will point out to you the fact that the targeting system in the direction of the pilot's view, for example, appeared in Russia earlier than in the United States.

You mean the IRST? These sensors were present in US century series aircraft in the 50s and early 60s. Even today IRSTs do not replace the radar as the primary sensor and are unlikely to in the future.

On the F-35 the IRST is integrated with the EOTS targeting pod and this implementation has been copied by the Chinese for the J-20. The location and functionality of the IRST on the T-50 appears to be a legacy fitting from the Flanker.

Scorpius wrote:
And regarding the engine of the American contractors, all is not so rosy. For example, the us does not yet have full-fledged engines with all-range deviation of the thrust vector. In almost all cases the limitations outweigh the benefits.

The US has an excellent understanding of both the benefits and limitations that occur with 3D nozzles. They have already tested these features through the 80s and 90s.

Scorpius wrote:
Yes, and in the development of the F-35, for example, using advances in technology used on the Yak-141, but it's still the eighties.

You go to great pains to claim that Soviet/Russian aircraft are not copies of western designs and yet then make claims like this?

A simple review of the actual technology used in the F-35B would allow you to understand both where that technology came from and the differences between it and the YAK-141.

Scorpius wrote:
So in general, comparing the T-50 and F-22 is highly incorrect. If the F - 22 is made with an emphasis on stealth-the T-50 was developed as a hunter for the F-22.

If that is the intent then it is flawed logic. How does a hunter find a target when it can’t see the target?

That last sentence summarizes my thoughts entirely. Thanks Ozair! I might actually get some work done today!

On a side note to Scorpius, I'll still add that regardless of vectoring (though 2D, HIGHLY stealthy vectoring on F-22 is clearly a superior option when considering overall pod size/shape/integration, rear stealth, etc) Russian engine mfg. is inferior, from exponentially higher maintenance:flt hr, to core efficiency, temperatures, materials, pressure ratios, size, combustor tech, overall reliability, etc. There's simply no arguing this, it's been known for a long time - it's pretty much Pratt, GE, and RR. Even modern Russian aircraft can routinely be seen spewing smoke like something out of the 60's on a regular basis. Many require major overhauls shortly after being "pushed" a bit (even though well within published specs and flight envelope.)

estorilm · Thu Mar 01, 2018 1:35 pm

Ozair wrote:
sovietjet wrote:
The IRST is designed exactly for that, short to midrange detection based on the heat signature. Yes, the F-22 design has taken that into consideration to improve the heat signature of the airplane. But, putting it simply, at shorter distances this advantage disappears.

The respective IRST used by the SU-57 is widely acknowledged to be the same used on the SU-35. How does this IRST determine range? Via the use of a laser rangefinder, same as every other IRST. Until the SU-57 is within the laser rangefinder range, which for the specific system fitted to the SU-57 is 20km, it is unlikely to be able to detect the F-22, if the IRST can even find the jet at that range anyway.
http://www.knaapo.ru/products/su-35/

Not only that but as mentioned in the other thread the IRST increases RCS when used, increasing the front RCS aspect of the aircraft

Exactly - additionally, it's my understanding that all of the weapons are incapable of receiving any type of targeting solutions or firing information from the IRST system, it's solely for pilot SA.

Essentially the pilot may know there's an F-22 in front of them (BUT again as you say, if he's using IRST the F-22 in passive mode already knows FOR SURE where the SU-57 is) however will be incapable of firing a weapon with said info, so it's fairly pointless. The passive sensor suite in the F-22 combined with uncompromised frontal stealth isn't something I'd want to play around with in a frontal BVR engagement.

In fact conversely, I've read from a couple different sources that the ALR-94 / RWR on the F-22 IS capable of passively providing lock-on information to BVR weapons. I'm sure this true capability is one of the most closely guarded secrets of the entire aircraft and program, for obvious reasons - as it would be key to the entire purpose of the F-22.

Perhaps in 10 years when the SU-57 kinks have been worked out and mature systems are fitted and implemented, testing completed, upgrades, etc, it will be effective. Of course by that point the F-22 will have taken flight over 30 years earlier. This would tend to follow the typical pattern of air superiority aircraft development from US/EU/Russia.

sovietjet · Thu Mar 01, 2018 4:00 pm

Well, I agree that the Su-57 is late. At least 20 years late. The Russians have a lot of catching up to do, but let’s not forget that the 90s and early 2000s were devastating for the Russian aviation industry. It is inevitable. I have my doubts and skepticism about the Su-57 especially about the stealth features in the rear, structural integrity, and the fact that the planned numbers are still very low. Also, it has a lot of new systems and weapons to prove which I can imagine it will with time. But, let’s not underestimate it either. Some people are prejudiced that just because it is Russian it automatically means it isn’t good. I take the capabilities advertised at face value. There is no reason for them to lie that it can do more than it could, that would just be lying to themselves. If anything, they can lie that it is less capable than it actually is. So when we quote technical specifications, I assume they are relevant. That being said, the Su-57 is the closest thing to a match to the F-22. I really don’t think an F-22 will have a turkey shoot with them the way it does with 4th gen fighters.

Ozair wrote:
The respective IRST used by the SU-57 is widely acknowledged to be the same used on the SU-35. How does this IRST determine range? Via the use of a laser rangefinder, same as every other IRST. Until the SU-57 is within the laser rangefinder range, which for the specific system fitted to the SU-57 is 20km, it is unlikely to be able to detect the F-22, if the IRST can even find the jet at that range anyway.
http://www.knaapo.ru/products/su-35/
Not only that but as mentioned in the other thread the IRST increases RCS when used, increasing the front RCS aspect of the aircraft

The manufacturer clearly says detection is 50km, even if the distance measured is 20km it still detects further and knows something is there. If IRST is as useless as you think, why does every modern jet have it? Why is the USAF adamant about adding this capability now to the F-15?

Ozair wrote:
There are no indications that the SU-57 has gone beyond LO stealth. Forget shaping and RAM treatment, VLO stealth is a whole level below that necessitate changes and customization of nearly every external system, the alignment and build quality of the airframe etc.

We don’t see that on current SU-57 prototypes.

Describe VLO. Describe these changes and customizations. How do you know we don't see that on the Su-57 or that it doesn't have it? If you're talking about tolerances of parts, do you know the exact tolerances of either the F-22 or the Su-57 various components? Do you know the build quality of both jets? Only then can you make such assumptions. As I said, let's not underestimate capabilities here. It is likely that the F-22 has a lower RCS, but I think the Su-57 RCS is low enough that in some scenarios it can get within range to surprise the F-22.

Ozair wrote:
Why are they approaching each other from the front? Why do you need to limit the entire airspace around the jets to accommodate one single aspect engagement profile? How does the SU-57, or the F-22, know that its aspect is exactly pointed front to its adversary?

It is obviously just one scenario I gave. But it is a likely scenario.

Ozair wrote:
The F-22 has been continually upgraded through its service life. The Russians are working on their first airborne fighter sized AESA in a production jet. Russian AESA module development is significantly behind western designs and manufacturing techniques. Russian companies are under significant sanctions for just these exact advanced systems and sensors that are required for fighter applications.

The F-22 software has been upgraded, sure. It allows the plane to use AIM-120D, AIM-9X, SDB and etc along with fixing bugs or adding other secondary capabilities. But the radar, the hardware, hasn't really been touched. It's the same thing that was put in originally. So, capabilities aren't going to change.

Ozair wrote:
There are too many variables to answer that question including the nebulous term far.

OK, let's ask this another way. At what range will an F-22 detect another F-22?

Ozair wrote:
FYI, there is no evidence that the SU-57 has a better datalink than the F-22. Given the Russians still have not produced a tactical datalink that rivals Link-16 while the F-22 has the IFDL which is significantly more advanced as well as LPI, I have very large doubts .

The F-22 datalink is amazing, but only works with other F-22s. The Su-57, I had read before, can work with all other jets. This remains to be proven.

estorilm wrote:

Exactly - additionally, it's my understanding that all of the weapons are incapable of receiving any type of targeting solutions or firing information from the IRST system, it's solely for pilot SA.

Essentially the pilot may know there's an F-22 in front of them (BUT again as you say, if he's using IRST the F-22 in passive mode already knows FOR SURE where the SU-57 is) however will be incapable of firing a weapon with said info, so it's fairly pointless. The passive sensor suite in the F-22 combined with uncompromised frontal stealth isn't something I'd want to play around with in a frontal BVR engagement.

Again, how do you know the F-22 knows FOR SURE where the Su-57 is? Despite the problems with the rear part, the front is stealthy enough. If IRST is so useless, why put it on? I think you aren’t correct about this. IRST is indeed used to launch missiles.

I think you guys underestimate the aircraft too much. It has some shortcomings and questionable solutions, but to scoff and wave it off lighthandedly is a mistake.

Ozair · Thu Mar 01, 2018 8:59 pm

sovietjet wrote:
Well, I agree that the Su-57 is late. At least 20 years late. The Russians have a lot of catching up to do, but let’s not forget that the 90s and early 2000s were devastating for the Russian aviation industry. It is inevitable. I have my doubts and skepticism about the Su-57 especially about the stealth features in the rear, structural integrity, and the fact that the planned numbers are still very low. Also, it has a lot of new systems and weapons to prove which I can imagine it will with time. But, let’s not underestimate it either. Some people are prejudiced that just because it is Russian it automatically means it isn’t good. I take the capabilities advertised at face value. There is no reason for them to lie that it can do more than it could, that would just be lying to themselves. If anything, they can lie that it is less capable than it actually is. So when we quote technical specifications, I assume they are relevant. That being said, the Su-57 is the closest thing to a match to the F-22. I really don’t think an F-22 will have a turkey shoot with them the way it does with 4th gen fighters.

I see no reason to give the Su-57 any more credibility than it deserves. The point is the jet has to prove itself and flying prototypes to Syria is not proof. I also don’t think I’m prejudiced against it, I am looking at it and the respective systems it contains and how they will operate as a whole.

As for the lying part, the end of the cold war showed us that the Soviet Union had a large number of systems that didn’t work as well as claimed. I’ll therefore take any claims coming from Russia with a grain of salt until proven otherwise.

sovietjet wrote:
The manufacturer clearly says detection is 50km, even if the distance measured is 20km it still detects further and knows something is there. If IRST is as useless as you think, why does every modern jet have it? Why is the USAF adamant about adding this capability now to the F-15?

50k m against a standard target, clearly the F-22 is not a standard target from an IR detection perspective. Past that laser rangefinder range, the Su-57 has no idea the distance to the target unless it uses it’s radar to attempt to lock onto the target potentially beaconing itself to evenyone around. How does it know it is an F-22 and not another aircraft, or UAV, or decoy?

No one said IRSTs are useless, they obviously have a function as part of a sensor suite, for both A2A and A2G, but pinning the whole engagement cycle on an IRST is flawed. What if it’s cloudy or raining for instance?

sovietjet wrote:
How do you know we don't see that on the Su-57 or that it doesn't have it? If you're talking about tolerances of parts, do you know the exact tolerances of either the F-22 or the Su-57 various components? Do you know the build quality of both jets? Only then can you make such assumptions. As I said, let's not underestimate capabilities here. It is likely that the F-22 has a lower RCS, but I think the Su-57 RCS is low enough that in some scenarios it can get within range to surprise the F-22.

The prototypes don’t show the adherence to VLO principals that are necessary to achieve the RCS reductions found in F-22 and F-35. That may change with production jets but I am not confident that will occur.

sovietjet wrote:
It is obviously just one scenario I gave. But it is a likely scenario.

It is a possible scenario, likely is too much of a leap.

sovietjet wrote:
The F-22 software has been upgraded, sure. It allows the plane to use AIM-120D, AIM-9X, SDB and etc along with fixing bugs or adding other secondary capabilities. But the radar, the hardware, hasn't really been touched. It's the same thing that was put in originally. So, capabilities aren't going to change.

The software in the F-22 radar has been upgraded numerous times since IOC. For AESA radar, the magic is in the software not the hardware, that is where the LPI modes are generated, the EA features, the EP. AESA hardware has the nice features of providing graceful degradation, mechanical simplicity and some power increase but not too much more than that.

sovietjet wrote:
OK, let's ask this another way. At what range will an F-22 detect another F-22?

Even if I knew clearly that isn’t a question that would be answered on an internet forum.

sovietjet wrote:
The F-22 datalink is amazing, but only works with other F-22s. The Su-57, I had read before, can work with all other jets. This remains to be proven.

And lacking details. What other jets, Flankers, Fulcrum, MiG-31, Russian ground stations? The devil is in the details.

sovietjet wrote:
I think you guys underestimate the aircraft too much. It has some shortcomings and questionable solutions, but to scoff and wave it off lighthandedly is a mistake.

Again, no scoff or lighthanded brushoff but assessing the aircraft for what it is, and what it isn’t…

sovietjet · Thu Mar 01, 2018 9:54 pm

Ozair, obviously the Su-57 needs to prove itself. How this will happen is questionable. Even the F-22, after all these years hasn't proven that much outside of exercises. Yes, I don't doubt its lethality. But it hasn't really had a chance to prove itself in combat outside of dropping SDBs on some bearded bad guys. The discussion we are having here has a lower chance of taking place and being "proven" one way or another than a manned mission to Mars.

WIederling · Thu Mar 01, 2018 10:17 pm

sovietjet wrote:
.. hasn't proven that much outside of exercises. Yes, I don't doubt its lethality.

Seem to remember an SF story where the dominance race between east and west had turned into PR nirwana.
One super duper duper weapon countering the previous super duper weapon from the other side but only on paper.
Rinse repeat. A perfect PR war in a global glass.

And then some Aliens entered LEO. With real weapons. Upps-.

Slug71 · Fri Mar 02, 2018 4:21 pm

Ozair wrote:
Slug71 wrote:
Respectfully disagree. I'm not trying to turn this into a pissing contest, but show me 1 video of a US fighter that can maneuver as well as a SU-35 or T-50/SU-57?

I am not going to waste my time looking at youtube vids of aircraft that do not represent production weights or configurations. Nor am I going to bother worrying about low and slow portions of demos that, again, have no tactical value… Plenty of aircraft do low and slow stunts at airshows around the world and in most cases do not represent production weights and configurations for these aircraft. To attempt to claim an aircraft is manoeuvrable from an airshow, or youtube in general, is flawed.

Oh come on man, it's well worth the watch even aside from this thread. And the SU-35 IS a production aircraft, as is the SU-30 which is capable of the same maneuverability. Airshow or no airshow, the aircraft is still capable of that which NO other western fighter has been able to demonstrate. You made the claim that other fighters were as maneuverable as the Flankers and I simply disputed with evidence. I don't think engineers spend billions incorporating such engineering just for airshows or if there is no tactical value. As detection windows shrink, WVR engagements become more likely again.

Ozair wrote:
Slug71 wrote:
Not very tactically useless when you have to dodge missiles or forced into a WVR dogfight because EW and radar have caught up with stealth which we are seeing happening.

There is no indication that EW and radar have caught up with stealth. If so, why are nations around the world continuing to develop and field stealth aircraft? They could save literally billions of dollars and avoid the compromises that come with operating stealth airframes if they believed that. Instead the development of systems from Russia, China, USA, Japan, Korea, India, France, Turkey etc all point to stealth being a key aspect of military aircraft development and has become a mandatory in service requirement.

Ah because as weapons sensors and radar improve, so does the aircraft need to improve? Or vice versa. And yes, many nations including the US that produce such systems are claiming they have products that can detect, track and shoot down stealth targets. S-400 and S-500 are examples and others are working on or have bistatic and low-frequency radar, as well as other means for such purposes. Keep in mind, all the fine details of that stuff would be highly classified anyways.

Planeflyer · Fri Mar 02, 2018 8:29 pm

Guys, while I’m sure Russia has every intention of developing an ac that can match the F22 the probability of a us v Russia encounter is small.

The SU57 is designed to make Russia’s primary threat think twice about moving north.

And for this threat the SU57 can’t come soon enough.

Ozair · Fri Mar 02, 2018 9:20 pm

Slug71 wrote:

Oh come on man, it's well worth the watch even aside from this thread. And the SU-35 IS a production aircraft, as is the SU-30 which is capable of the same maneuverability. Airshow or no airshow, the aircraft is still capable of that which NO other western fighter has been able to demonstrate.

Slug, please understand that what you see at an airshow is not representative of how a jet flies in combat. If you view the Russian Su-27 Flanker EM charts, which are available on numerous forums around the place, you realise that most Flankers are about as manoeuvrable as an F-15 when they are loaded at combat weights, slightly better slower but worse faster. An Su-30 is heavier and draggier than an Su-27. While the Su-35 may improve on the Su-27 that probably constitutes a less than one or two degrees per second improvement, the airframe will still suffer performance penalties at combat loaded weights compared to what we see at an airshow.

Slug71 wrote:
You made the claim that other fighters were as maneuverable as the Flankers and I simply disputed with evidence. I don't think engineers spend billions incorporating such engineering just for airshows or if there is no tactical value. As detection windows shrink, WVR engagements become more likely again.

Again, airshow footage is not evidence of anything...

As for WVR engagements, with HOBS missiles you don't make it past the merge into a one or two circle engagement before you die. At WVR no aircraft will outturn current missiles.

The Su-57 does bring a better HMD to Russian airframes which is reportedly quite an improvement on the current systems.

Planeflyer wrote:
Guys, while I’m sure Russia has every intention of developing an ac that can match the F22 the probability of a us v Russia encounter is small.

Russia has a strong desire to export the Su-57, as it has with the Su-35. At some point, as happened over the last 60 years, front line Russian and US/European aircraft will likely meet. It may not be via their respective countries but with export clients and is a likely scenario. (obviously the F-22 is an exception being in US service only but the opportunity for the F-22 to meet and engage Russian aircraft is not zero).

Scorpius · Sat Mar 03, 2018 11:59 am

Ozair wrote:
Slug, please understand that what you see at an airshow is not representative of how a jet flies in combat. If you view the Russian Su-27 Flanker EM charts, which are available on numerous forums around the place, you realise that most Flankers are about as manoeuvrable as an F-15 when they are loaded at combat weights, slightly better slower but worse faster. An Su-30 is heavier and draggier than an Su-27. While the Su-35 may improve on the Su-27 that probably constitutes a less than one or two degrees per second improvement, the airframe will still suffer performance penalties at combat loaded weights compared to what we see at an airshow.

If you were to watch a video, like this:

then you would see that the Su-35S performs all the elements of aerobatics with suspended three missiles of class "air-to-air". Su-34 at MAKS-2017, for example, also performed a aerobatic program with a suspended load of 4 tons.

But in this video, for example, shows a training dogfight at close range in the performance of the two T-50:

You are now as many can tell tales about the supposedly better F-22.
However, the reality we see in Syria-where F-22 are afraid to meet even Su-35S.
Again - trying to invent some kind of superiority the F-22 is simply senseless. Su-57 aircraft will be used in practice as part of the air defense system, including systems such as the S-400 and S-500, radar long-range detection stations, aircraft of type A-50 or A-100, which will ensure the reliable detection of the F-22 and primary target designation for the Su-57.

Dutchy · Sat Mar 03, 2018 12:32 pm

Sure Scorpius, the mighty Russians are indefensible, right? We will see the headlines of Russian tanks in Lisbon soon I guess.

Scorpius · Sat Mar 03, 2018 12:56 pm

Scorpius wrote:
Ozair wrote:
Slug, please understand that what you see at an airshow is not representative of how a jet flies in combat. If you view the Russian Su-27 Flanker EM charts, which are available on numerous forums around the place, you realise that most Flankers are about as manoeuvrable as an F-15 when they are loaded at combat weights, slightly better slower but worse faster. An Su-30 is heavier and draggier than an Su-27. While the Su-35 may improve on the Su-27 that probably constitutes a less than one or two degrees per second improvement, the airframe will still suffer performance penalties at combat loaded weights compared to what we see at an airshow.

If you were to watch a video, like this:
https://youtu.be/bAkFQFwWuvU
then you would see that the Su-35S performs all the elements of aerobatics with suspended three missiles of class "air-to-air". Su-34 at MAKS-2017, for example, also performed a aerobatic program with a suspended load of 4 tons.

But in this video, for example, shows a training dogfight at close range in the performance of the two T-50:
https://youtu.be/pSZtbv0GoiA

You are now as many can tell tales about the supposedly better F-22.
However, the reality we see in Syria-where F-22 are afraid to meet even Su-35S.
Again - trying to invent some kind of superiority the F-22 is simply senseless. Su-57 aircraft will be used in practice as part of the air defense system, including systems such as the S-400 and S-500, radar long-range detection stations, aircraft of type A-50 or A-100, which will ensure the reliable detection of the F-22 and primary target designation for the Su-57.

Scorpius · Sat Mar 03, 2018 12:57 pm

Dutchy wrote:
Sure Scorpius, the mighty Russians are indefensible, right? We will see the headlines of Russian tanks in Lisbon soon I guess.

If the West continues its aggressive attacks, it is quite possible.

Dutchy · Sat Mar 03, 2018 12:58 pm

Which aggressive attacks? Are you having nightmare again between your dreams of an all-powerful USSR?

Phosphorus · Sat Mar 03, 2018 4:16 pm

In their parlance, admitting countries like Estonia and Poland, who are scared of a possible Russian invasion, into a defensive alliance (NATO), is an act of unparalleled aggression, and is almost the same (very little difference) from an all-out, decapitating preemptive first nuclear strike.

Dutchy · Sat Mar 03, 2018 4:26 pm

Then we are lucky that Russians didn't fire their nuclear arsenal at us, at the time we admitted these countries into a defensive organization. Thank you, Russia for your unparalleled constrained.

fab81 · Sun Mar 04, 2018 9:00 am

Declassified info shows indeed that Russia received insurance that NATO would not expand east.
http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-bu ... ldnt-23629

Dutchy · Sun Mar 04, 2018 10:09 am

fab81 wrote:
Declassified info shows indeed that Russia received insurance that NATO would not expand east.
http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-bu ... ldnt-23629

The last word isn't out on this:

https://www.nato.int/docu/review/2014/R ... /index.htm

WIederling · Sun Mar 04, 2018 12:20 pm

Dutchy wrote:
https://www.nato.int/docu/review/2014/Russia-Ukraine-Nato-crisis/Nato-enlargement-Russia/EN/index.htm

Outch. Got something that is slightly less partisan?

Overall communicated understanding at the time was SU would allow German unification under the premise
that NATO presence would not move further East than status quo. That also excluded the "Neue Bundesländer".

I've been there at the time.

The SU and its legal follow up RF was deeply betrayed afaics.

Dutchy · Sun Mar 04, 2018 12:23 pm

You have been with the talks at the time, impressive,.........................if true.

Phosphorus · Sun Mar 04, 2018 1:27 pm

SU died in 1991, its feeling of betrayal must be occurring in some afterlife netherworld, where Babylonia, Ottoman Empire and Pharaonic Egypt dwell. Its followup RF was fortunate to be allowed to inherit the entire USSR nuclear arsenal plus the coveted "one of the five original NPT signatories" status -- i.e. legalization of its nukes, plus the Security Council seat, to boot.

What else did it expect? That its neighbours forgot who Russia really is, and didn't run for cover at the first available opportunity? (Well, that's the mistake Ukraine made, and is paying for it.)

fab81 · Sun Mar 04, 2018 1:46 pm

Dutchy wrote:
fab81 wrote:
Declassified info shows indeed that Russia received insurance that NATO would not expand east.
http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-bu ... ldnt-23629

The last word isn't out on this:

https://www.nato.int/docu/review/2014/R ... /index.htm

You mention a 2014 document from a "very neutral" website that has been proven wrong in the above national interest article published end of last year thanks to declassified info.

WIederling · Sun Mar 04, 2018 2:03 pm

Dutchy wrote:
You have been with the talks at the time, impressive,.........................if true.

didn't you know? I was Genschman's sidekick. Kinkel was just a tool.

back to reason:
go over news papers and magazines from that time.
Spiegel and Zeit, Hamburger Abendblatt, ... have a good archive going back beyond internet times.
The communicated consensus was German Reunification but no NATO expansion East.
( Initially there was some talk of Germany going neutral even. )

Nothing less was expected of one party now finding convoluted reason on why breaking this is OK.

fab81 · Sun Mar 04, 2018 2:06 pm

Phosphorus wrote:
SU died in 1991, its feeling of betrayal must be occurring in some afterlife netherworld, where Babylonia, Ottoman Empire and Pharaonic Egypt dwell. Its followup RF was fortunate to be allowed to inherit the entire USSR nuclear arsenal plus the coveted "one of the five original NPT signatories" status -- i.e. legalization of its nukes, plus the Security Council seat, to boot.

What else did it expect? That its neighbours forgot who Russia really is, and didn't run for cover at the first available opportunity? (Well, that's the mistake Ukraine made, and is paying for it.)

Well, the question is why the Nato didn't stop as its reason of existence (SU and its ideology) cessed to exist ?
Why did Nato refused to transform to an organization including Russia in the end of the 90s, beginning the 2000s ? Russia was very open to discuss and willing to be withing the western block.
It would have avoided most of the current problems certainly in Europe that we have currently.

Phosphorus · Sun Mar 04, 2018 3:16 pm

fab81 wrote:
Well, the question is why the Nato didn't stop as its reason of existence (SU and its ideology) cessed to exist ?

External threats in this world aren't singular, are they? Even during existence of USSR, the NATO countries fought in wars unrelated to East-West, communism-capitalism divide.
Internal NATO issues were also quite important, like keeping (freshly re-united) Germany within an externalized military command structure (rather than let it brood, standalone, till it suddenly again got some "bright" ideas, militarily); or not forcing smaller NATO nations to scramble for increased military spending, because suddenly no common defense structure was available.

fab81 wrote:
Why did Nato refused to transform to an organization including Russia in the end of the 90s, beginning the 2000s ? Russia was very open to discuss and willing to be withing the western block.

I dunno. Did Russia have anything meaningful to offer?

fab81 wrote:
It would have avoided most of the current problems certainly in Europe that we have currently.

Maybe, just maybe, the politicians of 1990's generation were just a bit wiser than we give them credit for, and in their heart of hearts, they felt that this old dog (Russia) will not learn new tricks (coexistence with small neighbors on terms different from bullying and aggression). So no. Problems would not diminish.
A hello from couple of days ago, as a reminder:
goo.gl/Njp67W

The Cold War is not only back; at least for one country it never seems to have stopped.

Moscovia esse delendam. The source of the problems has to be eliminated. That seems the only feasible way out.

Planeflyer · Sun Mar 04, 2018 4:30 pm

For over a thousand years the many large Europeon wars have had a common detonator; Country A, being surrounded develops an extreme( sometimes warranted) sense of anxiety , takes actions in hopes of alleviating their poor position only to light the match.

Russia in now stuck in the position of Country A.

Probably the only thing we can all agree on( We’ll maybe not W) is that we are on in a very delicate situation. We need to convince Russia that with the threats comming from NK and Iran, that strategic defense is necessary but not a threat to them. We’ll need a lot of luck.

WIederling · Sun Mar 04, 2018 4:55 pm

Planeflyer wrote:
Probably the only thing we can all agree on( We’ll maybe not W) is that we are on in a very delicate situation. We need to convince Russia that with the threats comming from NK and Iran, that strategic defense is necessary but not a threat to them. We’ll need a lot of luck.

Russia, Iran, NK Syria, ... : All are dangers proclaimed by the USA. ( every time I see the liar Nikki Haley speak in the UN I could puke )
... after having spent effort to alienate and heckle these nations to no end.

Leave them alone and nothing happens. ( OK maybe the House of Saud will get apoplectic. Good riddance of Wahhabism. )

The US urgently needs a new bugaboo to get some grip on their "friends" that have turned away from their "good friend, the world policeman" whose public appearance has turned more and more into the school yard bully ("new American Century") he really was all the time.

in context:
Elsewhere on this globe "communism" was never viewed with the hysterics shown from the US.

atcsundevil · Sun Mar 04, 2018 10:50 pm

Please keep the thread on topic.

✈️ atcsundevil

bikerthai · Mon Mar 05, 2018 2:48 pm

atcsundevil wrote:
Please keep the thread on topic.

✈️ atcsundevil

I totally concur. Political agreements and disagreement are just that, something politicians negotiated thinking that is what is best for the people.

Similar to the agreement to partition India, Palestine, Vietnam, Korea, the exclusion of the Baltic states from NATO as a requisite of a unified Germany is just an artificial face saving declaration to mask the inevitable.

Lets just move on.

bt

Nicoeddf · Tue Mar 06, 2018 10:51 am

Planeflyer wrote:

Probably the only thing we can all agree on( We’ll maybe not W) is that we are on in a very delicate situation. We need to convince Russia that with the threats comming from NK and Iran, that strategic defense is necessary but not a threat to them. We’ll need a lot of luck.

We don't need luck at all.

We need to accept, dare I say the US needs to accept, that certain countries have equal rights in defending their country and their chosen political institutions.

Iran is not a threat to America or the rest of the western world. And Iran is not seeking to invade their neighbor countries. Iran is pursuing their right to live at their own will and by their own standards. And to influence neighbors as every country tries to do. And they, and that is equally correct for NK, understood a long time ago, that the nuclear option is the only certain way to keep the US from an invasion.

Russia is farther along that road of understanding. Russia doesn't perceive NK and/or Iran as a threat. Because there isn't any. While not being a fan of their modus operandi, Russia at least isn't hiding their will to influence by talk and by force.

And no, I don't dislike the US. Just their modus operandi of forcing a lifestyle on others. People in Iran for example will topple the government when the time is ripe and the population feels like it. Just like in DDR, in Poland, in Hungary, in Romania and other examples.

SU-57 in Syria, as that is the thread topic, only goes to show that Russia is willingly and openly influencing what they perceive as their interests. And they are at least open about it - be it on purpose or because they are incapable of hiding it.

Kiwirob · Tue Mar 06, 2018 11:33 am

fab81 wrote:
Well, the question is why the Nato didn't stop as its reason of existence (SU and its ideology) cessed to exist ?
Why did Nato refused to transform to an organization including Russia in the end of the 90s, beginning the 2000s ? Russia was very open to discuss and willing to be withing the western block.
It would have avoided most of the current problems certainly in Europe that we have currently.

Something I've always wondered as well, the Soviet Union broke up, the Warsaw Pact ended so NATO should have been disbanded as well.

jupiter2 · Tue Mar 06, 2018 12:05 pm

Kiwirob wrote:
fab81 wrote:
Well, the question is why the Nato didn't stop as its reason of existence (SU and its ideology) cessed to exist ?
Why did Nato refused to transform to an organization including Russia in the end of the 90s, beginning the 2000s ? Russia was very open to discuss and willing to be withing the western block.
It would have avoided most of the current problems certainly in Europe that we have currently.

Something I've always wondered as well, the Soviet Union broke up, the Warsaw Pact ended so NATO should have been disbanded as well.

Why ? if anything, until internal politics had settled down in Russia, NATO would have been relatively nervous as to who was going to end up having their finger on the button in Moscow. Just because the big Soviet bear had diminished somewhat, they still had the fire power to wipe everybody out. As it is now, with Putin in power for what looks like will be forever, the case for keeping NATO strong should be as important as ever. As long as he persists in his ultra nationalistic policies and drums up home support with anti west propaganda and building up the Russian miltary, the case for strengthening NATO is quite valid. A lot of the former Soviet republics would be growing increasingly nervous at the prospects of Russian tanks rolling across their borders and their is very little the rest of the world could/would do about it. At least the European nations have the support of NATO and that should be enough to deter Putin from taking them on.

keesje · Wed Mar 07, 2018 9:11 pm

Are there F22s in Syria? What's that good for?

Ozair · Wed Mar 07, 2018 10:32 pm

keesje wrote:
Are there F22s in Syria? What's that good for?

Yes and not much.

The campaign in Syria could continue without the F-22. The deployment there was probably for a couple of reasons including gaining operational experience with the jet including for aircrew and maintenance staff. Also being able to operate for a long period deployed may tease out issues with procedures and improve interoperability with other US and Coalition forces.

keesje · Thu Mar 08, 2018 12:26 am

Ozair wrote:
keesje wrote:
Are there F22s in Syria? What's that good for?

Yes and not much.

The campaign in Syria could continue without the F-22. The deployment there was probably for a couple of reasons including gaining operational experience with the jet including for aircrew and maintenance staff. Also being able to operate for a long period deployed may tease out issues with procedures and improve interoperability with other US and Coalition forces.

Maybe that's kind of what the Russians intend too.

Spacepope · Thu Mar 08, 2018 12:33 am

keesje wrote:
Ozair wrote:
keesje wrote:
Are there F22s in Syria? What's that good for?

Yes and not much.

The campaign in Syria could continue without the F-22. The deployment there was probably for a couple of reasons including gaining operational experience with the jet including for aircrew and maintenance staff. Also being able to operate for a long period deployed may tease out issues with procedures and improve interoperability with other US and Coalition forces.

Maybe that's kind of what the Russians intend too.

You'd think they'd wait for some production standard aircraft first.

How many sorties have they flown so far?

Ozair · Thu Mar 08, 2018 1:01 am

Spacepope wrote:
You'd think they'd wait for some production standard aircraft first.

Agree, these are not production aircraft. That in and of itself leads to the conclusion that this isn’t to test capability as much as it is to support other campaigns, such as a domestic agenda or an early sales campaign.

Spacepope wrote:
How many sorties have they flown so far?

Are they even still there?

Planeflyer · Thu Mar 08, 2018 7:59 am

F22’s are in Syria for the same reason NATO still exists. Rainy day insurance.

Who here thinks the world is safer w/o NATO?

Ozair · Thu Mar 08, 2018 8:27 am

Planeflyer wrote:
F22’s are in Syria for the same reason NATO still exists. Rainy day insurance.

I don't really see the need. Russia has maybe 12-16 Flankers of various types in country and little ability to support additional aircraft flying long range from regional bases. In contrast NATO nations in Syria have access to at least 5 times that number. If tensions escalated to the point that fighters were in conflict the Russian base in Syria would see enough LACMs to be non-functional for the duration, NATO almost certainly wouldn't be reliant on fighter jets to clear the sky.

sovietjet · Thu Mar 08, 2018 3:06 pm

The T-50s left Syria after two days, according to the official Russian MoD statement.

keesje · Thu Mar 08, 2018 5:38 pm

I think it is good to sometimes stop the flagwaving, take a step back and see if something is happening or it is just patriotic "don't do as we do". What would we think about russian forces supporting an operation in the middle America?

bikerthai · Fri Mar 09, 2018 2:49 pm

keesje wrote:
What would we think about russian forces supporting an operation in the middle America?

No aircrafts, but Russians ships operates in America's all the time, albeit, not permanently based :stirthepot:

Planeflyer wrote:
F22’s are in Syria for the same reason NATO still exists. Rainy day insurance.

A perfect example of the rainy day insurance paying off was the recent incursion of the mercenary force north of the Euphrates. You never know if a rouge element might do something stupid.

Of course, a flight of F-15 would also do the trick, but if you have F-22 in the area, it's like a force multiplier. The opponent do not know where the F-22 might be, so they would have to assume those planes can be anywhere.

bt

keesje · Fri Mar 09, 2018 3:52 pm

The enemy are doing AK47s, machine guns from 4x4 and carrying RPG's on mountains paths. Send a F22 after them..

Knowing a little about AF strategy they would keep F22 at safe distance from any serious opposition. A F-22 running into a lost 23mm or Vimpel would send out all the wrong messages, emotions and budget signals.

No single operational win could justify that risk. The enemy are doing AK47, machine guns from 4x4 and carrying RPG

Ozair · Fri Mar 09, 2018 8:46 pm

keesje wrote:
The enemy are doing AK47s, machine guns from 4x4 and carrying RPG's on mountains paths. Send a F22 after them..

Not quite. The russian mercenary forces in Syria were fully equipped units. In the recent engagement they brought tanks, BRDMs and artillery.

keesje wrote:
Knowing a little about AF strategy they would keep F22 at safe distance from any serious opposition. A F-22 running into a lost 23mm or Vimpel would send out all the wrong messages, emotions and budget signals.

No single operational win could justify that risk.

No single airframe is worth less than a 23mm cannon shell but it doesn't prevent the USAF from deploying other airframes in low level passes, such as the many show of force flyovers in Afghanistan.

Who is online

Popular Searches On Airliners.net