But that's not really the point, is it? Sure, putting ordnance on outside pylons wouldn't stop the plane from flying, but it definitely contributes a lot to parasitic drag.
It does contribute to parasitic drag, but the effect at subsonic speed is nothing compared with the value of having external equipment to support your mission.
With a stealth fighter you might have 4 or 5 internal self defence missiles and two air to ground weapons... with the Su-57 lets say two wing bay mounted short range AAMs for self defence and 2-3 R-77 type missiles in the front weapon bay with maybe two GROM glide bombs in the rear bay set for extra boom with the unpowered models with extra explosive and no rocket motor (the ones based on the Kh-38 design).
Apart for your cannon you can't carry anything else if you want to use those glide bombs from 60km range from the target with a high speed high altitude release, and you have 4-5 AAMs to defend yourself after you have released your weapons so you can provide top cover for the next few planes while they are doing the same.
With the Su-35 then you have more problems because the enemy is more likely to detect you and take you on, with AWACS detecting you at max range... but that is OK because you can fill 14 weapon pylons... including the self defence R-77s and R-74s, but you can also carry long range AAMs to deal with AWACS platforms and you could carry a few anti radiation missiles to deal with ground based radar threats too and those glide bombs... you can carry 4...
But then against ISIS you could just carry two R-77s and two R-73s and a couple of cheap dumb iron bombs in the 500kg weight range and fly "low drag"... but still able to defend yourself. Wingtip R-73s and engine tunnel R-77s and a 500kg bomb on each engine naccelle and you are almost a clean aircraft really.
What this means is that not only can the Su-57 neglect its weapon bays ordnance's drag (what Su-35 totally can't), it can also become much more maneuverable than the Su-35
at higher load.
You are missing the point... the reduced drag means it will burn slightly less fuel... who cares?
There are currently more Su-35s in Russian service than Su-57s and their Su-30s and perhaps even Su-33s will be upgraded to the same standard too, than they will build Su-57s... they are not planning to have 1,500 Su-57s... but then with the potential export success of the LTS and commonality of parts never say never... a combination of the two aircraft makes sense if they can achieve their goals.... they might sell them as a package deal to defend against western imperialism... buy S-400 and complete the set...
The fact that is it more efficient does not fix the problem that if you don't carry weapons externally it is limiting, and if you do you essentially throw away any advantage you might have in terms of stealth.
Just imagine when the Su-35 jaws, the not-very-aerodynamic side of the ordnance would meet the headwind, resulting in a lot of drag, while the Su-57, with at least some weapons in the internal bays, can at least mitigate this.
I assume you mean Yaws, but most of the ordinance the Su-35 carries is itself designed to move through the air at supersonic speed so we are not talking about it carrying multiple airbrakes under its wings.
A plane that yaws and actually speeds up would be a very new thing that has never existed before...
Not sure why you think that might be a problem.
This is also why the F-16 really sucks at carrying heavy ordnance even though they can boast a payload of 7.7 tons. It simply becomes much much less maneuverable (the Su-35 does have a more favorable aerodynamic layout than F-16, but I doubt it will be able to offset the increase in parasitic drag).
Very heavy external payloads are rare for such aircraft simply because they have the Su-34 and Tu-22M3M for such missions anyway.
With an all air to air mission or air to air and SEAD it wont be anywhere near its max external weights so it is not a huge problem.
Anyway, more drag means more fuel would be needed to achieve the same speed, hence higher operation cost. (though I imagine the RAM coating of the Su-57 would be much more expensive anyway, so there is a trade-off. If the coating is durable, then the average cost may be lower.)
Fuel burn is probably the cheapest cost involved in operating these aircraft...
When stealth is of no great advantage, I would use the Su-34 instead of Su-35 anyway.
The Su-34 would be used on the strike missions... that is its job, but it is no fighter and no interceptor.
The thing is much more capable at ground strike, is able to dogfight (better than the Su-30 or Su-27 I heard), and has a targeting pod installed.
It has impressive capability at dogfighting FOR A STRIKE aircraft... it is not comparable to the Su-35 which would beat it every time.
Anyway, I still hope Mig can get themselves out of the crap they're in rn. I love Sukhoi, but without competition from Mig (where we're heading), they might just become incompetent.
This new Sukhoi jet looks very good, the more I see the more I like, but I do think it is not the super manouverable fighter LMFS(the member not the project) was suggesting you would get if you had a single engined light fighter. You can argue canard or tail surface all day long but I think anyone would agree you need one or the other to perform the sort of manouvers it would need to to be a decent light fighter. I think the control surfaces they put on the Su-57s at the front are very very clever... advantages of a canard but without the problems... it can't stall... it does not really block the pilots vision of anything except his own wing...
I would like to know more about how this new plane will manouver.... are all the eggs in the TVC basket or are we not seeing the final aircraft design.
I wish this new fighter every success on the international market... people talk about India buying this but I think its low cost to buy and operate will appeal to a much wider range of Air Forces than many expect.... I said it before and I will say it again... this might be the next MiG-21...
But I also think MiG know what they are doing and they are keeping largely quiet because they have the contract with the Russian AF for carrier and a light 5th gen fighter and the smaller drone that would operate with them.
Sukhoi have done an excellent job and it is very clever to incorporate components and design features of the Su-57 in the design because some of the richer customers who don't like to spend a lot (India) will appreciate commonality and two seat versions of both, and could buy them both in significant numbers too.
It all comes down to costs... if Sukhoi can get Checkmate prices down to Gripen prices... which appear to be about 50% more than MiG-21 prices... which is astounding... then buying them and operating them in huge numbers can be affordable and also offer better performance than a much smaller number of aircraft could ever do.
People suggest the Flanker is better than the Fulcrum because it has twice the range and twice the hard points, but in actual fact having half the number of Flankers means less coverage.... think of them as being doctors covering a rural area... they can only be in one place at a time and in this case you can just set up shop in a hospital and get the customers to come to you.... the Flanker and Fulcrum fly at about the same speed so their ability to cover patients in their area is about the same but having half the number because it can cover more area means the people in that rural area are not going to get good health care outcomes with Flankers.... the people will want more Fulcrums... more doctors, more cops, more fire fighters, more nurses... and all they actually get is more bullshit from more politicians....
I think this is the correct interpretation and the reason why I say that I still think the VKS may receive a plane with different engine and different overload tolerance.
High off boresight next gen AAMs are not going to require tail shots... making the planes less manouverable makes them lighter and cheaper... if you want something pulling 15 g then make it a drone because it is pointless for a manned aircraft to be doing that.
8 positions for big A2G ordnance + 4 AAMs for the Su-57 is an amount that is hardly going to be used in reality.
Even less so with Su-35s and Su-30s and Su-34s and Tu-22M3Ms in service...
The assumption is false, as many other conclusions taken form the US way of doing things, like carrier doctrine for instance. New generations of planes have signature management as a must, but still LTS has a claimed price lower than current 4G.
Claimed. The F-35 had a super management system that was going to make it cheap to operate and support too, and even though it has essentially been cancelled so we will never know... I think it is pretty safe to say they cancelled it because they realised it was never going to work and was only going to add to the expenses of the system.
But it is not true that the F-16 can fly more weapons faster and further, in fact is completely wrong. That it is cheaper is totally true OTH...
I wasn't meaning at the same time... the F-16 can fly at mach 2... F-35 not. To be stealthy the F-35 is very limited as to what ordinance it can actually carry, the F-16 not so much. With external fuel tanks and those ugly conformal fuel tanks its max range should be rather good too... and it does not seem to play suffocating sex games with its pilot either... another plus.
Them showing plastic toys proves VKS is not involved.
With a secret programme you can show plastic toys that don't reveal any actual details of the final aircraft... I rather suspect they were under orders to not take any wind from beneath Sukhois wings because MAKS21 was Checkmate time to see what sort of interest and customers they could get... as a VKS programme the MiG models don't need to worry about interest later on with them being in service with their host country.
LTS at least has already a prototype and is expected to fly in two years and be done with testing in 5-6 years, they kept it secret until now and is based on already known technology from the Su-57, so there is no fundamental breaking of high secrecy that could affect the VKS.
They clearly have not done the ground based structural testing yet, and there were problems with the Su-57 that needed minor redesign to increase structural strength... this is not a conventionally designed aircraft structure so extra testing is probably necessary... the secrecy means nothing to the VKS because it is not a VKS programme, though it would be interesting to see what sort of access this paying customer is getting to Su-57 technology and how much they are actually paying for it.
Recycled parts from another plane is not a recycled design, and is actually a major contribution from this program, if they pull it off. It is a major compliment to be able to design a light single fighter jet with full pats form a heavy twin one, much more difficult than purpose designing.
Much more difficult?
Have you never played with Lego? Take one engine away and look at single engined fighter designs we can form using the remaining parts from this twin engine design... more difficult... no.... clever... yes... sensible... we will see.
I suspect the primary drawback will be a lack of horizontal control surface front or back that might effect performance in specific flight situations.
Roll control mainly... in which case a twin engined fighter with TVC will kick its butt.
The intention is highly commendable, but the numbers are probably a bit off. A Su-35S costs the MoD the equivalent of ca. $25 million. Export markups are generous, and most of the time we don't even know what is included in the price.
You get the point though... and obviously some times there is a lot of other stuff that needs to be paid for including simulators and training and of course weapons and even just tools to work on the aircraft and what spares contracts... get a cheap aircraft and pay more in a support contract, or vice versa.
Or pay more and do most of the support work yourself, which gives you more control over your aircraft... ask Iraq and Afghanistan about that one..
Even the MiG-35 tries to be as stealthy as it gets, only the design is surpassed.
There is only so much you can achieve with an existing design and an existing shape... aerodynamically there is not much wrong with current and next gen Russian aircraft.
Signature management is a must, much more for a tactical fighter that will be used as UCAV and sent to deal with air defences.
HATO has no air defences that move into combat with its troops, and HATO positions behind the lines with air defence will be dealt with using Iskander and its replacement... which manouver to evade enemy air defence systems which is why the air launched Iskander is such a potent weapon.
Nobody is designing now planes that do not at least use planform alignment, faceting and some other basic LO design rules. That has nothing to do with overhyping stealth as US does.
Yes, no one has bright red uniforms too, but every modern military does not deploy all its foot soldiers in ghillie suits either.
In terms of stealth modern and new planes wear camouflage uniforms, but only very specialist aircraft wear ghillie suits.
You mean LM?
LTS is the first fighter designed that way.
We will see then...
For six preseries units and maybe for the Swifts, if they finish the state tests anytime soon...
So you are saying they will make 6 pre series aircraft and then 9 more for the Swifts to show off their new MiG-35 fighter and then that is it... no more orders for 5 years while they wait for the LTS... doesn't sound sensible to me.
They will at least order 48 or 96 for a first batch to start replacing old MiG-29s currently in use, which could be sold off to India... they love them cheap like that... and once they have some in service they will quickly work out if they are affordable or not.
Hahahaha, good joke... they will get the IP of the Su-57 and MoD will lose it, because you know, Russians are nothing but beggars... give me a break
So they wont be spending very much at all and still be getting Russian aircraft design technology secrets... the Russians are nothing but stupid beggars?
Such contracts need government approval and any approval will have boundaries and limitations... I rather suspect the LTS is made of Su-57 parts... that makes it affordable and quicker to develop, but this will be an export model with export Su-57 parts so its performance might be quite modest... yet still better than a plane that does not work like the F-35 and available to countries who are not allowed to buy the F-35 anyway.
Would be interesting if they could get Turkey interested... Turkish drones with Russian engines and cameras in it would be interesting... that new contract for the Turkish helicopter with Ukrainian engine... pinch that from the Ukraine with more powerful more fuel efficient Russian engines... change that chin gun from a 20mm to the twin barrel 23mm chin gun turret of the current Hinds... much better weapon... full range of weapons and equipment they could buy.... they could replace the 100 F-35 order and their fleet of almost 250 F-16s and 50 F-4s all at once with a mix of 300 LTS's and 60 Su-57s... they will be cheaper to buy and cheaper to operate... and a huge kick in the balls to HATO.
It allows to assess the intrinsic merit of the airframe, while NTOW and MTOW are highly misleading.
A max performance potential you can never achieve in combat... pointless.