Su-57 Stealth Fighter: News #9

GarryB wrote:I would say the Su-57 as it is now is probably the best in service 5th gen stealth fighter, and not just because it is Russian so the stealth bar is lower because the west has not paid a lot of attention to anti stealth defence or air defence in general, but also because they seem to have made it affordable too.

They have an order of 76 new aircraft and the rate it is made each year will just determine when that contract is complete.

The new upgraded version with new engines and lots of changes will be a rather different aircraft which is going to have a different cost so it is going to need a new order and a new contract, or at least the current order modified and updated.

New components that are ready could be applied as they are ready for serial production.

It would not be the first aircraft that changed engines and got improved systems and equipment over the life of the aircraft.

Compare the F-14A with the F-14D model for instance.

The increased rate of production is a good sign and perhaps suggests some of their worries and fears about stealth and its value might have been sorted out, the US wanted an all stealth fleet, but Russia has never indicated it has such plans even though it does have light 5th gen fighter plans ongoing... at least three aircraft types are being developed.

That said Su-57 in both strike and dogfighting versions could be a solution.

Atmosphere wrote:Only thing missing is the stealth nozzles although keep in mind that serrated nozzles are available even for the current engines if the customer wishes that, as seen when they showcased the export variant of the Su-57 with those nozzles, also that'll be rectified with the fifth gen engines for the RuAF.

Big_Gazza wrote:Thats the 7th T-50 development unit, fitted with the early engines, not a serial Su-57.

Mir wrote:@Gomig-21  

Mir wrote:@Gomig-21

Here it is in full glory with the new engines - just beautiful!

Here it is in full glory with the new engines

Su-57 was conceived in a different geopolitical climate. Risks are different and a redesign to account for new threats and experiences should be considered.

Su-34 M is better than Su-34 and suitable for Syria type scenario however with strong air defense Su-34 lacks the stealth to penetrate and the sufficient agility to evade AA missiles.

And how many potential enemies does a strong AD have? NATO AD is very weak and the remains are disposed of in Ukraine.Only aviation is strong.

GarryB wrote:

That said Su-57 in both strike and dogfighting versions could be a solution.

The Su-57 was designed from the outset to carry internal strike weapons and unlike the US F-22 was from the start intended to be a stealthy striker fully multirole interceptor fighter.

I would say when the Su-34 was sent to strike targets a dozen Su-57s could fly overwatch and take down SAM sites and enemy aircraft trying to interfere in the Su-34s attack.

Or in situations of very heavy air defence the Su-57 with S-70 drones armed with the upgraded AS-11 (Kh-58) anti radiation missiles (with folding fins and improved rocket fuel), as well as the upgraded Kh-59MK2 missiles and their box shaped Kh-69 stealthy upgraded cruise missiles could be carried by both platforms internally to strike enemy air defence assets and communications hubs to weaken the air defences, while other aircraft carrying long range AAMs can deal with enemy attempts to use air power to stop them could also operate with the group.

The need for long range strike with a stealthy airframe is being satisfied by the PAK DA isn't it?

If its performance is anything like the aircraft it is replacing that means 24 tons payload and 3,000km operational radius... and it is fully stealthy so its flight radius might be rather bigger because it can fly at altitude all the way.

GarryB wrote:

Su-57 was conceived in a different geopolitical climate. Risks are different and a redesign to account for new threats and experiences should be considered.

I would say the Su-57 was designed to try to deal with a Russian air defence system. That is why Kinzhal and Iskander and even their cruise missiles tend to hit their targets, because they have on board sensors and jammers and decoys to defeat air defences. They don't need it for use against western air defences, so they clearly designed it to penetrate their own defences... defenses that will be improved to deal with such features making them even more capable of stopping western attack platforms and weapons.

Su-34 M is better than Su-34 and suitable for Syria type scenario however with strong air defense Su-34 lacks the stealth to penetrate and the sufficient agility to evade AA missiles.

There is nothing wrong with the Su-34, they are just making improvements and developing tactics to make it effective. It has been heavily used and yes a few have been lost... but this is war... do you think you can fight HATO and not lose anything at all?

And how many potential enemies does a strong AD have? NATO AD is very weak and the remains are disposed of in Ukraine.Only aviation is strong.

Strong or weak does not really matter... strong means there is a network to take down, weak does not mean you are safe... they could develop a SAM system for the weak... it has passive sensors and a single SAM so you hide it and it listens passively or gets target information from another active platform and it takes a single shot at the target... it might hit or it might miss but it just gets one shot and it wont matter if the enemy then obliterates the square kilometre around where the SAM was launched there is now nothing there to hit.

william.boutros wrote:
Would you want to fly a PAK-DA over Ukraine for routine bombing missions. There are no big enough target for PAK-DAs payload and it is risky for routine flights.

william.boutros wrote:An aircraft capable of penetrating airspace and striking a well defended environment is needed for the SMO.