I'm with you on the delegation part, but it wasn't just BS Indian tabloids that were of any consequences, but rather the fact that it pulled out of the entire program sighting rather negative issues on the aircraft.
They had to say bad things about the plane to justify leaving the programme... the alternative is the truth that they are cheap bastards that don't want to pay for what they want, but want what they want to be provided to them for free...
]When other countries that are very interested in purchasing this aircraft see something like that happen -- which was a rather big deal when India was devoted to the two-seat FGFA and were very optimistic about it and then suddenly pulls the plug and makes some rather derogatory remarks in particular about the Su-57's stealth capabilities -- and not sure how the IAF came up with that decision, that was not a good thing in favor of the Su-57.
The level of stealth on any aircraft is on a gradient, but that gradient is logarithmic... the problem is that the logarithmic rate relates to the cost in a bad way and level of stealth in a bad way too.
A non stealth aircraft like a first model MiG-29 it is cheap and easy to increase its level of stealth... quite dramatically and relatively cheaply... you just go around smoothing the rough stuff and dealing with any corner reflectors and changing the angles of wings and fins etc etc... nothing amazing but it will have a huge effect of radar cross section. The effect might reduce the radar size of the aircraft 50 times... from about 5 square metres to 2.5 square metres abut only cost five to ten million dollars per aircraft to perform. If you want to reduce it further however the cost goes up by a factor of 100 and the results go down by an even bigger factor... so once all the obvious and easy changes and fixes have done their magic the next ones are much more expensive but also have much less effect and can be totally ruined if a screw is not screwed in flat to the skin and taped over and covered in RAM coatings five layers thick.
The Russians had to make a decision as to how stealthy they wanted their aircraft to be which will effect the distance they can be detected, but more critically will determine how expensive they are to make and to buy and to operate.
Russia can of course make them much more stealthy but I really doubt India are prepared to pay four times more to buy them and three times more to operate them, because the long wave radar solutions to see slightly stealthy targets also work on very stealthy targets too... but the difference in cost means the very stealthy targets wont be flying much cause they cost too much and they wont have bought as many.
This is clearly just an excuse to withdraw from the programme.
It also makes it easier to suck up to the Americans and try to gather their support against China...
So my question was simply why didn't Sukhoi at least show something that would detract from that like firing a pair of R-77-1s and R-74s out of the belly bays (hey, without even showing so much of the interior mechanism like they did with the wing pod and accompany it with a statement telling the Indians they lost out on a lot and made a hasty decision and that this aircraft will be about as stealthy as it could possibly be?
All that would achieve would be to prove their belly weapon bays work... which really does not compensate for questions over stealth.
They did release video of weapons on external pylons and a weapon launch from the internal wing weapon bay flying vertically... honestly I have never seen a weapon launched from a weapon bay in vertical flight before...
Suggests a lock on after launch capacity which is rather new for the Russians in IR guided weapons.... but of course we have since seen that new missile for attack helos....
I'm just baffled at the lack of response but more so at why they haven't shown any of the successful weapons bay testing? Am I being unreasonable?
I would think such things will be kept secret as long as possible and despite what you have said showing stuff to the general public is a low priority.
When Algeria says it is interested in Su-57s then I suspect such footage is shown to them as well as schematics showing what can fit at the moment as well as hints of what might be to come in the future in terms of weapons.
Sometimes being a bit of a contrarian makes you out to be a parriah lool which is the last thing I ever want to do. I see my questioning of Russian and specifically Sukhoi's PR decision making process as a bit bizarre only in the sense that they don't seem to give a flying f---k about what anyone has to say and to me, that's perfectly fine when it comes to trivial things such as the side stick.
Couldn't you turn that around and say... well if the weapon bays don't work why would the Russian AF have accepted serial production of it?
Side stick controllers are trivial pilot interface stuff and I am sure if a country wanted a side stick controller they could have one fitted...
The Su-37 with the TVC engine nozzles had a centre stick and a side stick and the pilot could choose to use either during flying displays.
The only practical advantage of a sidestick is being able to have an extra large display between your legs but then as I mentioned having your entire front presented with all these touch screens how much and how often are you prepared to take your hand off the stick to operate them... especially the ones on the right hand side...
Truth is, I'm from Egypt who happens to have US citizenship since I've lived here for almost 40 years. But my home-country is Egypt which recently bought 46 MiG-29M/M2 (I was really hoping they would wait until the MiG-35 was ready which it seems to be now so they can get the AESA radar with it) but they needed to proceed with their ultra fast modernization and the 29M is about as close to the 35 as possible and they followed it with a beautiful order of 30 Su-35S (which in Egypt they're so excited including me that we've dubbed it the Su-35SE, the E being quite obvious what it stands for.
The shell of the MiG-29M and the MiG-35 are the same so you can take various bits out of the 29M and put in bits from a 35 and you end up with a 35.
Think of the 29M as mature good quality stuff from the SMT that worked well and was affordable. The bits in the 35 are brand new technology the best of the best that they can manage... more expensive but also better.
I always thought and have mentioned several times that India should have ended up buying 300 MiGs... buy 50 MiG-35s and and 250 MiG-29Ms... operate them for five years or so and then make some decisions based on experiences because the MiG-29M is a fully multirole fighter bomber and could easily replace the MiG-21 and MiG-27 in Indian use very easily and relatively cheaply.
The MiG-29M has all the new datalinks stuff and is compatible with all their new and soon to come weapons and it much better than the 21 or 27 in their respective roles.
After 5 years use they will have had plenty of chance to compare the MiG-35 and its better systems and decide for themselves which systems are worth it and which are not so much better as to be worth the extra cost... so they might end up with their MiG-29Ms with half the stuff remain the same and half be upgraded to 35 level stuff.
They might even realise the 29M is cheaper to operate than the 35 and just keep them both... perhaps in 5 years with the 29M getting the AESA radar and the new IRST system and self defence equipment of the 35 and just leave it at that to keep it cheaper to operate.
Even buying 300 planes would not cost them more than buying 126 Rafales.
The original purpose of the buy was to fill gaps as older planes retired that could be deployed on the border with China.
The MiG would be fine.
I just get a little ticked when I see 10 years of the PAK-FA turn into the Su-57 and not once in that DECADE except for that great shot of the wing pod firing what was probably an R-74 in a vertical climb did we see that aircraft fire a weapon out of a bay! And the only thing we could barely see was the missile was already out of the pod for a millisecond before being blasted! That was so awesome that why the hell couldn't they do that with the belly bay missiles?
To be fair they also fired the gun... and the cannon shell spread shown from such a very short distance suggests the gun is articulated... (ie can move and aim independently of the aircraft....) which is a bit ground breaking but seems to be largely ignored too...
The simple fact is that showing launches from the weapons bay might show information they are not ready to reveal yet... I apologise in advance but it is amusing how you don't seem to be able to accept that they can and do keep secrets.
No need to put a lot of thought in to it... people have been speculating for ages about what sort of internal weapons they can carry and how long the bays remain open for and how far they open... for a long time many thought the wing mounted bays were electronics pods that didn't hold missiles at all...
Is it unfair of me to ask the question if some of you have already asked and answered the question or is it ok?
It is fine for you to ask the question... but don't expect answers and don't expect satisfactory answers because we don't have direct lines to Mr Putin... well he hasn't answered my calls yet....
But don't you think that with the Indian dissing on the stealthy aspect
The Indians and for that matter the Chinese are going to diss... the first obvious response would be to say... do you think domestic Indian and Chinese stealth fighters are more stealth and is there a two seat F-22 or two seat F-35 in operation?
Are Indian demands for two seat 5th gen fighters unreasonable?
There was much more before that by the Aussies! For Russia to say screw youz all and we don't care what you have to say is fine I guess, but I'm telling you there will be an effect of some sorts that you/we might not notice and it's certainly not super visible at first, but it will rear its ugly head in some form or the other until Sukhoi and Rosenboroexport put out and BLISTERING video showing all the decapitation of the Indian criticism as well as the Aussie and any other crap that was thrown out there by the Americans or Chinese or any NATO member.
I am actually surprised how little criticism there is of Russian aircraft, considering the F-22 is dead... they are making no more, and the F-35 is so bad they are putting F-15s back into production and are looking at modifications of the F-16 to put back into production too... I mean if you want to diss one side then low hanging fruit buddy low hanging fruit...
Post photos of the Ye-8 version of the MiG-21 and say that Russia has a new single engined fighter that most eurocanards were based on and watch the fur fly...
I like that part I bolded since it makes a lot of sense. Perhaps it revealed too much about the missile itself and if they wanted to put a lid on that, I can certainly appreciate and respect that. But what's stopping them from throwing in an R-77 and firing that. At least EVEYRONE including the interested parties with a lot of clout will see that and it would do NOTHING but add POSITITIVTY to the Su-57's capabilities and stick it to the rather harmful Indian pullout and reasons they left without any reaction from Russia.
What you are essentially saying is that until you see video of the Su-57 launching a missile from its main weapons bays you think... what... they are painted on?
That would've shut their asses up in a heart beat and opened the door to more than what is out there waiting to decide if they should get in on this aircraft or not.
No it wouldn't. They would bleat on about it being vapourware until they have 3,500 in service like the F-35, or they would claim that US stealth technology is better and this is just as stealthy as an Su-35 only, or that the R-77 is totally untested in combat... or that Russian pilot training is terrible...
They are not going to shut up even with footage of an Su-57 shooting down a death star...
THERE YOU GO!!!! There it is! Now someone please explain to me what the frig was so hard about doing the same exact thing with the PAK-FA all the way until they designated it the Su-57?
Because that was a test aircraft used to test some ideas and features... you might have noticed they dropped the canards and the forward swept wings...
They showed the weapons bays no doubt to prove they could be located where they were without revealing any information about a system that was ever going to become operational.
Really? That is crazy if that was their way of thinking! I think the US had a lot to do with it to be prefectly honest with you and don't be surprised if the IAF end up with the F-35. Just throwing it out there.
The purchase price alone would prevent any agreement and the excessive operating costs would make lease options out of the question too.
They complained about 2.4 billion for an entire aircraft carrier and a flight of 16 odd MiG-29KRs and half a dozen helicopters including the Ka-31 AEW aircraft, but they bought 36 Rafales for over 8 billion... no problem at all...
I mean if the carrier was designed for Rafales so they needed 18 Rafales to operate from it... those aircraft alone would cost over 4 billion... double the price they paid for the carrier...
But I am letting common sense get in the way of my judgement....
Give us something to shut up all the freaks out there dissing this magnificent piece of equipment.
But that is the point... they never shut up... when proven totally wrong... they move on to something else that will eventually be proven totally wrong too... there is no pleasing them because they just hate Russian planes and any excuse will do.
Cheers and I won't bring it up any more, you got my word.
This is a discussion forum and there are probably more opinions out there that you haven't heard or discussed with them about yet, so never say never.
And they will probably do that with the upgraded version of Su-57 with new engines and features. In fact, that has been the trend for arms producers around the world: rebranding their product to make people "forget" about issues in the past.
Well they will always try to improve their product, but trying to please the haters... they were so quick to believe the worst regarding a Russian plane because they hate Russian planes... fixing the problems for them wont change anything at all.... haters going to hate and were never going to honestly buy anything anyway.
India is in the process of sucking up to the US for its perceived battle with China, which the US is trying to encourage... buying Su-30MKIs and S-400s is bad enough but buying Su-57s would be a bridge too far... India knows China wont be able to buy any without proving their own stuff is not good enough so they think they can save a few billion in investment money now and just buy them off the shelf later.
When you think you are playing some other country for your own interests remember they are doing the same to you.
Obv a middle stick would then prevent them from seeing the MFD, so they changed to a side stick one.
Most planes with centre sticks don't have displays behind the stick.
Also, Egypt IS considering Mig-35 hahahaha. But the F-16 block 40 is also competing.
My understanding is that they wanted the MiG-35 but it was not ready yet... Russia is getting its first aircraft and will start working out the bugs and learning how to use it effectively... give it some time and it will be good to go.
Everyone who has used any gyro-controlled machinery, be it aircraft, an excavator or a computer mouse, knows that the control placed at your right (or left, depending on the user) is much more ergonomic than it being placed dead center in front of you.
I don't agree... the computer keyboard was always front and centre in front of you... I was using one before a mouse had been invented... and honestly I actually prefer a trackball for real precision anyway. The mouse went to the side because the keyboard was in front of you.
With aircraft traditionally controls are central so you could use both hands to operate them... sometimes they took quite a bit of force to operate... especially if the hydraulics failed or if there was no hydraulics at all.
The throttle has traditionally always been to one side, that is true, but on many large aircraft they are on the central console between the two pilots too... but then they are normally set and not moved around a lot.
Having a control between your legs that you can reach with both hands is better for left and right handed people... many choose to fly with their left hand because they are left handed.
Having the control stick directly in front of you you get a direct indication of the angle of roll you are applying to the stick... with a stick off to one side it is not so obvious.
The thing is, aircraft inherited the yoke control from cars and the Yoke's natural spot, of course, is at the center.
Not really.... the control surfaces the flight stick controls are located on both sides of the aircraft... both main wings, both horizontal tails, and the vertical tail so bringing the cables together and running them up to the cockpit it made sense to run them down the centre for the pedals and for the control stick.
The engine throttle controls were often placed on one side.
When helicopters came around, the gyro control came along but it was a manual lever thing that required both hands for operation. So it made sense to place it at the center.
Not really... they could have used a side stick, but the difference between the old yokes and control sticks and the modern side sticks is taht the modern side stick is digital... it is like a computer joystick and in the case of the F-16 didn't even physically move. It had sensors inside it that detected force applied to it.... direction and strength but it did not actually move under force... for most of the first 60 odd years of flight a sidestick controller would make no sense at all because there is not enough room to give it the range of physical motion it would need to work properly because there were no computers to work out how hard the pilot wanted to turn.
When smaller fighter planes arrived and it was realized a gyro control was best suited for their maneuverability, they in turn inherited the center stick from the helicopter.
Small fighter planes appeared in WWI... helicopters did not appear till WWII or so...
Even after controls migrated to hydraulics and then electrics, the center arrangement persisted for the same reason anything in any industry persists - familiarity and existing investment.
Well also the fact that it worked without needing to replace the entire flight control system of the aircraft with a fly by wire system.
There are also a few things that came along the way, such as pilots needing their right hands to operate some panels on their right, and so they can hold the stick with their left temporarily. But that is a byproduct of the center arrangement itself, not an inherent necessity in itself.
There are plenty of left handed pilots that prefer to fly using their left hands.
Obviously I have not flown a plane, much less a gyro controlled one, but I would guess it would feel a bit awkward to fly it using a control between my legs. The surveyed Russian pilots may say it felt the same, and God bless them. But my guess is a new trainee would prefer a side stick if it were available.
New trainees will be wanting Playstation controllers, but I rather doubt that will happen.
BTW I have seen Playstation controllers used to control drones, which is perfectly fine, but not aircraft.
A modern fighter pilots control stick and throttle has dozens of switches and buttons and rocker keys, but with it between your legs in front of you is about as having the steering wheel of a car in front of you instead of a side mounted joystick. The steering wheel and control stick in front of you is rather more common and popular for most vehicles.
Tanks had steering levers... and that is because tractors had steering levers... these days they look more like motor bike handle bars...
The Boeing people at the time, predicting all the doom and gloom for Airbus, stuck with their yoke. Now they are really stuck with it, the cost of redesign and retraining astronomically higher than it was then, and the competition winning hearts and minds with their ultra modern cockpit layout. Believe it or not, even veteran pilots say the side stick feels more natural. Long time Boeing customers (may I mention Ethiopian airlines) are ordering more A350s than B787s.
I find it hard to believe Boeing is losing orders because it uses side stick controllers.
Plus I have to ask... with two flight crew up front a sidestick controller means the guy in teh right hand seat can reach both right hand sticks... which one does he use?
Or do they hire a right handed pilot for the left seat and a left handed pilot for the right seat... and presumably the shared throttle controls down the middle in front of the controller... that would be awkward for the left seat guy using his right hand for the shared throttle console and the flight stick, while the pilot in teh right hand seat presumably has his own control stick to the right and his left hands controls the throttles....
For its fighter products though, Russian cockpit designs need a rethink.
They already tested side sticks... the TVC testbed Su-37 had a central stick and a side stick for use to operate the aircraft... their Su-35 and Su-57 seem to have a conventional stick layout.