Sukhoi Su-57 flight testing, development & operations [2012-current]

[Joint Soviet Fighter]

Then why mention it?

Just to illustrate that the issue isn't as black-&-white as it is usually seen, idk. No big deal.

 

[Galaxy]

And that's the way that it should be, imo. Like, why tip your hand?

What tip your hand? There is nothing adversaries will gain from Russia publishing how many sorties, air to air kills, SEADs missions, ect the SU-57 conducted. Literally nothing…

Russia has everything to gain and nothing to lose. It will potentially drive up tens of billions in sales which Russia desperately needs considering NATO has threatened everyone from purchasing Russian equipment and the result has become disastrous with Russia having record low arms sales while the US has had record high arms sales. The US has muscled Russia out of the export arms markets via threats and marketing schemes.

During the Gulf war the US and it’s allies published sorties, air to air kills, and TV guided footage that they then fed to media. Generals, soldiers and pilots often gave interviews for news and television shows and often just exaggerated the realities of what actually happened ie: Scott Spetcher F-18 downing, Challenger 2 taking dozens of RPGs, plus all the propaganda regarding WMD, babies being thrown from incubators ect.

Airshow stunts alone don’t sell aircraft. You need powerful marketing and information warfare.

 

[Joint Soviet Fighter]

What tip your hand? There is nothing adversaries will gain from Russia publishing how many sorties, air to air kills, SEADs missions, ect the SU-57 conducted. Literally nothing…

For starters, you appear to be operating under the assumption that Russian & Western air forces are the same when this conflict has shone that that is simply not the case owing to considerable doctrinal differences, among other things, but more to the point, & afaik, the complete lack of SEAD missions doesn't reflect well on an aircraft that was marketed for so long as a stealth platform. I mean, were that the reality, it would have taken out Patriot batteries, for example, but none of that has happened. Why do you think that that is the case?

If anything, the most effective Russian aircraft has proven to be...The MiG-31...from the late 70s/early 80s (yes, I know that it has been upgraded since then, etc.), which is hilarious, but for the purposes of your post, crucially, it's also not for sale for obvious reasons. Sure, The Su-57 has probably recorded some aerial victories, but overall, the performance just hasn't been there, which should tell you & potential "customers" everything that you/they need to know.

Russia has everything to gain and nothing to lose. It will potentially drive up tens of billions in sales which Russia desperately needs considering NATO has threatened everyone from purchasing Russian equipment and the result has become disastrous with Russia having record low arms sales while the US has had record high arms sales. The US has muscled Russia out of the export arms markets via threats and marketing schemes.

Ah yes - it's all about the sales, Comrade!

The rest is just sour grapes that stem from the predictable consequences of invading your neighbor.

Not my problem.

During the Gulf war the US and it’s allies published sorties, air to air kills, and TV guided footage that they then fed to media. Generals, soldiers and pilots often gave interviews for news and television shows and often just exaggerated the realities of what actually happened ie: Scott Spetcher F-18 downing, Challenger 2 taking dozens of RPGs, plus all the propaganda regarding WMD, babies being thrown from incubators ect.

Airshow stunts alone don’t sell aircraft. You need powerful marketing and information warfare.

Given Russia's long history of blatantly lying about it's military capabilities (ironically, this has been done since The Collapse in order to generate export orders more than anything else), why would anyone with two functioning brain cells actually believe such claims, even if the footage were genuine? Again, they have put themselves in a practically impossible situation wherein the burden of proof is so high that you would almost need to be in the cockpit in order to believe that such events had transpired.

Having said all of that, & believe it or not, I actually have always liked Russian/Soviet aircraft, as do many other people, & with the introduction of the umpk glide bombs, they are now operating much more like NATO in terms of using standoff pgms, so from that standpoint, the issue isn't the equipment nearly as much as the way in which it is used. Russia has learned a lot during this war, albeit very slowly, but the only way to achieve the kind of results that you have cited would have to come by way of a colossal doctrinal shift that will take many years to implement even if we leave aside the issues pertaining to money.

In the meantime, I've honestly seen much more sophisticated air attacks/campaigns/missions from DCS players. Sad!

 

[paralay]

 

[GTX]

Note the "AI Enhanced" in the title of the picture...

 

[AGS-1787]

Sukhoi really knows how to make beautiful aircrafts. Shame about Mig not making anything these days. Now if we could see the NGAD demonstrators!

 

[Galaxy]

For starters, you appear to be operating under the assumption that Russian & Western air forces are the same when this conflict has shone that that is simply not the case owing to considerable doctrinal differences, among other things, but more to the point, & afaik, the complete lack of SEAD missions doesn't reflect well on an aircraft that was marketed for so long as a stealth platform. I mean, were that the reality, it would have taken out Patriot batteries, for example, but none of that has happened. Why do you think that that is the case?

If anything, the most effective Russian aircraft has proven to be...The MiG-31...from the late 70s/early 80s (yes, I know that it has been upgraded since then, etc.), which is hilarious, but for the purposes of your post, crucially, it's also not for sale for obvious reasons. Sure, The Su-57 has probably recorded some aerial victories, but overall, the performance just hasn't been there, which should tell you & potential "customers" everything that you/they need to know.


Ah yes - it's all about the sales, Comrade!

The rest is just sour grapes that stem from the predictable consequences of invading your neighbor.

Not my problem.


Given Russia's long history of blatantly lying about it's military capabilities (ironically, this has been done since The Collapse in order to generate export orders more than anything else), why would anyone with two functioning brain cells actually believe such claims, even if the footage were genuine? Again, they have put themselves in a practically impossible situation wherein the burden of proof is so high that you would almost need to be in the cockpit in order to believe that such events had transpired.

Having said all of that, & believe it or not, I actually have always liked Russian/Soviet aircraft, as do many other people, & with the introduction of the umpk glide bombs, they are now operating much more like NATO in terms of using standoff pgms, so from that standpoint, the issue isn't the equipment nearly as much as the way in which it is used. Russia has learned a lot during this war, albeit very slowly, but the only way to achieve the kind of results that you have cited would have to come by way of a colossal doctrinal shift that will take many years to implement even if we leave aside the issues pertaining to money.

In the meantime, I've honestly seen much more sophisticated air attacks/campaigns/missions from DCS players. Sad!

What did I just read? Where do I even start? You claimed the SU-57 was not designed for or good at SEADs, you then made claims that an SU-57 has never taken out Patriots. How would you even know that? Russia destroyed hundreds of Ukrainian S-300s, IRIS-Ts, and various other air defense batteries and radars via many different means. This is confirmed with drones footage.

I hate to break your hart but yes the SU-57 can perform SEADs quite well and better than any other Russian aircraft due to its lower RCS, superior avionics and stand off air to surface munitions, not to mention its side and down facing cheek radars would excel at scanning ground targets better than any other Russian aircraft plus it has the S-70 to scout out SAM installations.

There is lots of drone footage of air launched KH-35 or similar missiles taking out IRIS-Ts and S-300 or other SAM radars. Clearly those are successful SEADS missions. So you are left with a dilemma, you claim the SU-57 can’t perform SEADS yet there is plenty of evidence and even pilot testimonies of inferior Russian aircraft like the SU-35 performing SEADS successfully.

If an SU-34, SU-35 or SU-30 can and have performed SEADs missions then an SU-57 would just as easily also perform those tasks but better.

I’m also failing to see the correlation between US/NATO “doctrine” ie: facing third world counties with no outside help and facing equipment from the 1960s and Ukraine that has the support of 40+ countries with hundreds of billions that went towards purchasing tens of thousands of armored vehicles, aircraft, artillery systems, missiles, ect. Plus NATO global intelligence, planning, logistics, training, ect.

It was foolish to even talk anbout Russian/NATO doctrines. Imagine if the US didn’t have dozens of allies during the Gulf War and instead Iraq received help from dozens of countries. Imagine if Iraq received S-300s and global intelligence and drones, that alone could have fundamentally changed the outcome of Desert Storm. Now imagine if Iraq had received an almost endless supply of artillery, drones, cruise missiles, ballistic missiles, aircraft, SAMs, ATGMs, MANPADS, mines, tanks, APCs, IFVs, night vision devices, radars, training, global intelligence, planning, plus thousands upon thousands of foreigners including ex military fighting in the ranks of the Iraqi army. Now imagine Iraq had thousands of lakes, rivers, marshals and heavy forest and fortified cities with defensive belts and underground bunkers.

 

[Geo]

Sukhoi really knows how to make beautiful aircrafts. Shame about Mig not making anything these days. Now if we could see the NGAD demonstrators!

Both, MiG and Su are slowly working on PAK DP. The aim is to replace the MiG-31 at the turn of the 30s and 40s. There can be no doubt that the result will be worth it.

 

[LMFS]

And another question! I presume, the production capacity is still not that high enough to produce those for Algeria additionally to an increased batch for Russia this year! So Algeria first in order to satisfy a new customer or am I wrong?

What kind of country at war would do that?

 

[Saber]

Both, MiG and Su are slowly working on PAK DP. The aim is to replace the MiG-31 at the turn of the 30s and 40s. There can be no doubt that the result will be worth it.

Wasn't there some announcement years ago that all new aircraft would be under UAC designation? No more "Su" or "MiG" prefixes, and that UAC would be considered a general design group to merge and share limited resources?

 

[Geo]

Wasn't there some announcement years ago that all new aircraft would be under UAC designation? No more "Su" or "MiG" prefixes, and that UAC would be considered a general design group to merge and share limited resources?

No.

 

[had]

What kind of country at war would do that?

The slowly, steady and sadly winning kind.

 

[Life of Tyo]

Photo from 6 yeas ago ( 2018 )

 

[Saber]

No.

Sukhoi, MiG Formally Merge With UAC | Aviation Week Network

Sukhoi and MiG have formally merged with parent company United Aircraft Corp., with both legacy Soviet fighter manufacturers having ceased to exist as separate entities as of June 1. “Strong and worldwide-known Sukhoi and MiG brands will last in the assembled aircraft, while their reputable...

aviationweek.com

Sukhoi and MiG have formally merged with parent company United Aircraft Corp. (UAC), with both legacy Soviet fighter manufacturers having ceased to exist as separate entities as of June 1.

Is it not correct to assume that PAK-DP is overall a UAC project, and might receive a separate designation should it enter service? I do distinctly remember that UAC would be an overall contractor for aircraft design and development, and that Sukhoi and MiG would not be a one stop shop when it comes to the development --> service pipeline.

 

[AGS-1787]

It would be bad marketing to drop the Sukhoi and Mig names.

 

[Saber]

It would be bad marketing to drop the Sukhoi and Mig names.

I agree, but reality is that MiG is pretty much dead when it comes to developing new aircraft, fifth gen and beyond. As for Sukhoi, it has it's own design bureau, some test facilities, and it's own factories, but it's been pursuing, along with UAC, to be more of a independent design bureau that is contracted to create a design that satisfies the customer needs, test it, then pass it off to a factory to actually build it. I believe there was quite a bit of conflict when Sukhoi staff were told that they would need to move out of Moscow to the new facility closer to the Far East facility that actually builds the Su-35 and Su-57.

 

[Ainen]

agree, but reality is that MiG is pretty much dead when it comes to developing new aircraft, fifth gen and beyond.

As much as they aren't that they were, they aren't.
Unless you consider aircraft world outside of China, LM and Sukhoi dead as well. Which isn't without basis...but still a stretch.

 

[flateric]

Shame about Mig not making anything these days.

https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/threads/new-mig-uts-trainer-project-2023.44084/

 

[Saber]

As much as they aren't that they were, they aren't.
Unless you consider aircraft world outside of China, LM and Sukhoi dead as well. Which isn't without basis...but still a stretch.

I agree, but 6th gen aircraft development and MiG don't really belong in the same sentence. PAK-DP or "MiG-41" is not going to be a MiG project, let's be honest here. They're still dragging out the same faceted 1.42 model to various expos and such, and the factory in Moscow that was tied to them is pretty much demolished or about to be. It is basically in ruins.

 

[Ainen]

I agree, but 6th gen aircraft development and MiG don't really belong in the same sentence. PAK-DP or "MiG-41" is not going to be a MiG project, let's be honest here. They're still dragging out the same faceted 1.42 model to various expos and such, and the factory in Moscow that was tied to them is pretty much demolished or about to be. It is basically in ruins.

I don't know. This goes too far into predicting the future. It's possible to imagine Russia needing more than one fighter design team alive, provided Russia will have too keep up high level spending due to tensions in Europe.

Mig doesn't do much by Sukhoi(Chengdu, LM, Shenyang) standards - yes. No one does.

By Eurofighter consortium(together, not member nations), Saab and even Dassault ones - they were doing quite ok amounts of job until right about now(5.5/6 gen programs). And all of Europe seems quite sure they can design those new aircraft, despite not really flying new fighters for 3(and not finishing anything for 2) decades.

What was Mig doing for last 2 decades(half the cycle of an engineer)?
First, several hundred (300ish?) of new aircraft over last 20 years overall. Plus a similar number of aircraft was thoroughly upgraded.

New version of their mainline aircraft every 10 years or so (mig-29smt - mig-29k/m2 - mig-35), more or less keeping up with the pace of conteporary 4++/4.5 gen fighters. It includes arguably the most important part of "keeping up" thing - updated avionics. And while at first glance they're less impressive than Sukhoi birds - other than Su-57, there isn't much difference really. Neither mig nor sukhoi develop radars, it isn't mig fault ultimately that zhuk-am lived in same limbo as Captor-e.
We can stick a needle, though - MIG continiously outpaced Sukhoi in delivering proper multirole capability to the table, all the way since late 1990s till now. Mig aircraft fly with russian targeting pods with customers now (development which was pushed through by mig). Not Sukhoi ones.

Upgrade work internally (mig-31bm, bm2), mods internationally(mig-29 fleet around the world). For example, Mig-29UPG is not just renamed Mig-29SMT. Compare their cockpit photos for instance.

Mig, as Flateric pointed out, has current aircraft programs, which will arguably keep their ability to design aircraft from end to end alive.

Finally - while they didn't have chance to finish them, mig did a lot of 5th gen work, from 1980s to late 2010s. Boeing and NG, including their merged parts, didn't produce new fighter designs for decades either, yet they do participate in NGAD.

They're still dragging out the same faceted 1.42 model to various expos and such

We know enough about their actual work - not those models. It's on this forum, among others.

 

[Geo]

View: https://youtu.be/WVRWClIXzMs?si=zvuUUFOoXvVv045Y

Sukhoi, MiG Formally Merge With UAC | Aviation Week Network

Sukhoi and MiG have formally merged with parent company United Aircraft Corp., with both legacy Soviet fighter manufacturers having ceased to exist as separate entities as of June 1. “Strong and worldwide-known Sukhoi and MiG brands will last in the assembled aircraft, while their reputable...

aviationweek.com

Is it not correct to assume that PAK-DP is overall a UAC project, and might receive a separate designation should it enter service? I do distinctly remember that UAC would be an overall contractor for aircraft design and development, and that Sukhoi and MiG would not be a one stop shop when it comes to the development --> service pipeline.

 

[LMFS]

The slowly, steady and sadly winning kind.

Certainly a country that does not hold their warring military as the absolute first priority and instead bends over backward to deliver one odd squadron's worth of aircraft to an international customer for the sake of looking good would not belong to the winning kind.

It is rather obvious that KnAAZ has expanded production to the point that they can attend both internal customer (at an increased pace BTW) and has some reserve capacity to handle external ones.

 

[snne]

From the American side's perspective (Visiting USAF personnel watching the show):

https://twitter.com/x/status/1890764810456801329

View: https://x.com/HarunMedium/status/1890764810456801329

 

[NMaude]

Defense Updates has just put out a video outlining five reasons why India might not purchase the Su-57 Felon:

History has been made in Aero India 2025.

On Feb 10, for the first time, the tarmac of the Yelahanka Air Force Station near Bengaluru witnessed a breathtaking face-off: two of the world’s deadliest fighter jets, American F-35 and Russian Su-57, stood just meters apart.

The Indian Air Force which is facing a shortage of fighter jets with squadron strength falling far below sanctioned levels is watching these fighters with keen interest.

On Feb 11, Russia's United Aircraft Corporation (UAC) - the manufacturer, and Rosoboronexport – the country's defense export agency – offered Sukhoi Su-57 to India with tech transfer and local production. On Feb 13, US President Donald Trump offered to sell the F-35 to India during his meeting with PM Modi.

So, both of these cutting-edge jets are available to India but the Russian one is unlikely to make the cut.

In this video, Defense Updates analyzes why the Indian Air Force may avoid Russian Su-57 fighter ?

#defenseupdates #su57felon #su57

Chapters:
00:11 INTRODUCTION
02:05 NOT REALLY STEALTHY
04:02 MANY TECHNOLOGICAL CHALLENGES STILL REMAIN
05:09 NOT BATTLE-TESTED
06:07 INDIA HAS SOME POOR EXPERIENCES WITH RUSSIAN PLATFORMS
08:01 PROPER AMMUNITION MISSING

Now Trump has offered India the F-35 but there is one problem with that prosed sale, India operates the SA-21 Growler SAM system just like Turkey does.

 

[donnage99]

Several reasons come to mind.
(1)All optics work this way; DAS doesn't replace EOTS either, including its IRST functionality as mentioned above.

(2)101KS-O are DIRCM after all. You have to choose here. Laser turret won't be undirectional, it's the single most directional solution in existence.

(3)If those aren't concerns, see Su-35s. It operates with (single) MWIR MAWS for over a decade...

I don't think our views are in opposition at all. You perfectly described the limitation of the MWIR system of the su57.

Though the comparison to f-35 isn't relevant. Less known but DAS is a dual band MWIR and LWIR while the EOTS (advanced version) operates in MWIR, SWIR, visual light. As you have correctly stated before, each band has its own advantage in certain scenario.

A UV based system won't be able to do any of that. It can only detect rocket motor that is still burning, which limits it to MAW of short range missiles in visual range fight, not even long range missiles much less aircraft. This might also be the reason why su57 has to retain the mechanical gimbal foward facing IRST despite its penalty in RCS.

 

[Ainen]

I don't think our views are in opposition at all. You perfectly described the limitation of the MWIR system of the su57.

Though the comparison to f-35 isn't relevant. Less known but DAS is a dual band MWIR and LWIR while the EOTS (advanced version) operates in MWIR, SWIR, visual light. As you have correctly stated before, each band has its own advantage in certain scenario.

A UV based system won't be able to do any of that. It can only detect rocket motor that is still burning, which limits it to MAW of short range missiles in visual range fight, not even long range missiles much less aircraft. This might also be the reason why su57 has to retain the mechanical gimbal foward facing IRST despite its penalty in RCS.

Uv system by itself won't.
But DAS tasks are:

Missile warning;
720 vision;
720 tracking/targeting.

Combined of uv/ir/radar solution does all that, better, with caveat that IRSTs can't provide scanning when in directional use use. But when it's the case, does pilot really need that?
We only have two eyes and one point of attention at a time.

The only crucial task during such moment is, indeed, new launch events.

As for ols-50m, my current speculation is that it's a laser ball like the other two, which sort of mandates ball shape.
Otherwise, Russia isn't new to angular mirrors on IRSTs. They knew what they're doing here.

 

[Archibald]

I wonder how serious is that sale to Algeria.

 

[donnage99]

Uv system by itself won't.
But DAS tasks are:

Missile warning;
720 vision;
720 tracking/targeting.

Combined of uv/ir/radar solution does all that, better

This is a slippery slope argument when you start stacking sensors in other spectrum radar included to compare to a single sensor system on another aircraft. I find this to be incredibly forced comparison.

I forgot to also address your last point about the su-35 MAWS. Cooling is a big factor here so I don't see comparing to an aircraft with less stringent heat signature management is really relevant.

 

[snne]

I wonder how serious is that sale to Algeria.

Normally any sane person would take a state run-TV quite seriously but given their history of making exaggerated and hard to believe claims with little to no proofs, I say it'd be wise to wait till we get something real.

However, it is frankly intriguing that Algeria is also expected to be the rumored second African operator of the J-10CE (the first one is also not yet officially confirmed), according to the majority of the Chinese military observation community.

 

[Ainen]

This is a slippery slope argument when you start stacking sensors in other spectrum radar included to compare to a single sensor system on another aircraft. I find this to be incredibly forced comparison.

Why?

Basic point is that for pure maws work, uv is a better band, yet comes cheaper.From that point onwards, no one is really surprised at multi-band solutions on ships. More bands, more fusion, less mistakes.

Single DAS instead of multi spectrum coverage (and countermeasures) is cheaper, with less things that can go wrong, sure. Arguably, not obvious that current gen single engine fighter can even supply such system design with enough power.

 

[Archibald]

Normally any sane person would take a state run-TV quite seriously but given their history of making exaggerated and hard to believe claims with little to no proofs, I say it'd be wise to wait till we get something real.

Very much in agreement with that point. I would add, not only Algeria TV ain't reliable those days (as you pointed) but, well, Russia too (cough, cough).

 

[donnage99]

Why?

Basic point is that for pure maws work, uv is a better band, yet comes cheaper.From that point onwards, no one is really surprised at multi-band solutions on ships. More bands, more fusion, less mistakes.

Single DAS instead of multi spectrum coverage (and countermeasures) is cheaper, with less things that can go wrong, sure. Arguably, not obvious that current gen single engine fighter can even supply such system design with enough power.

First. You're arguing that the uv system is a cheaper solution or the DAS 6 apertures a cheaper solution? I'm confused by the point you're making and I feel like you really sorted them out yourself.

Second, I don't know if you're thinking it holistically enough. If it's a long range missile, the uv system is dead weight. So even purely as MAWS it's an inferior system. The mechanically steered MWIR doesn't have enough apertures for constant spherical FoV while tracking aircraft and long range missiles. The fact that you had to bring up "when it's the case, does pilot really need that? We only have two eyes and one point of attention at a time" tells me you know the system isn't comparable. Also, with this line of logic, I might as well compare a vietnam era radar to current AESA and say, who cares about being able to track dozens of aircraft simultaneously since pilot's attention can only focus on couple anyway. This is where alot of the automation, computer assistance, and datalink to offload info to other aicraft, comes into play, you know this.

This is approaching mental gymnastic territory due to perhaps entrenched viewpoint and attachment to a particular platform so this will be the last response from me. There's really no point unless there's new technical information uncovered.

 

[Ainen]

First. You're arguing that the uv system is a cheaper solution or the DAS 6 apertures a cheaper solution? I'm confused by the point you're making and I feel like you really sorted them out yourself.

6 UV(101ks-u) cheaper than 6 das(DAS).
Two distributed systems of sensors(101ks, n036) in 4 bands is more expensive than just 1.

Second, I don't know if you're thinking it holistically enough. If it's a long range missile, the uv system is dead weight. So even purely as MAWS it's an inferior system. The mechanically steered MWIR doesn't have enough apertures for constant spherical FoV while tracking aircraft and long range missiles. The fact that you had to bring up "when it's the case, does pilot really need that? We only have two eyes and one point of attention at a time" tells me you know the system isn't comparable. Also, with this line of logic, I might as well compare a vietnam era radar to current AESA and say, who cares about being able to track dozens of aircraft simultaneously since pilot's attention can only focus on couple anyway. This is where alot of the automation, computer assistance, and datalink to offload info to other aicraft, comes into play, you know this.

UV detects launch events at basically all ranges, they're within horizon. It also classifies them better, giving least number of false positives. I.e. it is doing its job better; maws isn't there to track incomings, it's to give warning. So, of course, as a MAWS, it's the best system.
Which is why, when everywhere around someone designs pure maws, UV band is the go-to band. Only other considerations may alter the choice.

Long range missiles can be detected by IRSTs and radars. The key task of UV system is to provide notice of events, especially detection for short notice threats.

The fact that you had to bring up "when it's the case, does pilot really need that? We only have two eyes and one point of attention at a time" tells me you know the system isn't comparable. Also, with this line of logic, I might as well compare a vietnam era radar to current AESA and say, who cares about being able to track dozens of aircraft simultaneously since pilot's attention can only focus on couple anyway. This is where alot of the automation, computer assistance, and datalink to offload info to other aicraft, comes into play, you know this.

No amount of automation will give pilot more than one HMD direction at a time. At least not until we're talking about J-20S, which indeed has two helmets inside.

IR system is best overall in its comprehensiveness, which is why it's being installed as a single stop 720 solution on F-35(and likely Chinese jets).
If you paid (su-57 is like twice the price of a su-35s) for several specialist solutions, you may just combine all of them and get their advantages.
Su-57 has MWIR coverage, and, unlike F-35, it's 3 narrow aov sensors, not wide view ones(DAS is known to need better resolution). In specific tasks, they're quite likely to be better simply based on that point alone. For the same reason EOTS is a better attack sensor (and IRST).
But, unlike DAS, they need a full, uninterrupted view backup. DAS doesn't, it already is such a view.
On top of that, it has 270(or 360?) X band coverage. Which detects, tracks and ranges incoming missiles better than any passive solutions, with no regard to weather etc.
Of course, only if radars are active. Which is why there's maws to track launch events. And so on.

 

[donnage99]

UV detects launch events at basically all ranges, they're within horizon. It also classifies them better, giving least number of false positives. I.e. it is doing its job better; maws isn't there to track incomings, it's to give warning. So, of course, as a MAWS, it's the best system.

I'm sorry but unless you visiting from the 80s computers now are more than capable at NCTR using emissions especially with IR sensors that cover LWIR MWIR SWIR and visual light spectrum such as EODAS. Notion that UV based system gives least false positive is obsolete. And the idea that UV system better at classification is at the very best a misunderstanding. Something that can only detects rocket motor burn cannot have more NCTR parameters than a comprehensive LW/MW/SW IR and visual light system.

The switch to UV based system is most likely because of cost and/or heat management. Even the f-35 struggled for a while with not enough cooling (valves not big enough to run coolant fast enough but bigger valves mean extensive restructuring and eating space that might not even be there).

No amount of automation will give pilot more than one HMD direction at a time. At least not until we're talking about J-20S, which indeed has two helmets inside.

That's not at all how workload is presented to the pilot. You really think that all the info provided by EODAS can only be accessed by how flexible the pilot's neck is? Come on man.

 

[Ainen]

I'm sorry but unless you visiting from the 80s computers now are more than capable at NCTR using emissions especially with IR sensors that cover LWIR MWIR SWIR and visual light spectrum such as EODAS.

Your DAS spectrum coverage grows with every post.
It's MWIR, with LWIR addition by ~2030 with block 4, if delays don't grow even more out of control.

Megapilis also includes sensor upgrades (we saw new 101ks-u windows if anything). What's in them is hard to tell.

Notion that UV based system gives least false positive is obsolete. And the idea that UV system better at classification is at the very best a misunderstanding.

I wonder why US systems aimed at launch detection are UV based, too. Outdated misunderstandings?

DAS is not a dedicated MAWS. It can not reliably separate flashes based on anything other than intensity.

Even above-mentioned su-35 system has other considerations that stipulated IR use. Same considerations as DAS primary role, even if it's in reverse order.

The switch to UV based system is most likely because of cost and/or heat management.

Su-57 has 3 irsts on top of uvs; stating cost when it has both is lacking in merit. I really can't help but feel you're heavily defending IR system(which in su-57 case will be just a worse double) just for a sake of prejudice. The point is not prejudices, point is sets of compromises chosen in different situations.

Even the f-35 struggled

'Even F-35' is a smaller, single-engined aircraft, with known mistakes in heat management estimation.
On top of that, as a workhorse aircraft, it's way stricter optimized in cost domain.
Su-57 costs twice as much as su-35s, and has like ~3.5 times the cost of su-30sm.
F-35, on the opposite, is significantly cheaper when compared to F-15EX. It isn't all that much more expensive than modern F-16 blk 72.

 

[Archibald]

With Algeria and France relationship going from tense to ugly over the last few months... would be interesting to know what the Armée de l'Air thinks about having Su-57s on the other side of the Mediterranean sea (nota bene: I'm not talking about a potential war, that would be beyond ridiculous. Albeit this seemed ridiculous too, before it happened for real ! - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perejil_Island_crisis )

Rather : on technical grounds; things like trying and testing Rafales against the Su-57 - DACT, interceptions...

 

[paralay]

Su-57 costs twice as much as su-35s, and has like ~3.5 times the cost of su-30sm.

How much did the Russian Air Force pay for the fighters?
Su-30SM - 12 981 982 $ (?)
Su-35S - 25  012  462 $ (?)
Su-57 - 34 400 000 $ (2019)

 

[donnage99]

Your DAS spectrum coverage grows with every post.
It's MWIR, with LWIR addition by ~2030 with block 4, if delays don't grow even more out of control.

I said EODAS. Some older literature refers to it as stand-in for DAS and EOTS. And that's what I was referring to. You the one who brought up EOTS and how it operates in within a larger context of other systems. I've mentioned the ir coverage of DAS as well as the EOTS as a whole multiple times prior to my immediately previous post. Now you're resorting to straw manning insinuating that I suggest all those bands for DAS now that your laughable argument about an entire 360 degree system in extremely complicated battlespace is somehow pivoted on pilot's neck twist. Now the main disccusion is about semantic purism of MAWS when the original point was how the system functions as a whole to provide scanning and tracking, classifying of all threats. You quickly found your pilot's neck argument laughable and now taking the discussion elsewhere. This is pure argument for argument sake.

I'm done with this.

 

[Stormingart]

Isn’t the engine that the Su-57M is going to use shorter? Doesn’t that mean it can have a full S-duct without changing the design?

 

[stealthflanker]

Isn’t the engine that the Su-57M is going to use shorter? Doesn’t that mean it can have a full S-duct without changing the design?

Regardless of engine length, S-ducts require drastic change to airframe. You need to bend the inlet until you cant see the engine front face visually. Something Su-57 is not designed with. Thus why the radar blocker.

This is the kind of Bend you need for completely hide the compressor face. This one is from my WIP KF-21 model.



Can't really do this for Su-57.