Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues
Does the IRST have any shield or something, looks like a metalic cover?Isos wrote:Quality of manufacturing of serial build su-57 compare to prototypes. I guess they will have a nice surprise concerning the RCS.
GarryB wrote:Well you can have all sorts of definitions of a fighter... an interceptor is a type of fighter and does very little dogfighting, but shoots down enemy planes which is the core of what a fighter is for... were Hurricanes not fighters because they shot down bombers during the Battle of Britain, while the Spitfires focussed on the enemy fighters?
A reduced size Iskander makes little sense... air or ground launched. A tactical Zircon might be interesting... much like the modifications of Brahmos they keep talking about for tactical fighters to carry in numbers...
DerWolf wrote:
Does the IRST have any shield or something, looks like a metalic cover?
...
I actually think it is very clear what kind of plane is a fighter.
High agility, speed and T/W, optimized for air combat.
It needs to outperform all other aircraft types in terms of mobility, because it "preys" on them.
A moving barrier composed of AAM carrying planes (i.e. Okhotnik) is useful to restrain the enemy but is vulnerable to enemy fighters. Hence why Su-57 is backing it.
Iskander is still the best tactical ballistic missile and Kinzhal essentially unstoppable and unmatched, I don't know what is so wrong with them.
A highly supersonic Su-57 armed with 4 of those, with long range and covered with Russian EW, could wreck havoc in the enemy's strategic rear, even if the missiles are not scramjet powered. For the future they will be, but as of now I see no problem with a rocket powered weapon.
What about the gun exit, have been any pic with it open?
GarryB wrote:Impressive, but what is clear to one person is not so clear to others...
So the F-35 is not a fighter because its design is not optimised for air combat?
How about the version of the Tornado optimised as an interceptor or F-4 Phantom... the early model with no gun?
Therefore there can only be one Fighter, or do you think all aircraft outperform other aircraft in different ways?
So a fighter by your definition is not vulnerable to enemy fighters... interesting.
But when the enemy launches a strike on your country with thousands of cruise missiles a fighter can be anything that can carry a Verba or R-73... and that would include drones and helicopters and indeed even lead in fighter trainers and a wide variety of aircraft including Su-25s and Su-34s and Su-30s etc etc that are not dedicated fighters.
When the target is a drone or a cruise missile exactly what level of dogfighting prowess is needed?
More importantly how many enemy missiles would get through if you only send up Su-57s to intercept them?
Aircraft are tools to do jobs and when an enemy fighter force is attacking with long range missiles like Meteor trying to thin Russian fighter numbers before closing in to engage them then having three or more S-70s per Su-57 and Su-35 that can shoot down those missiles and the next wave of shorter range missiles like AMRAAM is a valuable fighter that contributes to the fight.
They are limited by their solid rocket propulsion systems and arms agreements that no longer apply.
What is wrong with them is that they would need enormous modifications to be even nearly considered for internal weapons carriage and that such dramatic revisions of size and shape could also encompass propulsion to improve range and speed and all round performance against a range of targets and different flight ranges.
It is a strike fighter per definition (JSF), so it is not as potent in the A2A role as other platforms. But it remains a +9/-3 g aircraft.
Interceptors and fighters are not exactly the same.
It should have the same resources and chances the enemy fighter has, a subsonic low TWR platform does not fulfil that.
That would not be a fighter mission to start with... a soldier on the ground with a MANPADS is not a "fighter" either and will contribute in that situation.
Yes, you don't need a fighter for that.
I find the Russian strategy quite ok, if only I think Sukhoi is trying to push as much as possible the roles of the Okhotnik, to displace other proposals from MiG, namely the light fighter, and other possible UCAV platforms, like SKAT or the one from Kronshtadt. They have a position to protect after all.
US is also trying to use low cost UCAVs in that role to save their expensive and valuable manned fighters.
But what will happen (and quite quickly I think) is obvious and is the same armaments race that happened with manned aircraft, in the sense that high performance platforms will de developed to counter the cheap, small and subsonic ones. Soon enough it will be clear that you need UCAVs with the same capabilities, if not more since they are not limited by the pilot, than manned fighters.
They are also cheap and simple, and a small bay carried tactical missile should not be exceedingly expensive.
Scale them down, make guidance as small as possible based on existing experience and improved technology, smaller warhead, smaller range, maybe smaller max speed. That is, a fast, relatively easy job compared to making a bay carried Tsirkon.
GarryB wrote:So now the g forces it can sustain make it a fighter... interesting... because it certainly passes your test regarding TW ratio but fails in terms of speed and manouver performance..
They are both used against enemy aircraft as opposed to ground targets or other roles like recon or jamming.
I would disagree... how often do dogfights take place at supersonic speed?
A T-38 is a subsonic low TWR platform and in the hands of expert pilots normally shamed rookies in much heavier much more powerful aircraft during Top Gun training...
Of course it would be... or in your universe a large number of enemy platforms approaching your airspace... I guess you send out your bombers and transport planes perhaps?
Fighters on CAP would engage as many targets as they could and all available fighters would be loaded up with as many AAMs as they can carry to continue to deal with the incoming threats...
No, obviously you would send a guy on a bicycle...
When it was civilian airliners I believe they did send fighters... what would you suggest they send for a few cruise missiles mixed in... especially in the US which does not actually have any dedicated interceptors any more.
S-70 wont be replacing the cheaper light aircraft any time soon...
The US does not know the meaning of the word low cost... and does everything they can to eliminate such words from their vocabulary.
The west went for low flying and stealthy cruise missiles to bankrupt the Soviets and the Russians and that has not worked and resulted in a very well protected Russia and potent air defence systems that are leaking out to countries all round the world that undermines the wests ability to pillage and steal like it normally does. The western solution is ironically just a copy of what the Soviet Navy was doing in the mid 1970s with a mixture of high speed missiles that communicate and work together to defeat an aware and well defended target. The swarm. The problem is that the west can't make enough to create a swarm, and the real kick in the balls is that their air defence is atrophied and can't defend from ordinary subsonic cruise missiles let alone anything the Russians might be launching at them right now. The further kick in the nuts is that the Russias are still using swarm technology in their anti ship missiles so we are talking hypersonic anti ship and land attack swarms that will likely be rather affordable too.
They have not got one and if they are going to the expense of modifying an existing missile to the available space it makes much more sense to make a scramjet powered missile with twice the flight speed.... and much better range, with ultimately lower costs because solid rocket fuel is not cheap.
Tell me of planes which are not fighters than can sustain such overloads...
it has very good nose pointing abilities and better AoA handling than any previous 4G US fighter. Maybe it is ultimately no match for a Su-35 or for a Su-57, but would crush any non-fighter type of plane, and most previous generations fighters too
A fighter vs. am Okhotnik would be able to shoot much sooner and turn away, remaining safe unless disproportionately outgunned in terms of missile range.
Pointless comparison. A T-38 vs a proper fighter would be dead before knowing what is going on.
This is an interception mission where you have to take down incoming missiles, not one where you have to actually battle enemy fighters. The difference should be easy to spot.
But fighters are shaped according to other purposes.
Still my points stands, at first rudimentary UCAVs can do the trick ten years down the road all kinds of counter-UAV drones will exist, which will be much higher performance themselves. Unavoidable.
I have no data about prices of scramjets, but given they are not yet operational, while hypersonic rockets have existed since the WWII, I would be ready to bet the second are the cheapest.
Kinzhal is faster than Tsirkon for what we know.
What I am sure is that they will develop whole new families of supersonic and hypersonic missiles based on different technologies for different platforms and applications.
GarryB wrote:Aerobatic trainer aircraft.
Have not seen much footage of F-35s defeating US 4th gen fighters in air to air... there are only previous generation fighters in service except for two Su-57s.
Based on what exactly? S-70 could be carrying new replacement missiles for the R-37M, which means no conventional fighter known could outrange it in air to air...
An enemy strike mission to attack a base or target you are defending means you have to stop the strike aircraft and defeat their stand off munitions too... the enemy fighters are something you will have to deal with too, but primary targets are the strike aircraft and launched standoff munitions.
You would try to avoid getting in to dogfights because with modern high off boresight AAMs that is suicide.
Lets delay final judgement till they actually have an autonomous system that works on its own... S-70 is intended to work with other platforms to help them do their job... it is not intended to be sent instead of an Su-57 for example.
A ramjet is just a largely fixed tube shape that compresses incoming air where fuel is added and burned and expelled...
A scramjet is the same thing but the shape and design is optimised to allow the fuel to be burned in a supersonic airflow.
Precision of design and precision of manufacture... it could probably be mass produced on a 3D printer.
The Zircon is probably less than 3 tons and has a flight range of over 1,000km at mach 10.
The Kinzhal only gets an enormous performance boost by being lifted to 18km altitude and being launched at mach 2.4... such a performance boost would not effect the Zircon quite so much because it can use its throttle to avoid wasting fuel and it can use its fuel much more efficiently.
However scramjet propulsion is a breakthrough that will transform most missile technologies in Russia because of the engine efficiency of a motor you can throttle up or down or even shut down when needed makes it far more flexible than a solid rocket motor of fixed burning characteristics.
Enough metrics are available to know the rough subsonic performance is more than decent. They more or less merged the AoA ability of the F-18 with the acceleration of the F-16, thanks to the F135 and low wing area. It is not a world beater but it is definitively a solid fighter in terms of manoeuvrability.
Any conventional fighter carrying the same missile, to make the comparison easy.
Actually and given the extreme difference in terms of acceleration and max speed they could carry smaller and less expensive missiles and match a R-37M-like missile carried by a platform like Okhotnik. This is pure kinematics, not any big mystery.
This is the reason why fighters did not get substituted by missile-loaded Jumbos.
So in the end, fighters evolve as a plane capable not only of downing defenceless targets but also dangerous peers with highest performance, be it in BVR or WVR combat. Those attributes define clearly the mission of the fighter and its characteristics.
Yes and no. A fighter like Su-57 with DIRCM and superior manoeuvrability will always have advantages and shoot faster in short range combat than other planes.
This applies even if they are remotely commanded, I am talking mainly about kinematics and armament.
And a Kinzhal is a big firecracker.
If it was so simple, kids would be playing with scramjets long time ago.
The new missile for the Su-57 bays may be a scramjet, they are hinting it may be air breathing. I don't have way of knowing, so I will just wait and see.
Mach 9
I assume an scramjet engine is more dependent on airflow speed than a rocket propelled one, so those 9 M may be the final speed the propulsion works at,
Kinzhal is 10 M from what we know.
So a 4.2 m long missile launched at high speed and altitude could still have significant range and effectiveness.
x_54_u43 dislikes this post
GarryB wrote:But then I am the one saying putting AAMs on an aircraft makes it a sort of fighter...
Not true at all... facing an S-70 the other conventional fighter is bigger and most often will have a bigger RCS... the F-35 does not carry this missile and neither does the F-22... the closest western equivalent would probably be a Rafale with meteor, which the S-70s missile will outrange.
Love how you make shit up... 300km flight range to hit a target in tests... which western equivalent can match that? And we are talking about the longer ranged replacement missile for that weapon...
Altitude is just as important as launch speed...
You mean ego. No fighter pilot who has risen to run the air force will sign off on an Il-96M "fighter" variant with 30 long range AAMs, 50 medium range AAMs and 100 small self defence missiles...
Flight performance does not mean much in BVR roles...
But it is the kinematics and capabilities of the missiles that is more important....
Putin said Mach 9, but perhaps he was being conservative...
A critical part you are missing is that a scramjet powered missile is less effected in terms of top speed and flight range by the speed and altitude of the launch platform....
x_54_u43 likes this post
Exactly...[
It is not clear that the R-37M will outrange a Meteor, much less in the engagement configuration you propose. You actually are talking about some complex calculations there, but you see no need to even consider them. And the fighter is always in condition to dodge or shoot down missiles and re-engage with the Okhotnik.
BTW you are disregarding new missiles in development essentially everywhere, why is it an universal constant that Russian missiles are and will be longer ranged for the next decades?
Meteor range is classified. And it is a ramjet, should it not be so much superior to rocket propelled R-37?
Who says a slow plane like Okhotnik can fly higher than fast fighters?
This hurts...
The missile and the platform that launches it are a system that competes with the enemy platform and missile.
That is the figure we have.
Performance depends on the total impulse available, not on what technology produces it.
x_54_u43 dislikes this post
GarryB wrote:Would you not agree there are pretty clear and obvious differences between an Su-24M with R-60MK missiles or more recently R-73 missiles (ie two of either plus a war load of weapons and jammers and external fuel tanks) and an Su-34 with R-73s and R-77s and R-27E missiles and no air to ground weapons or fuel tanks but jammer pods etc etc.
When used as a fighter an aircraft does not benefit from amazing manouver performance when launching medium and long range AAMs... altitude and flight speed do matter but are not exactly critical.
S-70 is a high flying stealthy flying wing, how many western fighters have Meteor right now?
R-37M is operational on MiG-31s and its replacement is slated for entry into service about he same time the S-70 is supposed to be ready.
No. Ramjets don't offer superior speeds, just better flexibility with fuel use... scramjets on the other hand offer both better speeds and flexibility in fuel efficiency.
It is a flying wing and it is intended to fly high and forward scanning for targets and distracting enemy attention while the Su-57 follows behind listening and watching...
Yup, the truth hurts...
x_54_u43 likes this post
medo, George1, dino00, Big_Gazza, zepia and Gomig-21 like this post
Both are supersonic tactical bombers, the second developed on the basis of a high performance fighter, with much better awareness and general A2A performance.
None of them is a dedicated fighter and would be at a disadvantage facing one, that is why the air combat capability on those is considered for self defence mainly.
Not sure what you try to prove, since I am not denying that other aircraft than pure fighter can be used for AD.
When battling another plane it actually does,
it depends on how fast and high it can go that it will be in conditions to launch first, and the supersonic high altitude manoeuvrability determines whether it can disengage in time or be hit. This is a duel, not duck shooting, and you need to be aware of what the other side can do.
If their missiles reach longer because they are flying faster and higher and they can determine the engagement dynamics because of superior manoeuvrability and kinematics, odds are that you will get killed.
More than operational Okhotnik, for sure.
There are quite a few new AAM programs in development in the West too. You cannot make your future fleet survivability dependent on whether US makes a missile that matches the R-37, because it is perfectly doable and could easily fit the bays of the F-35. For planes like F-15EX, carrying many of those would be trivial.
They take the oxygen from the air and therefore have big advantages in terms of range.
NEZ of a Meteor is said to be at least twice as big as that of a rocket propelled missile.
It is not obvious to calculate which missile is better, depending on the engagement configuration.
The MiG-31 has much smaller wings and flies higher. IIRC it was 18 km for the Okhotnik, which is a lot, but nevertheless the same as MiG-29 or Su-27. Typhoon, F-15 and 5G fighters fly higher, and interceptors even higher.
As a summary: the Okhotnik can be used for AD, but that the Su-57 has its back is not a mere coincidence
I forgot to mention above that a good part of the missile's energy is spent pushing it through the transonic area of its flight envelope, that is serious reason why fighters spend very valuable fuel resources in the A/B needed for dashing before launching.
With dual pulse engine, rocket missiles can do better for cheaper by keeping the last trust for the final engagement.
Ramjet also uses fuel to heat the air and once it run out of fuel it will go ballistic but the entry of the ramjet will create lot of drag and it's range in ballistic mode will be much smaller than that of a rocket missile.
GarryB, franco, dino00, zepia, Gomig-21, LMFS and TMA1 like this post
GarryB likes this post
GarryB wrote:In a sense you could argue that the Su-57 is the Su-34s replacement but it is so specialised and expensive they will be used together.... much the same that the Su-35 and Su-57 will be used together too.
but all aircraft are becoming multirole...
But you are... you are saying the S-70 can't shoot down enemy planes because it lacks speed and manouverability and all the features that would make it a FIGHTER.
In most cases kills are achieved in situations where the target pilot did not know they were under attack till it was too late for them to do anything to defend themselves... how is acceleration and manouver important in that regard?
No.
If it becomes a duel you fucked up. This is supposed to be duck shooting.
What is Meteors effective range against stealthy targets?
R-37M is a real thing in operational service, and a heavier longer ranged replacement has been developed specifically for internal weapon bay carriage... when they made the S-70 they knew about the new missile they were making for internal carriage... why would they not make it compatible...
Who gives a shit what the west does, that is not a reason not to deploy a new long range missile on every platform they can.
They lose lots of the advantages by needing intakes and exhausts and air flow management structures that leaves a lot of empty space inside their structure, and limiting their top speed to a similar speed to rockets also limits their performance too.
That is actually not true. The new R-77M with its three stage rocket motor with high energy launch and low energy drag compensation cruise motor and then a terminal attack rocket motor that can be started as the missile approaches the target should give it a large NEZ range too because with TVC and the rocket motor operating during the terminal phase its ability to manouver should be dramatically improved over just using conventional control surfaces and being unpoowered.
Obviously the low RCS of the S-70 counts in its favour and it is more expendable too.
None of the fighter aircraft in the Falklands war had BVR AAMs.
The U.S. Air Force’s top officer wants the service to develop an affordable, lightweight fighter to replace hundreds of Cold War-vintage F-16s and complement a small fleet of sophisticated—but costly and unreliable—stealth fighters.
The result would be a high-low mix of expensive “fifth-generation” F-22s and F-35s and inexpensive “fifth-generation-minus” jets, explained Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. Charles Brown Jr.
In his last interview before leaving his post in January, Will Roper, the Air Force’s top acquisition official, floated the idea of new F-16 orders. But Brown shot down the idea, saying he doesn’t want more of the classic planes.
The 17-ton, non-stealthy F-16 is too difficult to upgrade with the latest software, Brown explained. Instead of ordering fresh F-16s, he said, the Air Force should initiate a “clean-sheet design” for a new low-end fighter.
Brown’s comments are a tacit admission that the F-35 has failed.
Kinda puts a crimp in their wet dreams about fielding 6G any time soon or in numbers!!!
If even Forbes is prepared to admit what we at RDF have known for years then its a wonderful moral victory that we can all enjoy! Backman likes this post
Avionics-wise, of course. Still the platforms have their pros and cons for different missions
The disagreement is that you say any plane circumstantially working in AD roles is a fighter, which I don't see like that.
A fighter is not a plane that will be excused with launching a BVR missile and if it does not work, turn and run away.
I assume the West will be able to detect "Russian" stealth targets as Russia can do the same with Western models.
At least, you cannot count on invisibility, that is irresponsible optimism.
Not saying it will not be able to carry it, just that opponents can carry similar weapons too, which will have a big advantage due to the launching characteristics of the platform.
Russia needs to care about what they do, since they want them deleted from the map.
You are advocating for air breathing missiles in the other discussion...
Source? The three stage rocket is not clear to me at all.
Aha... so what? We cannot be stuck forever in Vietnam or Falklands. Things are a bit different now.
The 17-ton, non-stealthy F-16 is too difficult to upgrade with the latest software, Brown explained. Instead of ordering fresh F-16s, he said, the Air Force should initiate a “clean-sheet design” for a new low-end fighter.
If even Forbes is prepared to admit what we at RDF have known for years then its a wonderful moral victory that we can all enjoy!
GarryB wrote:would you order the Su-34 to launch a potshot at the group of F-35s and then continue on its mission, or tell it that it is not a fighter and that is none of its business and continue its own mission and not to attract attention to itself?
What I am saying is that you seem to forget weapons of war are just tools...
while you say it does not have the flight speed for launching BVR missiles nor the TWR to dogfight in close in combat...
And I am saying that the S-70 is a semi expendable drone so enemy fighters burning fuel and launching BVR missiles against S-70s instead of Su-57s is fundamentally a good thing... enemy fighters distracted fighting Russian drones become more vulnerable to the SAMs below them and the Su-57s operating further back who can accelerate to super sonic speeds and better launch altitudes.
A final rocket stage that is not automatically fired... the missile has the first stage rocket fuel for acceleration and climb and then a much longer stage of low energy burn to improve flight range by compensating drag and better maintaining speed... the last stage can be fired any time needed by the missile when energy is needed to attack the target or to extend range and will probably be something between the first high energy fuel and the sustainer low energy fuel to allow turning and acceleration performance but for more than 2 seconds...
The really ridiculous thing is that the Su-57 is probably what the US wanted in their F-22s let alone their F-35s and if it had been what they had come up with they probably would have gone for a mix of 2,000 Su-57s and say 4-6,000 S-70s in the F-22 and F-35 role respectively and everything would be perfect...
Big_Gazza wrote:I'd like to think that this will mean an end to the stupid Murican fan-boi faggots sneering about Russian warplanes and shit-canning the imminently sensible concept of running a mixed fighter fleet of a small(ish) number of 5G along with a large contingent of modernised 4++, but who am I kidding?
tanino likes this post
|
|
|
Home
Latest images
Register
Log in
