Jump to content


Photo

Sukhoi Su-57

SU-57 T-50 Russia Sukhoi flying pancake India

  • Please log in to reply
161 replies to this topic

#21 Yama

Yama

    The only honest Scorpion

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 6,726 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Yogo Shiro

Posted 06 February 2018 - 0713 AM

The cheek and rear mounted radars do seem a little odd. They could only be effective against 4th gen type targets at pretty close ranges, like WVR, and against a 5th gen it seems they would be useless. The jammer explanation does make more sense, perhaps with a secondary detection capability for missiles and aircraft that get behind the fighter. Basically fulfilling the role of DAS on F-35, only with an active emitter.


One of main purposes of the cheek arrays is to expand coverage of the main forward array. Phased array radars give their full range only straight ahead, steering the beam off from centre axis costs them range. This in contrast to mechanically steered antennas, which can employ their full range over much wider area.
One solution for this is to make mechanically steered phased array, this is used in for example Eurofighter and Su-35. Another is to add more arrays which can be combined with main array to produce more powerful off-axis beams. F-22 was supposed to have cheek arrays but they were cut for cost reasons.

Also, modern AESA radars are no longer so much 'radars' as part of the multipurpose electromagnetic sensor/emitter system. They can be used to enhance EW and IFF capabilities, and to some extent act as missile approach warning sensors.
  • 0

#22 Josh

Josh

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 13,027 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:New York City

Posted 06 February 2018 - 0734 AM

F-35 will still be a very tough challenge for it but the existence of this and the Chinese 5th gen designs is proof of the stupidity of ceasing F-22 production.


There likely will be more F-22 produced than Su-57. Even Russian sources indicate fairly modest numbers of aircraft in the low hundreds, with one mention being as low as 150, and that's from the vaporware capital of the world. Unless oil spirals upwards, which even with Venezuela falling apart seems unlikely given US production, the Su-57 fleet is going to be limited.

The other issue is basing - particularly against China. Just where were you going to base all the F-22s in a Sino American war? There are several US bases in Japan or Korea that are well with in short range BM range and Anderson. That's about it. I'm not sure the US could deploy more wings forward than it has in case of war with either Russia or China, though I suppose a war with both would stretch the fleet.
  • 0

#23 lastdingo

lastdingo

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 3,911 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Germany

Posted 06 February 2018 - 0942 AM

The Chinese "5th gen" fighters are not going to reach Hawaii in anything but very rare stunts, so they are no threat to the United States.

 

If anything, their existence points at the stupidity of outlawing F-22 export to Japan and not providing Taiwan and South Korea with much better air defence systems (which the USAF itself doesn't have itself).

 

I oppose the tone that implies that the U.S. has to be involved in East Asian wars of the future. It doesn't need to be involved. Alliances are supposed to benefit all members, and the U.S. is not being threatened in East Asia. Guam is negligible. It could be demilitarised like the East Aegean and would not be one iota less safe (it's rather indefensible anyway).


  • 0

#24 Josh

Josh

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 13,027 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:New York City

Posted 06 February 2018 - 1148 AM

The US has defense obligations with several different nations in the Western Pacific, therefore it needs to be able to fight a war in the Western Pacific. If Taiwan, Japan, Korea, and the Philippines declare that all Yanquis must go home, well then that's that then. But until that day, that is where a war between the US and China will be fought.
  • 0

#25 lastdingo

lastdingo

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 3,911 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Germany

Posted 06 February 2018 - 1229 PM

The US has defense obligations with several different nations in the Western Pacific,

 

That's a choice, and it can be changed.

 

This is weird about modern alliances; people pretend that they're eternal and kind of law of nature. Same with NATO.

Gone the times of changing alliances (save for maybe Turkey) - heck, Italians even changed sides during both world wars!

To treat non-self evident things as self-evident may lead to very stupid policies.

 

U.S: and PRC do not need to be rivals or opposing each other, and the U.S. doesn't need to prepare for war against the PRC.

It's all about choices.


Edited by lastdingo, 06 February 2018 - 1230 PM.

  • 0

#26 bfng3569

bfng3569

    Junior Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 121 posts

Posted 06 February 2018 - 1234 PM

The US has defense obligations with several different nations in the Western Pacific,

 
That's a choice, and it can be changed.
 
This is weird about modern alliances; people pretend that they're eternal and kind of law of nature. Same with NATO.
Gone the times of changing alliances (save for maybe Turkey) - heck, Italians even changed sides during both world wars!
To treat non-self evident things as self-evident may lead to very stupid policies.
 
U.S: and PRC do not need to be rivals or opposing each other, and the U.S. doesn't need to prepare for war against the PRC.
It's all about choices.


silly statement altogether.

We could wake up tomorrow and be allied with Russia and China instead, but it aint happening.

and unless the U.S. wants to cede all influence in the area to China, then those alliances will remain and be honored.
  • 0

#27 lastdingo

lastdingo

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 3,911 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Germany

Posted 06 February 2018 - 1238 PM

You're thinking some paygrades lower than you should when you think about such affairs.

 

Besides, I don't appreciate your clumsy and ridiculous dud of a strawman.


  • 0

#28 bfng3569

bfng3569

    Junior Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 121 posts

Posted 06 February 2018 - 1239 PM

You're thinking some paygrades lower than you should when you think about such affairs.
 
Besides, I don't appreciate your clumsy and ridiculous dud of a strawman.


if you are referring to my post, I could care less what you do or don't appreciate.
  • 0

#29 Josh

Josh

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 13,027 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:New York City

Posted 06 February 2018 - 1248 PM

The US has defense obligations with several different nations in the Western Pacific,

 
That's a choice, and it can be changed.
 
This is weird about modern alliances; people pretend that they're eternal and kind of law of nature. Same with NATO.
Gone the times of changing alliances (save for maybe Turkey) - heck, Italians even changed sides during both world wars!
To treat non-self evident things as self-evident may lead to very stupid policies.
 
U.S: and PRC do not need to be rivals or opposing each other, and the U.S. doesn't need to prepare for war against the PRC.
It's all about choices.


Leaving those alliances would throw all US alliances into question and be tantamount to leaving the entire global stage and accepting whatever world Russia and China make as the new normal. That will not be happening inside the lifetime of the F-22 or likely even the Su-57, regardless of your personal desires.
  • 0

#30 Loopycrank

Loopycrank

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 605 posts

Posted 06 February 2018 - 1344 PM

 

The US has defense obligations with several different nations in the Western Pacific,

 

That's a choice, and it can be changed.

 

This is weird about modern alliances; people pretend that they're eternal and kind of law of nature. Same with NATO.

Gone the times of changing alliances (save for maybe Turkey) - heck, Italians even changed sides during both world wars!

To treat non-self evident things as self-evident may lead to very stupid policies.

 

U.S: and PRC do not need to be rivals or opposing each other, and the U.S. doesn't need to prepare for war against the PRC.

It's all about choices.

 


During the Belle Epoque when there were several leading world powers, each of comparable strength, a certain amount of shifting alliances made sense.  The various nations would jockey for position, but the others were quick to ally against any single nation that became strong enough to disrupt the overall balance of power.

Things are different now.  Can you guess how?  I give you one hint:

yxBtZ0d.jpg

The United States is a world-spanning empire and dominant superpower.  The second place is so far distant that it doesn't even matter.  The United States' foreign policy is to contain any possible rival powers.  Right now that means Russia and China, but India is on notice as well.  One instrument for this containment is the creation of armed states friendly to the USA adjacent to any potential rivals to keep them bottled in.  Unfortunately, the Russians have a habit of calling Sam's bluff on this game (see: Ukraine), so in order for this strategy to work, the US proxies actually need to be armed.

Until the global order of powers changes or plate tectonics moves South Korea further away from China, there is no reason to ever change these alliances.  US territory is not de jure threatened by a Chinese invasion of Japan, but it is de facto, unless you're silly enough to think that Japan isn't a US territory in all meaningful ways.

There are all sorts of invective names you can call this foreign policy; imperialism, neo-colonialism, jingoism, etc.  Nobody cares.  The American Empire will endure for a thousand years, irrespective of the whining of peasants.  The nonsense in Syria is a minor setback caused by Trotskyite wreckers who are being purged as we speak.  Dehumanize yourself and face to Trump.  Hail Satan!


  • 0

#31 glenn239

glenn239

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 4,240 posts

Posted 06 February 2018 - 1505 PM

Josh Leaving those alliances would throw all US alliances into question and be tantamount to leaving the entire global stage and accepting whatever world Russia and China make as the new normal

 

 

 

Alliances have advantages and disadvantages.  Take Russia for example.  When it had allies it collapsed because allies can be dependents that draw resources and give little in exchange.  Then, when it had none (except Syria), its fortunes revived and its now back on the world stage.   For the US, when interests are in harmony its alliances work well.  But when interests get disharmonious, it’s not so clear an alliance is an advantage.  Turkey, for example.  That’s what LD is talking about, that alliances have a life span, are not permanent fixtures of the universe.  But, like all life forms, some alliances will live longer than others.  With respect to South Korea and Japan, the less the alliances are seriously tested, the better.

 

Loopy Crank . The United States is a world-spanning empire and dominant superpower.  The second place is so far distant that it doesn't even matter.

 

 

The United States can’t even beat the Taliban. 


Edited by glenn239, 06 February 2018 - 1508 PM.

  • 0

#32 Loopycrank

Loopycrank

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 605 posts

Posted 06 February 2018 - 1517 PM

 


 


The United States can’t even beat the Taliban. 

 

 

 

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


  • 0

#33 lastdingo

lastdingo

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 3,911 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Germany

Posted 06 February 2018 - 1804 PM

Take Russia for example.  When it had allies it collapsed because allies can be dependents that draw resources and give little in exchange.


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.
And on top of that they added substantial numbers of forces and technical/scientific work.
 
The only USSR "allies" that got more out of the relationship than the USSR were the unofficial allies ovserseas, especially Cuba.


Leaving those alliances would throw all US alliances into question and be tantamount to leaving the entire global stage and accepting whatever world Russia and China make as the new normal. That will not be happening inside the lifetime of the F-22 or likely even the Su-57


See? That's what I mean when I say that people have grown to think of alliances as eternal and self-evident. It's this kind of thinking.

I strongly suppose if the U.S: announced it would leave a certain alliance relationship in five years there would be some diplomatic activity, some changes in military forces, some changes of strategy - the same stuff that happened all the time when a great power changed its alliance network in the 19th or 18th centuries. People who didn't pay much attention to such world history don't seem to be able to imagine, much less expect, that.

Americans from the U.S. seem to be particularly limited in this, as they tend to focus their attention on history on American history; War of independence, war of 1812/13, ACW, WW1, WW2, Cold War. I see them hardly ever referencing intra-European relations of the 19th or 18th century save for very rarely Napoleonic Wars..

Edited by lastdingo, 06 February 2018 - 1810 PM.

  • 0

#34 Yama

Yama

    The only honest Scorpion

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 6,726 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Yogo Shiro

Posted 06 February 2018 - 1817 PM

Ummm...why did the Chinese fighter thread end up about Su-57, and Su-57 thread ended up being about China?
  • 0

#35 lastdingo

lastdingo

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 3,911 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Germany

Posted 06 February 2018 - 1824 PM

It's a bigger issue about when what military effort is necessary in peacetime and when it's not.

 

It's technically not about Su-57, but in a sense it's more important than any aircraft project and also most important regarding what Su-57 means to the West if it ever gets introduced into service in relevant quantities.

 

We didn't arrive there yet. Once we are I'm going to point out the differences between fighting for air superiority above blue, grey and red territory and how having the super fighter among the own ranks isn't all that necessary for defensive air warfare nowadays. And super fighters are even less important for offensive air warfare (except with long standoff munitions) because the deck can be stacked totally in favour of the defence.

But again, we're not there yet.

 

Do you prefer pictures, videos and tech talk?


  • 0

#36 alejandro_

alejandro_

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 3,034 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oxfordshire, UK
  • Interests:History, cinema, football, aviation, armour, military history.

Posted 06 February 2018 - 1843 PM

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 


  • 0

#37 Josh

Josh

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 13,027 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:New York City

Posted 06 February 2018 - 2113 PM

Leaving those alliances would throw all US alliances into question and be tantamount to leaving the entire global stage and accepting whatever world Russia and China make as the new normal. That will not be happening inside the lifetime of the F-22 or likely even the Su-57


See? That's what I mean when I say that people have grown to think of alliances as eternal and self-evident. It's this kind of thinking.

I strongly suppose if the U.S: announced it would leave a certain alliance relationship in five years there would be some diplomatic activity, some changes in military forces, some changes of strategy - the same stuff that happened all the time when a great power changed its alliance network in the 19th or 18th centuries. People who didn't pay much attention to such world history don't seem to be able to imagine, much less expect, that.

Americans from the U.S. seem to be particularly limited in this, as they tend to focus their attention on history on American history; War of independence, war of 1812/13, ACW, WW1, WW2, Cold War. I see them hardly ever referencing intra-European relations of the 19th or 18th century save for very rarely Napoleonic Wars..


If thirty years from now the US has radically realigned its alliances, I owe you a coke. I'm not telling you what I want to happen, I'm telling you what will most likely happen.
  • 0

#38 JasonJ

JasonJ

    majideyabai

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 8,866 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:dokodoko?
  • Interests:Being odd and unusual.

Posted 06 February 2018 - 2131 PM

The Chinese "5th gen" fighters are not going to reach Hawaii in anything but very rare stunts, so they are no threat to the United States.

 

If anything, their existence points at the stupidity of outlawing F-22 export to Japan and not providing Taiwan and South Korea with much better air defence systems (which the USAF itself doesn't have itself).

 

I oppose the tone that implies that the U.S. has to be involved in East Asian wars of the future. It doesn't need to be involved. Alliances are supposed to benefit all members, and the U.S. is not being threatened in East Asia. Guam is negligible. It could be demilitarised like the East Aegean and would not be one iota less safe (it's rather indefensible anyway).

 

Although a ban on anything could be changed in time. The ban was made in 2009ish. If there was a mistake, it was cancelling the F-22 line altogether. The line closed in 2011ish. And too many people had their heads in the "give China a chance for middle income so they can naturally become a democracy, rainbows, and butterflies". So I suspect F-22 sales might have been seen as excessive, particulalry with a Japan defense budget that was still on a slight decline in those years. If the line was still open today, in today's geopolitical situation, the US probably would really be considering selling F-22s to Japan right now. Although that would of course hurt the F-35 program. Probably part of the reason why the F-22 line was closed, to save cost for the sake of the F-35 program. Japan wouldn't have enough money to buy both F-22s and F-35As.


  • 0

#39 Loopycrank

Loopycrank

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 605 posts

Posted 07 February 2018 - 0021 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.


  • 0

#40 Stuart Galbraith

Stuart Galbraith

    Of the Veronica Cartwright Ilk

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 46,952 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Eloiland

Posted 07 February 2018 - 0252 AM

Mig is reportedly working on a Mig-31 replacement, so they are probably too busy to do much else.


  • 0





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

0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users