- Joined
- 11 February 2010
- Messages
- 1,544
- Reaction score
- 2,319
kcran567 said:
Those we need to wait.
Sukhoi Su-57 / T-50 / PAK FA - flight testing and development Part II [2012-current]
Those we need to wait.
- Joined
- 1 May 2007
- Messages
- 2,534
- Reaction score
- 1,744
Just come across this in my news feed, caveat; it's Business Insider, but if true . . .
"Russia admits defeat on its 'stealth' F-35 killer by canceling mass production of the Su-57 fighter jet"
http://uk.businessinsider.com/russia-admits-defeat-su-57-not-going-into-mass-production-2018-7?op=1&r=US&IR=T
cheers,
Robin.
"Russia admits defeat on its 'stealth' F-35 killer by canceling mass production of the Su-57 fighter jet"
http://uk.businessinsider.com/russia-admits-defeat-su-57-not-going-into-mass-production-2018-7?op=1&r=US&IR=T
cheers,
Robin.
- Joined
- 6 September 2006
- Messages
- 4,598
- Reaction score
- 8,559
If true, it makes you wonder what Russia can do to ever develop a new fighter.
The last 30 years of fighter development to succeed the MiG-29 and Su-27 families has gone nowhere. The Su-47 was an airshow performer but already a dead-end X-29 analogue, the I.44 barely got off the ground and now the Su-57 looks likely to be a development series for new technologies but will Russia realistically be able to wait another 20 years until it fields a new fighter? It would seem likely a new fighter won't appear before the new Western European programmes.
If projects like the Ilyushin Il-214 MTA seem to have taken decades to get nowhere, surely more advanced projects like PAK-DA are little more than pipedreams?
The last 30 years of fighter development to succeed the MiG-29 and Su-27 families has gone nowhere. The Su-47 was an airshow performer but already a dead-end X-29 analogue, the I.44 barely got off the ground and now the Su-57 looks likely to be a development series for new technologies but will Russia realistically be able to wait another 20 years until it fields a new fighter? It would seem likely a new fighter won't appear before the new Western European programmes.
If projects like the Ilyushin Il-214 MTA seem to have taken decades to get nowhere, surely more advanced projects like PAK-DA are little more than pipedreams?
- Joined
- 11 February 2010
- Messages
- 1,544
- Reaction score
- 2,319
At this point we need enlightenment from Flateric or maybe Paralay. as they're the closest at the site.
Thing is it seems Russian officials take very different approach regarding criticism toward its program. From what i see it's rather silence or give open ended statements with multiple interpretations rather than directly said that critics have 1950's thinking.
---
The last news i heard the early batch would still be procured, numbering 12 aircrafts. The thing is of course whether there would be follow up or not. The business insider article and some forum discussions already speculated the worst.
Thing is it seems Russian officials take very different approach regarding criticism toward its program. From what i see it's rather silence or give open ended statements with multiple interpretations rather than directly said that critics have 1950's thinking.
---
The last news i heard the early batch would still be procured, numbering 12 aircrafts. The thing is of course whether there would be follow up or not. The business insider article and some forum discussions already speculated the worst.
Why anyone with at least remote understanding of real world and who is able to read (and did it with article) can buy that thing at least remotely? Extremely biased tabloid dirt with abolutely no proofs or citations that can confirm big "CANCELLED" from headline. And still people buy it. Why?
- Joined
- 27 March 2006
- Messages
- 1,832
- Reaction score
- 1,492
Read the article...it's terrible "journalism".
It's an article about an article (from The Diplomat) with huge extrapolations and leaps in logic, not to mention outright distortions of quotes from a politician.
Bizarre.
I know the media clutter/clog/clickbait is huge these days..but it really wasn't difficult to see the massive discrepencies in that piece.
It's an article about an article (from The Diplomat) with huge extrapolations and leaps in logic, not to mention outright distortions of quotes from a politician.
Bizarre.
I know the media clutter/clog/clickbait is huge these days..but it really wasn't difficult to see the massive discrepencies in that piece.
kaiserd
I really should change my personal text
- Joined
- 25 October 2013
- Messages
- 1,665
- Reaction score
- 1,700
The T-50’s development and procurement sits in a wider context.
Russia is not a financial giant to compare with the US, China or (taken collectively) the EU.
Russia’s economic problems have seen significant cuts in defense spending, though not yet clear if this is going to be a continuing trend.
Unless there is significant but so far undisclosed underlying technical failure it appears unlikely that the T-50 will be outright canceled. However a form of withering on the vine as priorities move elsewhere is possible and would be consistent with what was seen in late Soviet and early Russian Federation aircraft programs.
The apparent lack of export potential may prove significant re: the priority and resources given to the project.
https://www.google.ie/amp/thehill.com/opinion/international/396877-russia-is-an-economic-pipsqueak-trumps-infatuation-is-baffling%3Famp
https://money.cnn.com/2018/05/02/news/russia-defense-spending-plunge/index.html
Russia is not a financial giant to compare with the US, China or (taken collectively) the EU.
Russia’s economic problems have seen significant cuts in defense spending, though not yet clear if this is going to be a continuing trend.
Unless there is significant but so far undisclosed underlying technical failure it appears unlikely that the T-50 will be outright canceled. However a form of withering on the vine as priorities move elsewhere is possible and would be consistent with what was seen in late Soviet and early Russian Federation aircraft programs.
The apparent lack of export potential may prove significant re: the priority and resources given to the project.
https://www.google.ie/amp/thehill.com/opinion/international/396877-russia-is-an-economic-pipsqueak-trumps-infatuation-is-baffling%3Famp
https://money.cnn.com/2018/05/02/news/russia-defense-spending-plunge/index.html
That's myth btw. "Cuts" came from decreasing budget from paying off most loans arms companies obtained for defence orders. Real spending on troops and procurement stayed the same. Albeit some stagnation is there indeed when compared with growth of recent years.kaiserd said:
Airplane
ACCESS: Secret
- Joined
- 3 October 2015
- Messages
- 434
- Reaction score
- 55
GARGEAN said:
Amazing. A little dubious blurb in some news website, and people are singing the demise of the SU-57. Wonder why they are still ordering more considering it's cancelled.......
Just because Russian manufacturing is terrible and they cannot old tight GD&T to make stealth on par with the US doesn't mean the 57 isn't still significantly smaller than their migs and other sukhois. The 57 is still advantageous over their current platforms and also over our 15s and 16s that will dominate our inventory for *years* to come thanks to killing the 22.
- Joined
- 11 February 2010
- Messages
- 1,544
- Reaction score
- 2,319
So, how far this will effect Su-57 purchase ? Are VKS just going to get 12 then call it done, waiting for more budget ?
Airplane said:
Just clarifying what you said,
did you mean: cannot (H)old tight tolerances...in their stealth
And,
When you say significantly smaller than other Migs and Sukhois are you referring to their RCS?
Just asking to clarify, thanks.
Because I always thought that made sense. The Russian philosophy to know stealth is necessary, but not to sacrifice cost and performance of the aircraft (not to mention ease of manufacture and maintenance, and real world combat realities). Lower the RCS compared to Mig-29s and Sukhoi 27-35 would seem to be pragmatic and cost effective approach on the part of Russia.
How much farther in RCS reduction would you roughly estimate an SU-57 is compared to a Mig-29.
icyplanetnhc (Steve)
Trekking into the cosmic ocean
I found this posted over at Key Publishing forums.
Seriously? External targeting pod? Just...why?
As far as I can tell, there is no less than three IR sensors on the Su-57: IRST, targeting pod, and landing FLIR. Why this level of separation? You'd think that they should at least be able to consolidate the landing FLIR with this targeting pod. I can perhaps understand if the IRST and FLIR are operating at different wavelengths, but even this is getting more difficult to justify especially with the development of newer dual band sensors. Frankly, I would think that the F-35's configuration of an EOTS and DAS should be able to handle all of these tasks.
Seriously? External targeting pod? Just...why?
As far as I can tell, there is no less than three IR sensors on the Su-57: IRST, targeting pod, and landing FLIR. Why this level of separation? You'd think that they should at least be able to consolidate the landing FLIR with this targeting pod. I can perhaps understand if the IRST and FLIR are operating at different wavelengths, but even this is getting more difficult to justify especially with the development of newer dual band sensors. Frankly, I would think that the F-35's configuration of an EOTS and DAS should be able to handle all of these tasks.
Attachments
icyplanetnhc (Steve)
Trekking into the cosmic ocean
GARGEAN said:
Huh? Both IRST and targeting pod should have narrow FOV. I recall that the Su-35's IRST is a mid-wave sensor, so unless the Su-57's IRST operates at a different wavelength, I don't see a good reason for not consolidating it with a ground targeting system. In fact, that's exactly what the F-35's EOTS does. I'll concede that a landing camera would need a considerably wider FOV.
I can perhaps understand that this degree of separation may be due to the lack of a DAS-like that provides full spherical IR coverage. Even so, I'm not very convinced about the approach of the Su-57's electro-optical sensor configuration.
Steven said:
Separate projects were certainly cheaper and faster to develop in Russia's case, and lower risk. Easier engineering trade studies when you are optimizing only for one use, smaller and easier to manage code bases per subsystem, easier parallel development. Then there is the experience and carry over from legacy systems. Russia has never produced an integrated targeting system (to my knowledge), but has fielded individual irst anď ground targeting systems. This is just coming from a general engineering viewpoint.
You might give up some capability in the separate approach (higher weight, smaller apertures), and life cycle costs are probably higher. Also I imagine doing some serious sensor fusion would be easier with one system instead of having to integrate multiple different systems. But maybe the landing flir and targeting pod can work with minimal interplay with the radar in their architecture, so they didn't see that as a problem.
icyplanetnhc (Steve)
Trekking into the cosmic ocean
Airplane said:Judging stealth again by outer mold line.... :
I'm aware that one needs to take into account RF-transparent materials like the radome and some antenna covers. But I highly doubt that's the case for a targeting pod, and mounting one would limit the Su-57's capabilities as a deep strike platform. Given that this aircraft has been advertised as a multirole aircraft I find this decision rather questionable, but as others have said, there's always the factor of cost and schedule.
- Joined
- 27 December 2005
- Messages
- 16,892
- Reaction score
- 21,624
I believe they reused and improved technical solutions that already existed rather than developing wholly new systems from scratch.
They already had IRST and targeting pod and EO MAWS, and simply developed improved versions of each. I can't see any other reason for some of the technical decisions.
They already had IRST and targeting pod and EO MAWS, and simply developed improved versions of each. I can't see any other reason for some of the technical decisions.
- Joined
- 11 February 2010
- Messages
- 1,544
- Reaction score
- 2,319
Similar story as S-300 system i think. The subsystems are optimized for its intended role with minimum or no overlap. The cost and weight of separate apparatus have then to be accepted. But these separation allows those apparatus to be optimized for its role and then allows savings in terms of time and perhaps required computing power. Which could be small to begin with or it could be distributed elsewhere (say managing the 3 X-band apertures, ESM, ECM and L-band radar)
kaiserd
I really should change my personal text
- Joined
- 25 October 2013
- Messages
- 1,665
- Reaction score
- 1,700
My recollection is the Russians have not yet had their own modern domestic targeting pod (Sniper pod equivalent). They have large heavy integrated systems as seen in the Su-34, and significantly older and less sophisticated system (in some cases smaller and intended for the likes of the Su-24, MIG-27, Su-22s etc).
As such if and when they would develop a “modern” targeting pod (which must also be intended for the Flanker family) it would hardly be surprising if they were also to mount it on the Su-57.
A case of “at last, good enough for now” rather than necessarily the long term optimal solution.
And please no pretense that the Russians “chose” not to have such modern targeting pods until now....
As such if and when they would develop a “modern” targeting pod (which must also be intended for the Flanker family) it would hardly be surprising if they were also to mount it on the Su-57.
A case of “at last, good enough for now” rather than necessarily the long term optimal solution.
And please no pretense that the Russians “chose” not to have such modern targeting pods until now....
- Joined
- 27 December 2005
- Messages
- 16,892
- Reaction score
- 21,624
They have struggled to make a modern targeting pod, even trying to get Damocles license production after disappointing results with the UOMZ SAPSAN pods.
They appear to have succeeded at last with the T220, which is in production, and has been seen on a variety of aircraft including Su-57.
https://youtu.be/8Ft5tAxA6gc
They appear to have succeeded at last with the T220, which is in production, and has been seen on a variety of aircraft including Su-57.
https://youtu.be/8Ft5tAxA6gc
- Joined
- 1 April 2006
- Messages
- 11,034
- Reaction score
- 8,385
T220 is made by OAO NPK SPP (ex.NIIPP) and I doubt it was ever seen on Su-57
http://www.take-off.ru/item/3954-kosmicheskaya-optika-prikhodit-v-aviatsiyu-intervyu-s-zamestitelem-generalnogo-konstruktora-ao-npk-spp-viktorom-sumerinym
101KS-N pod for Su-57 made by UOMZ and yes, many surprised by fact that UOMZ got a contract for it and other T-50 optoelectronics as Sapsan was a dog.
http://www.take-off.ru/item/3954-kosmicheskaya-optika-prikhodit-v-aviatsiyu-intervyu-s-zamestitelem-generalnogo-konstruktora-ao-npk-spp-viktorom-sumerinym
101KS-N pod for Su-57 made by UOMZ and yes, many surprised by fact that UOMZ got a contract for it and other T-50 optoelectronics as Sapsan was a dog.
- Joined
- 27 December 2005
- Messages
- 16,892
- Reaction score
- 21,624
flateric said:
Not much choice on IRST makers in Russia though really...
- Joined
- 11 February 2010
- Messages
- 1,544
- Reaction score
- 2,319
well wish we could see Space-X level of "lessons learned"
PaulMM (Overscan) said:
The existing MAWS (and pod, as already mentioned) were developed by other companies though, so I'm not sure that's the reason.
Politics might be, however - post Cold War, the airframer-supplier relationships seemed to be pretty rigid. Phazotron never got their foot in the door at Sukhoi, and it was not for lack of a decent product or effort, for example.
icyplanetnhc (Steve)
Trekking into the cosmic ocean
Didn't UOMZ also make the IRST and some other systems for the Su-35? I'm not sure about the missile launch detectors though. Furthermore, aside from PiBu, do we have confirmation that the Su-57 missile launch detectors use the UV spectrum?
Similar threads
-
Sukhoi PAK FA news and speculation (T-50, I-21) Part II [2008-2009]- Started by overscan (PaulMM)
- Replies: 451
-
Sukhoi Su-57 / T-50 / PAK FA first flight - pictures, videos and analysis [2010]- Started by flateric
- Replies: 872
-
Sukhoi Su-57 / T-50 / PAK FA - flight testing and development Part I [2010-2012]- Started by Matej
- Replies: 760
-
Sukhoi PAK FA news and speculation (T-50, I-21) Part I [2006-2008]
- Started by overscan (PaulMM)
- Replies: 455
-
Vladimir Sergeevich Ilyushin 31-03-1927 - 01-03-2010
- Started by flateric
- Replies: 4