Jump to content


Photo

Sukhoi Su-57

SU-57 T-50 Russia Sukhoi flying pancake India

  • Please log in to reply
215 replies to this topic

#41 Yama

Yama

    Finntroll

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 7,017 posts

Posted 07 February 2018 - 0442 AM

I'm damn curious whom the Russians will be able to convince to buy SU-57s when J-31s are an option.  I guess we'll have to see what the final specs are on each bird, but the J-31 looks a hell of a lot stealthier.  Or if MiG comes out with a mini-SU-57 or something.


No such thing as 'J-31'. There is FC-31, a private venture of Shenyang. It's basically a technology demonstrator with no engines or avionics set available to make it an operational fighter.
  • 0

#42 Yama

Yama

    Finntroll

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 7,017 posts

Posted 07 February 2018 - 0453 AM

I'm damn curious whom the Russians will be able to convince to buy SU-57s when J-31s are an option.  I guess we'll have to see what the final specs are on each bird, but the J-31 looks a hell of a lot stealthier.  Or if MiG comes out with a mini-SU-57 or something.


It is on the works, in co-operation with UAE:
https://www.bloomber...ideast-tensions

Edited by Yama, 07 February 2018 - 0454 AM.

  • 0

#43 GARGEAN

GARGEAN

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 2,154 posts

Posted 07 February 2018 - 0521 AM

I'm damn curious whom the Russians will be able to convince to buy SU-57s when J-31s are an option.  I guess we'll have to see what the final specs are on each bird, but the J-31 looks a hell of a lot stealthier.  Or if MiG comes out with a mini-SU-57 or something.

No such thing as 'J-31'. There is FC-31, a private venture of Shenyang. It's basically a technology demonstrator with no engines or avionics set available to make it an operational fighter.
Still anything is better than what those pesky russkies can do. And didn't you knew that stealth is one and single thing that defines aircraft effectiveness?
  • 0

#44 glenn239

glenn239

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 5,518 posts

Posted 07 February 2018 - 0849 AM

The entirety of air combat history is that the plane which is not seen kills the plane that is seen 4:1 or more, yet you doubt stealth's central importance?


Edited by glenn239, 07 February 2018 - 0850 AM.

  • 0

#45 glenn239

glenn239

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 5,518 posts

Posted 07 February 2018 - 0850 AM

 

Loopycrank And why is that?  Is it because the Taliban command a stronger military than the United States?

 

 

 

You said the US could whump China or Russia and dominate Eurasia for a thousand years.  Historical tidbit – when in the sales brochure it says “thousand years”, in the fine print you’ll notice said empire only come with 12 year warranty.    The US can’t even beat the Taliban.  They’re going to beat the Chinese in Asia?  I don’t think so.

 

 

Josh If thirty years from now the US has radically realigned its alliances, I owe you a coke.

 

 

 

I think you meant that, if thirty years from now the South Koreans or Japanese have realigned their alliances, then you’ll owe him a coke. 


  • 0

#46 GARGEAN

GARGEAN

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 2,154 posts

Posted 07 February 2018 - 0903 AM

The entirety of air combat history is that the plane which is not seen kills the plane that is seen 4:1 or more, yet you doubt stealth's central importance?

I doubt that slight superiority on stealth(which is just argued, not hard-known) with inferiority in other systems would grant victory. Complicated array of AESA plates with max range more than 400km on 0,4m^2 RCS fighter would see 0,2m^2 RCS fighter with (let's speculate) 300km range radar sooner that this 0,2m^2 fighter would see anything.

Edited by GARGEAN, 07 February 2018 - 0915 AM.

  • 0

#47 Stuart Galbraith

Stuart Galbraith

    Just Another Salisbury Tourist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 55,765 posts

Posted 07 February 2018 - 0908 AM

The entirety of air combat history is that the plane which is not seen kills the plane that is seen 4:1 or more, yet you doubt stealth's central importance?

Agreed.

 

The vast majority of the Red Barons kills were against aircraft that never saw him. He only got in a dogfight a handful of times in his career. The first time he did, he spent half an hour manoeuvring for a kill in his Albatross against a clapped out DH2. The second time, he was shot down and killed.

 

So yes basically. Killing your opponent without being seen, would appear to have more value than going all Maverick on an enemy you are already engaged with. The F15's success supports that idea.


  • 0

#48 Josh

Josh

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 14,694 posts

Posted 07 February 2018 - 0938 AM

Josh If thirty years from now the US has radically realigned its alliances, I owe you a coke.

 
 
I think you meant that, if thirty years from now the South Koreans or Japanese have realigned their alliances, then you’ll owe him a coke.


Either or. But yes, much more likely to come from the allies side than the US.
  • 0

#49 Josh

Josh

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 14,694 posts

Posted 07 February 2018 - 0944 AM

It seems a little early to be talking about the marketability of aircraft that haven't entered service with their respect manufacturing countries.

It is safe to say that anyone with access to F-35 will buy that before FC-31 or Su-57, if only because it's a mature airframe and the US will eat all of the upgrade development costs and ensure that there is a steady parts supply available by nature of the size of its own fleet. The flyaway costs of F-35 are almost competitive with 4.5 generation fighters already; the US is eating the staggering development cost.
  • 0

#50 GARGEAN

GARGEAN

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 2,154 posts

Posted 07 February 2018 - 0947 AM

The flyaway costs of F-35 are almost competitive with 4.5 generation fighters already; the US is eating the staggering development cost.

That is more than bold statement o_0
Well, ofc if you exclude shit like indian Rafale sell.
  • 0

#51 lastdingo

lastdingo

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 4,921 posts

Posted 07 February 2018 - 1006 AM

The entirety of air combat history is that the plane which is not seen kills the plane that is seen 4:1 or more, yet you doubt stealth's central importance?

 

Let's say the stealthier aircraft A can detect the less stealthy (but still LO) aircraft B at 40 km distance and supercruises at M1.6

Aircraft type B can detect type A at 60 km and supercruises at M1.6 as well.

Let's use 330 m/s as M1.0. That's roughly 1 km/s closing speed if they approach head-on.

This leaves a total of 20 seconds advantage to A.

 

Sounds nice, but what if A is approached by B from the side. LO from side is not all that great, and closing speed is still 0.5 km/s.

 

Thus A needs to use a chain of fighters as a tactical formation, and the flank planes of that chain need to be over frinedly territory to avoid flank vulnerabilities.

 

Now it's still a mere 20 second advantage if everything works perfect. maybe 5...10 seconds for real.

 

Let's add free-flying decoys. Let's add B sprinting away at M2.0 once targeted or guessing it's targeted. Let's assume the MRAAM has a pk of 0.05...0.5.

Keep in mind type A has but six MRAAMs.

 

Now you need a 2nd line/chain of type A fighters that can fill a gap caused by A type fighters being forced to turn and run or being out of missiles.

 

The ''front' may be 600 km wide. Suddenly you need like 20 type A fighters on station for one chain.

At two sorties per day (including readiness issues) and on average 1 hour on station per sortie (lots of supercruise, tankers cannot survive LRAAMs and can't be close etc).

 

Now you have a need for 480 type A fighters. Which you don't have, so you mix with slightly LO 2nd rate aircraft developed in the 80's and 90's. You don't have enough of those either, so you have to use 3rd rate fighters developed in the 70's and upgraded with 90's radars at best.

 

Now you have at best one chain of 1st and 2nd rate fighters backed up by a second chain of 3rd rate fighters.

 

First chain wastes its missiles on free flying decoys and disengages, 2nd chain gets overwhelmed by red 1st and 2nd rate fighters.

 

Rinse, repeat.

 

By end of the day you are down to one incomplete chain of 1st and 2nd rate fighters that suffer from exposed flanks.

 

By the third day you have to resort to pulsing tactics, with little to no 'forward' CAP for most of the night, if not for most of the time.

 

By the fourth day you are down to defensive CAP and interceptor tactics.

 

And that's all before we think about attacks on 1st and 2nd rate fighters on the ground or about "stealth" fighters entering IADS traps.

 

 

Somehow I grew a suspicion a long time ago that having good area air defences and PGM SRBMs matter a helluva lot more than having expensive "stealth" fighters.


  • 0

#52 lastdingo

lastdingo

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 4,921 posts

Posted 07 February 2018 - 1011 AM

 

WTF? The U.S.S.R. MILKED its Eastern European allies, it drained them through COMECON to sustain its own insane warlike military spending for decades.

 

If that would have been the case the quality of life of the USSR would have been higher, which was not the case. Life in Hungary, East Germany or Czechoslovakia was way better than in USSR, especially Republics in Caucasus and Central Asia. In the link below there are many statistics on housing, GDP per capita and so on.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eastern_Bloc 

 

 

You didn't understand. They milked their WP allies to finance their huge military spending.

Your figures are not in conflict with this historical reality in any way.


  • 0

#53 Stuart Galbraith

Stuart Galbraith

    Just Another Salisbury Tourist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 55,765 posts

Posted 07 February 2018 - 1123 AM

Early on, the Soviets bled Eastern Europe to rebuild, even to the point of 'liberating' their plant equipment. Im not sure from the 1950s on it had any truth in it.

 

And a fair bit of that Warsaw Pact military spending was home grown. Look at the Poles building their own T72s and warships for the Soviets. I think even the East Germans built ASW Corvettes for the Soviets. Czechs built artillery and exported it to a few Warsaw Pact nations. Built their own military trainers too.

 

I think the warsaw pact was not as homogenaic as we thought at the time. And I think a fair bit of the money that was driving the Soviets into arrears was funding to prop them up. it was certainly true of Vietnam and Cuba.


  • 0

#54 lastdingo

lastdingo

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 4,921 posts

Posted 07 February 2018 - 1141 AM

Stuart, the Soviets controlled the Eastern European economies through COMECON. They ensured monopolies (such as eliminating the recovering East German aviation industry and largely excluding the satellite states from world trade), controlled raw materials prices (again, monopoly because satellites were allowed very little trade with the West until 1984) and so on.


  • 0

#55 Josh

Josh

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 14,694 posts

Posted 07 February 2018 - 1148 AM

The flyaway costs of F-35 are almost competitive with 4.5 generation fighters already; the US is eating the staggering development cost.

That is more than bold statement o_0
Well, ofc if you exclude shit like indian Rafale sell.


It's always very hard to compare the costs of various aircraft deals because it's often not clear what parts and services are included. However from what I can tell, F-35 costs are in the neighborhood of $130 million. Compared to Russian aircraft that probably is a lot. Compared to other Western aircraft, that's perhaps 30-50% more than a 4.5 gen a/c and that price is going down, not up. We may argue about Su-57/J-20 vs F-35, but F-35 against anything else I think we can agree gives a lot of advantages the to the F-35. At the end of the day, I think the only ones who turned down the F-35 when offered it were the Koreans, who then rebid the entire deal as a result, and the Canadians, who likely will come back into the fold after Boeing tried to skull fuck their aviation industry.
  • 0

#56 glenn239

glenn239

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 5,518 posts

Posted 07 February 2018 - 1235 PM

Canadian F-35 problem is mainly political - the Liberals and PC's like to cancel each other's military contracts when they get into power.

 

 

Last Dingo Let's say the stealthier aircraft A can detect the less stealthy (but still LO) aircraft B at 40 km distance and supercruises at M1.6.  Aircraft type B can detect type A at 60 km and supercruises at M1.6 as well.

 

 

Your scenario is LO vs LO, which is decidely not LO vs. non-LO.  A 60km vs. 40km advantage would need to go into the AI simulator to evolve the correct tactics for the superior aircraft.  I doubt these will involve running around at high speed.


  • 0

#57 Stuart Galbraith

Stuart Galbraith

    Just Another Salisbury Tourist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 55,765 posts

Posted 07 February 2018 - 1328 PM

Stuart, the Soviets controlled the Eastern European economies through COMECON. They ensured monopolies (such as eliminating the recovering East German aviation industry and largely excluding the satellite states from world trade), controlled raw materials prices (again, monopoly because satellites were allowed very little trade with the West until 1984) and so on.

 

There is a very good book called 'A Cardboard Castle?' that illustrates that the Soviets had increasingly limited control over Eastern Europe. Yes, im sure Comecon was intended as a straightjacket. The problem is you look at Bulgaria, or Romania, or increasing, Poland, it wasnt working.

 

Well they could export cars. We got East German and Czech motorbikes here Im lead to understand. Ill admit im not quite sure what kind of levels of trade there were, but one example of a fairly close tie was the Romanian and British Rail co production of the Class 56 Locomotive. Not altogether successfully, but the traditional argument would have you there shouldn't have been any ties at all.

 

https://en.wikipedia...h_Rail_Class_56


  • 0

#58 alejandro_

alejandro_

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 3,101 posts

Posted 07 February 2018 - 1439 PM

Well they could export cars. We got East German and Czech motorbikes here Im lead to understand. Ill admit im not quite sure what kind of levels of trade there were, but one example of a fairly close tie was the Romanian and British Rail co production of the Class 56 Locomotive.

 

Romania and Soviet diplomatic relations went sour after 1968 (Ceacescu critisised the Soviet invasion of Czechoslovakia), thus relations with the West improved, which led to credits, trade and technology transfer. It was also the only Warsaw Pact country not to have Soviet bases.

 

Your figures are not in conflict with this historical reality in any way.

 

 

GDP per capita:

Czechoslovak Socialist Republic  - $3,764
Polish People's Republic - $2,229
Soviet Union - $2,711
Hungarian People's Republic - $3,115

 

How can you milk a country for funding and end up with lower GDP? Also, Soviets imported L-39 trainers (huge market) and also gave production licenses, which also allowed exports.


Edited by alejandro_, 07 February 2018 - 1444 PM.

  • 0

#59 lastdingo

lastdingo

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 4,921 posts

Posted 07 February 2018 - 1440 PM

Canadian F-35 problem is mainly political - the Liberals and PC's like to cancel each other's military contracts when they get into power.

 

 

Last Dingo Let's say the stealthier aircraft A can detect the less stealthy (but still LO) aircraft B at 40 km distance and supercruises at M1.6.  Aircraft type B can detect type A at 60 km and supercruises at M1.6 as well.

 

 

Your scenario is LO vs LO, which is decidely not LO vs. non-LO.  A 60km vs. 40km advantage would need to go into the AI simulator to evolve the correct tactics for the superior aircraft.  I doubt these will involve running around at high speed.

 

It's indeed a huge OR question.

I was in part making the point that a head-on engagement in which the F-22 has the opponent in its radar's field of view is not the likeliest case and flank security would be a huge challenge.

This is but one of many reasons why F-22 would have a very hard time over red territory and may very well be purely defensive assets.

 

Regarding the speed; I'm not even sure the F-22 would be able to reach its service ceiling without going supersonic. The wing loading is high. It's no U-2. It may need that speed to get that high (certainly almost as much thrust as is available with the supply of oxygen), and that 60k ft service altitude is a big part of its strength (maybe a greater one than LO).


  • 0

#60 Josh

Josh

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 14,694 posts

Posted 07 February 2018 - 1508 PM

F-22 was basically built as a dedicated interceptor almost more along the lines of F-102/106 in that it is optimized for high altitude. I'm not sure what it's cruise speed/sub sonic ceiling is, but I suspect it's pretty high in a clean configuration. At red flag pilots talked of hanging out at high altitude as a sensor for the 4th gen planes and 'dropping the nose' to get up to supercruise for intercepts, which makes me think they were still at a very high altitude.
  • 0





Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: SU-57, T-50, Russia, Sukhoi, flying pancake, India