Dismiss Notice
Welcome to IDF- Indian Defence Forum , register for free to join this friendly community of defence enthusiastic from around the world. Make your opinion heard and appreciated.

Sukhoi Su-57 / PAK FA 5th Generation Aircraft

Discussion in 'Indian Air Force' started by tariqkhan18, Jun 30, 2010.

  1. randomradio

    randomradio Colonel Technical Analyst

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2013
    Messages:
    11,181
    Likes Received:
    6,295
    :lol: The title of the article itself has vs in it.

    You are not technically sound, so you don't realize that it's simply an ignorant PAK FA bashing article.
     
    zebra7 likes this.
  2. stephen cohen

    stephen cohen Lieutenant FULL MEMBER

    Joined:
    Oct 29, 2016
    Messages:
    906
    Likes Received:
    1,188
    Country Flag:
    India
    What was your FIRST CLUE :lol:
     
  3. Sancho

    Sancho Lt. Colonel Technical Analyst

    Joined:
    May 3, 2011
    Messages:
    5,572
    Likes Received:
    3,386
    =>

    Damn, they are really bashing it!

    As usual, you have no clue of what you are talking! :coffee:
     
  4. randomradio

    randomradio Colonel Technical Analyst

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2013
    Messages:
    11,181
    Likes Received:
    6,295
    Yes, they are bashing it big time. Particularly because all their conclusions are deliberately wrong.

    Dude, you are not technically sound enough to understand how exactly and why they are bashing it. It's evident to anybody with some technical ability. The second statement in particular is very revealing of their intentions.
     
  5. Agent_47

    Agent_47 Admin - Blog Staff Member MODERATOR

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2011
    Messages:
    2,941
    Likes Received:
    5,806
    Country Flag:
    India
    Russia offers defence technology to India without any strings attached: Air Marshal SB Deo

    Russia’s technology transfers to India in the defence sector have been without any strings attached and there is scope for further deepening the military ties, Vice Chief of the Indian Air Force Air Marshal SB Deo today said. His comments come at a time when leading defence manufacturers from across the globe are eyeing India’s growing market by offering technology transfer and joint ventures for developing fighter jets, submarines and other military platforms. “When it comes to technology transfer, Russia really offers everything they have from the heart without any strings attached,” Deo said at an event to celebrate 70 years of diplomatic ties between India and Russia. In May, the government had unveiled the strategic partnership model under which select private firms will be roped in to build military platforms like submarines and fighter jets in India in partnership with foreign entities. Noting that there was scope for expansion of India’s defence ties with Russia, Air Marshal Deo also said the relationship should be developed focusing more on commercial aspects. “The time has come for the relationship to be more on a commercial basis. It can be a win-win situation for both Russia and India,” he said.

    The Indian Air Force will start the process soon to acquire a fleet of single engine fighter jets and Swedish defence giant Saab and US firm Lockheed Martin are seen as major competitors for the project. Russia is keen on offering its new fighter jet MiG-35 to India. At the event, the 50th AL31FP engine, manufactured from raw materials by Sukhoi engine division of Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd (Koraput) was handed over to the Indian Air Force as part of the celebration of the 70th year of India- Russia ties. “The AL31FP engine powers Su30 MKI jets and is manufactured from raw material stage at the HAL Koraput,” said HAL Chairman and Managing Director T Suvarna Raju.

    Speaking at the event, Defence Production Secretary AK Gupta said Russian defence firms should come forward for entering into strategic partnerships with Indian companies for developing various defence platforms.

    http://www.financialexpress.com/ind...y-strings-attached-air-marshal-sb-deo/903614/
     
    Sancho, randomradio and GuardianRED like this.
  6. proud_indian

    proud_indian 2nd Lieutant FULL MEMBER

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2017
    Messages:
    176
    Likes Received:
    322
    Country Flag:
    India
    Thum! Kaun Aata Hai?
    News and opinion on India's defense modernization; a veteran's perspective.

    Tuesday, October 24, 2017
    Building a Case for the F-35 by Trashing the Su-57?

    [​IMG]
    Twitter image posted by @BuddyPixy

    A recent report in the ToI titled 'Fifth Generation Fighter deal. Can India cancel it?' suggests that the IAF has serious reservations about going ahead with the FGFA deal.

    The report quotes unnamed serving IAF officers as saying that the RCS of the Su-57, on which the FGFA would be based, does not have an RCS comparable with the F-35, the Su-57 engine is not modular, and the cost of operating Russian aircraft is exorbitant.

    (Note: Serving IAF officers are not authorized to speak to the press, which justifies the anonymity of the sources quoted by the report. However, anonymity also raises the possibility of fabrication.)

    All the three points raised by the anonymous IAF sources are dubious.

    RCS Comparison
    The RCS comparison in the report is simplistic. RCS varies with the aspect of the aircraft (front, side, rear) and the frequency of the RF energy used by adversary radar. According to open source, western figures Su-57 RCS varies from 1.0 sqm to 0.5 sqm while the RCS for the F-35 is very impressively in the range of 0.0001 sqm to 0.0015 sqm! (The report wrongly quotes the F-35 RCS as being 0.2m.)

    What the report does not mention is that the Su-57 features 2 L-band radars in the leading edge root extension (LEX) of its wings.

    L-Band radars are more effective against Low Observable (LO) targets than X-Band radars typically fitted on fighters including the F-35. However, because of their longer wavelengths. L-Band radars feature reduced resolution. The combination of L-Band and X-Band, supported by good algorithms to fuse the target returns, can significantly reduce the effectiveness of LO shaping. In other words, the Su-57 could conceivably detect an F-35 as easily as an F-35 can detect a Su-57, their vastly differing RCS notwithstanding.

    In clear weather, the effectiveness of the X and L band radar combine would be further increased by the fusing of Su-57 IRST readouts. (Russian IRSTs are known to be very capable.)

    Survivability in Contested Airspace
    Another important factor to keep in mind is that LO shaping is a means not a goal. The goal is survivability in contested airspace. Air Forces want a fighter that can operate in heavily defended adversary airspace without being easily shot down.

    Contested airspace survivability comes from a combination of LO, Electronic Warfare (EW), and Self Protection Suit.

    LO shaping makes it difficult for airborne and ground radars to continuously 'see' the adversary, EW spoofs (generates false returns) and blinds airborne and ground radars making it difficult for them to guide surface-to-air missiles, and a Self Protection Suit blinds or confuses the IR or RF seekers fitted on air-to-air and surface-to-air missile

    Russian EW capabilities are good. The Su-57 will extensively use them to spoof adversary radar.

    Boeing F/A-18E/F
    As part of the service life extension program for the F/A-18E/F, Boeing is introducing modifications that will make the aircraft more stealthy.

    Boeing F/A-18 and EA-18 program manager Dan Gillian says the aim of the F/A-18E/F modifications is to make the aircraft "stealthy enough in a balanced survivable way to be effective."

    “The F-35 is a stealthier airplane, but we have a balanced approach to survivability, including electronic warfare and self-protection."

    Like the proposed F/A-18E/F, the Su-57 takes a more balanced approach to survivability.

    FGFA Engine
    The Su-57 currently features the AL-41F1 engine, The production variant of the aircraft would be fitted with the Product 30 engine which is 30% lighter, features improved thrust (19,000 kgf vs. 15,000 kgf), has better fuel efficiency and fewer moving parts resulting in improved reliability and 30% lower life-cycle cost.

    The extent of modularity of the Product 30 engine is not known. However, like LO, modularity is a means not a goal. The engine has less moving parts and is hence more reliable.

    The Product 30 engine is still on the test bench. Any comments on the extent of its modularity would be highly speculative.

    Operating Costs
    Russia chose to make the Su-57 less stealthy than its western analogs because it wanted to reduce operating costs! Any suggestion that operating costs of the Su-57 would be higher than those of the F-35 would not just stretch the truth, but also the imagination!

    Conclusion

    What I have stated above was part of my response to a request for comments on the ToI report from an online publication. The publication quoted just my comments on the FGFA engine (after introducing a grammatical error.) The comment was picked up by other news outlets including The Drive. Indeed, The Drive Warzone goes on to build a case for the IAF to drop the FGFA and opt for the F-35 instead! Which makes me wonder? Was that the original intent of the ToI article?

    I believe that having appointed an expert committee led by Air Marshal S Varthaman (Retd.) the government should accept its recommendations.

    I also believe that neither Russia nor the US is going to part with its frontline stealth technology and any F-35 purchase is going to come with more strings than the babus in MoD or the Air Marshals in Vayu Bhavan could count in the days preceding their retirement.

    http://thumkar.blogspot.in/2017/10/building-case-for-f-35-by-trashing-su-57.html
     
  7. SUNDRA ANAND

    SUNDRA ANAND FULL MEMBER

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2017
    Messages:
    38
    Likes Received:
    21
    Country Flag:
    Malaysia
    What about Chinese J20 stealth fighter jets? Are their RCS ratio similar to Su-57 or comparable to F-35? Anybody?
     
  8. lexa

    lexa FULL MEMBER

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2015
    Messages:
    44
    Likes Received:
    44
    Country Flag:
    Russian Federation
    SU-57 can't be better because it is not in service.
    Furthermore flight tests of some important parts (engine) have not yet begun
    The officially claimed RCS of SU-57 is in the range of 0,1-1 m2 RCS -- it seems that rafale is less detectable
    I see no chance that it can be changed when Su-57 will enter in service (if this happens in the next 5-10 years)
    Anyway you propose very strange tactic.
     
  9. Sancho

    Sancho Lt. Colonel Technical Analyst

    Joined:
    May 3, 2011
    Messages:
    5,572
    Likes Received:
    3,386
    It don't have to be in service to know it's capabilities.

    - we already know that it's radar detection capability will outclass Rafale (just as the Su 35 does and most likely as the upgraded MKI will do)
    - we already know that it's stealth design, with internal weapon and fuel carriage, will give a clear operational advantage
    - we already know that the EW contains more advanced systems than SPECTRA offers so far
    - and even if it needs to prove it's final flight performance, it is save to assume a clear advantage in this field as well

    And these are the advantages of the Su 57, FGFA might even add more, depending on which weapons and systems we add.

    All this however comes at a cost and 5th gen fighters will be very expensive to operate for India. That's why we need MMRCA's in numbers as a strong base for the everyday tasks.
     
    Angel Eyes likes this.
  10. stephen cohen

    stephen cohen Lieutenant FULL MEMBER

    Joined:
    Oct 29, 2016
    Messages:
    906
    Likes Received:
    1,188
    Country Flag:
    India
    Sancho likes this.
  11. lexa

    lexa FULL MEMBER

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2015
    Messages:
    44
    Likes Received:
    44
    Country Flag:
    Russian Federation
    If you talk about current achieved capabilities you must talk about real and proven facts.
    To be in service is one of ways to prove capabilities. In other case you can
    talk only about potential capabilities defined by design.

    The fact is that the "stealth" is just marketing term and "stealth design" also. In technical terms of RCS
    we can rely on the official statements or on math modeling (we dont have test data).
    I think the internal bays will works
    (but today nowhere published SU-57 with opened internal bays -- only external carriage) but with limited range of weapons and it has
    with no advantages in terms of RCS. Passive (wo SPECTRA help) RCS of Rafale in most configurations is still <1m2. The difference appears
    when RCS of aircraft <0,01m2

    The fact is that Russia does not have airborne AESA in service and doesn't have GaN modules even in tests.
    Yes, N035 is bigger and possibly has advantages in max detection range but this is not tech advantages.
    It has fewer modes compared to the RBE2AA ie worse situation awarness than Rafale. Yes, distributed AESA in SU-57 is a good design
    (f-22 doesn't have it, f-35 may be in future) but Rafale has such one now in flight tests.
    Rafale's AESA is 5 years in service and GaN modules is in the flight tests.
    SPECTRA is >25 years technology experience (>15 years in service) vs nothing comparable in Russia (what more advanced EW systems do you mean?)
    The tech lag behind France at least 10 years. The same situations is in optoelectronics. Sorry but you don't know you jast dreams.
     
  12. randomradio

    randomradio Colonel Technical Analyst

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2013
    Messages:
    11,181
    Likes Received:
    6,295
    You are right about everything except the RCS. The Su-57's claimed RCS is average RCS, not frontal RCS.
     
    Sahil ecclstone likes this.
  13. Sancho

    Sancho Lt. Colonel Technical Analyst

    Joined:
    May 3, 2011
    Messages:
    5,572
    Likes Received:
    3,386
    Wrong, because there are capabilities that will be developed for a serial production version, or as an option for potential customers. So you have to compare the known capabilities, of the versions that will be produced to understand what the fighter can or can't.
    Rafale for example still has no HMS in operational service, but we know that it will be integrated for Qatari and Indian varients. So do you want to leave that capability out as well, because they are not operational?

    I agree, it's just very low RCS compared to normal fighter designs like the Rafale. That's why we already know, without the need for estimates, that the design focus on RCS reduction is higher on the Su 57 than on the Rafale, because of external shaping and internal payloads.

    RBE 2 just as SPECTRA uses GaAs modules today and in the coming F3R. GaN will only come in the F4 around 2025.

    That only shows that the French were the first to understand the importance of EW, but that doesn't make their system the best today, because the know how advantage, needs to be implemented into upgrades, which however isn't the case for SPECTRA:

    http://indiandefence.com/threads/ia...-doors-in-new-delhi.62642/page-30#post-601930

    The Russian EW techs developed for Su 57, are the same once western companies are developing today as well, just that western fighters don't have the funding for final upgrade and integration yet. The Su 57 for example is the only fighter that has DIRCM integrated, not even US 5th gen fighters have it.

    You clearly need to inform yourself more about both, Su 57 and Rafale.
     
    Last edited: Oct 25, 2017
    Agent_47 likes this.
  14. Locke

    Locke FULL MEMBER

    Joined:
    Aug 22, 2017
    Messages:
    35
    Likes Received:
    23
    Country Flag:
    United States
    It sounds like something straight out of RT.

    The Su-57 is nowhere near as stealthy as the F-22 or F-35. You're likely looking at least an order of magnitude difference. With the exception of interior weapon storage (which helps a lot) you shouldn't expect much better than clean Rafale performance, if that. The various flaws in the Russian design are evident to even a casual eye and the Russians have already admitted VLO is not as good as the F-22/F-35. Even the J-20 looks better from a design standpoint.

    Maneuverability is likely since that appears to be what Russian designed for. Unfortunately it's not 1970 anymore and enhanced kinematics aren't worth as much as they used to be.

    The service ceilings are both in the 20,000 meter range and even a bit higher ceiling isn't going to make a big difference.

    More range looks probable which is always useful.

    More weapons? Internal carriage is similar and there is a definite quality and performance difference with Russian hardware.

    Electronics is likely to be the biggest let down. Russia's electronics industry is conservatively 15-20 years behind the West. The APG-77 is thought to best the best performing fighter radar in operation and it's fanciful to suggest that Russia could suddenly produce something comparable when their intermediate products are non-competitive. While Russia's scientists are certainly competent, they have no firms similar in performance to Thales/Selex/Raytheon/Northrop Grumman. The cheek arrays are almost an admission that the main array needs help, but the low number of modules will severely limit their utility while making the plane easier to detect with ESM. As for the S-band arrays, while S-band is useful for detecting VLO aircraft, that's from ground based stations with big arrays and lots of power. The SU-57 has neither. If the main array had sufficient performance they wouldn't have taken the penalties for adding either of those.

    The SU-57 is a definite improvement from the endless Flanker and Fulcrum variants of the past 25 years and should be the best design Russia has available, but it looks to be at least 15 years late for what it's offering. India might do better to buy more upgraded Rafales for the role and work with a different country on a better design or wait for AMCA.
     
    sunstersun likes this.
  15. randomradio

    randomradio Colonel Technical Analyst

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2013
    Messages:
    11,181
    Likes Received:
    6,295
    Looks isn't everything. The aircraft is designed for all aspect VLO. We have to wait for Stage 2 to get up and running first. The Stage 1 isn't all aspect VLO, particularly the engine.

    The F-22 relies almost entirely on shaping, it's been built using metals. But the Su-57 has been built using RAS. The Stage 1's airframe still has a lot of metal, but the Stage 2 and the follow up FGFA will be near 100% RAS in surface area.

    RAS = Radar Absorbing Structures. So while the F-22's stealth works by reflecting radar signals away from itself, the Su-57 absorbs radar signals like a sponge, quite a bit of it.

    But the problem is, unlike the F-22's RCS, the Su-57's RCS cannot be simulated with simple models. So you can't rely on looks at all.

    http://www.thehindu.com/news/intern...tomise-russias-fgfa-planes/article5075134.ece

    The Su-57 will also have active cancellation capability. So unlike the F-22, it will be equipped with multiple options for stealth.

    How are you going to shoot missiles and dodge missiles without kinematics?

    The IWBs are bigger and deeper than the ones on the F-22. Arsenal includes cruise missiles.

    The F-22 also has cheek arrays, they are built for, not with due to funding crunch. Rafale will have them in the future as well. Cheek arrays have nothing to do with the main array. Not to mention, the wing root arrays are L band, not S.

    And no, Soviet industry was backward, not Russian. The Russian industry has practically caught up with the west due to globalization.
     

Share This Page