Featured India Scrutinizing Russian SU-57 Stealth Jets As Makers Struggle To Fulfill Orders

[Sinnerman108]

I don't know how can those numbers and research has come out in public ?
and there is very little reason to believe it for that reason.

https://www.scielo.br/scielo.php?sc...2175-91462016000100040&lng=en&nrm=iso&tlng=en
View attachment 658065

 

[Figaro]

I don't know how can those numbers and research has come out in public ?
and there is very little reason to believe it for that reason.

This is an academic article measuring the RCS for the Su-57's shaping ... the authors likely used a very complicated RCS simulation to do this for them. This is not classified information. Of course, these measurements don't taken into account the stealth coating but then again, no amount of RAM is gonna fix a bad design.

 

[Mamajama]

Operating assumption is the US stealth fighters are going to be based further away from Russia (i.e. UK, France) to prevent some cruise missiles. Honestly speaking, I think it will be very hard for these cruise or even ballistic missile barrages to put an airbase out of action. You saw how ineffective ballistic missile barrages were during the US strikes on Syria back in 2017 and the Iranian missile strikes this year.

Weren't cruise missiles effective in 2003 agaimdt Saddams airbases as we can probably both remember? I think if there was no early warning it would be been much more effective but that's just my opinion. It is more economical for Russians to develop weapons that can deny or at least hamper the enemies advantange.

 

[Figaro]

Weren't cruise missiles effective in 2003 agaimdt Saddams airbases as we can probably both remember? I think if there was no early warning it would be been much more effective but that's just my opinion. It is more economical for Russians to develop weapons that can deny or at least hamper the enemies advantange.

The point is the Russians still need a fighter to challenge air superiority from NATO, which is why they are developing the Su-57. A huge barrage of ballistic/cruise missiles likely still will not put out most airbases in Europe. You cannot rely on exclusively destroying air bases to win the war. But you are right, the Russians don't have enough money or technology and hence the Su-57 is pretty flawed.

 

[Mamajama]

The point is the Russians still need a fighter to challenge air superiority from NATO, which is why they are developing the Su-57. A huge barrage of ballistic/cruise missiles likely still will not put out most airbases in Europe. You cannot rely on exclusively destroying air bases to win the war.

Fair enough, Russians will probably use cruise missiles like club in this way if anything does ever break out but all bets are off by then.

Russia will never be able to realistically catch up with aircraft supremacy with America with the Su-57 or probably any jet.

 

[Figaro]

Fair enough, Russians will probably use cruise missiles like club in this way if anything does ever break out but all bets are off by then.

Russia will never be able to realistically catch up with aircraft supremacy with America with the Su-57 or probably any jet.

In the beginning of the 1980s, the Russians were very close to retrieving qualitative superiority at least with their fighter jets. The Su-27 was a match for the F-15 and the F-16. But after the USSR collapsed, the gap widened a lot and has been increasing faster ever since, especially in BVR capabilities. The Russians like to harp about the "super-maneuverability" of their TVC jets these days but thats honestly because their BVR capabilities are so behind compared to the West. I have seen so many Russian trolls who believe the Su-57 will destroy F-35s and F-22s because of its maneuverability lol.

 

[vi-va]

I don't know how can those numbers and research has come out in public ?
and there is very little reason to believe it for that reason.

you can run the software if you have the mathematical model.

 

[Figaro]

you can run the software if you have the mathematical model.

Everyone knows the Su-57 stealth shaping is pretty flawed ... given this, I have little confidence in the radar absorbant materials employed on the Su-57. IMO, India was right to quit the FGFA program but instead of joining the F-35 program (which they def could have), they chose to buy the S-400 instead. A huge mistake for sure. They saved China and Pakistan a lot of trouble by not pursuing the F-35 and instead going for a system that China already possesses.

 

[vi-va]

In the beginning of the 1980s, the Russians were very close to retrieving qualitative superiority at least with their fighter jets. The Su-27 was a match for the F-15 and the F-16. But after the USSR collapsed, the gap widened a lot and has been increasing faster ever since, especially in BVR capabilities. The Russians like to harp about the "super-maneuverability" of their TVC jets these days but thats honestly because their BVR capabilities are so behind compared to the West. I have seen so many Russian trolls who believe the Su-57 will destroy F-35s and F-22s because of its maneuverability lol.

Maneuverability is not as important as it was, time changed.
Also aircraft carrier not as important as it was, it's still very important, but won't dominate the sea power. But a lot of fans won't see it, they relie on experience.
Again, time changes. War model has fundamentally changed.

 

[Tamiyah]

US Report that India is Revealing Russian SSN Secrets to US Navy


One can tell this Akula II is INS Chakra from the India naval ensign flying above the fin/sail and probably (?) the badge on the front of the fin/sail.
---
The US government may have provided information that India is breaking a nuclear submarine (SSN) technology agreement with Russia. If so, this may be a US attempt to drive a wedge between India and Russia. More specifically it may reduce the chances India may lease a second Russian SSN and reduce the chances of Russian assistance to India on future indigenous Indian SSNs, SSBNs and their SLBMs.

On November 7, 2017 US website Strategypage reported Russian suspicions that India is violating the INS Chakra (Akula II ex-Nerpa SSN) lease agreement. Russian authorities suspect India is revealing some Chakra nuclear submarine technology details to US naval personnel. Russia has attempted to prevent such "snooping" by stipulating that a Russian naval officer be aboard INS Chakra at all times.
Strategypage goes on to report:
“Russia is also believed to suspect that a growing number of Indian naval officers have become so dissatisfied with Russian ships and poor Russian workmanship and repairs that they might pass details of [INS Chakra] the Akula II India already has to U.S. Navy officersthey work with.”
COMMENT

My searches so far haven't unearthed Indian or other US information to support Strategypage's (India violating Chakra lease agreement) report. Some details of Strategypage's report might have been inserted by the US Government as a small part of a campaign to cause political, strategic and economic friction between India and Russia.

BACKGROUND

The US is increasingly courting India, in part to separate India from Russia (India's largest supplier of arms). The US also wants to sell India several civilian Westinghouse nuclear power reactors to supply electricity. Russian company Rosatom (see same article) is a nuclear power reactor competitor to Westinghouse.

In August 2017 a continuing US/Boeing desire to sell F/A-18E/F Super Hornets to India was reported. Such US aircraft may eventually replace many of the Russian MiGs and Sukhois fighter/attack aircraft that India has been buying for decades.

India financed the completion of a Russian Akula II SSN Nerpa in the 2000s. Nerpa became Chakra on lease to India in 2012 (see right sidebar).

For several years India has expressed interest in financing the completion of a second Akula II (Project 971). Russia might then lease this second Akula II concurrently with INS Chakra or it may be delivered to India once Chakra's 10 year lease expires in 2022 (or a few years later).

At one stage India even hoped to lease one of Russia's late model Yasen SSNs. Russia quietly rejected this as Russia has too few Yasen SSNs to spare and Yasen technology is considered too sensitive to share with "lease" customers.

FURTHER COMMENT

Continuing Russian supply of weapons to India would be opposed by many in the US Government. But others would look forward to access to the latest Russian weapons' technological details once Russia sells or leases these weapons to India.

I get it now. Thanks sir.

 

[vi-va]

Everyone knows the Su-57 stealth shaping is pretty flawed ... given this, I have little confidence in the radar absorbant materials employed on the Su-57. IMO, India was right to quit the FGFA program but instead of joining the F-35 program (which they def could have), they chose to buy the S-400 instead. A huge mistake for sure. They saved China and Pakistan a lot of trouble by not pursuing the F-35 and instead going for a system that China already possesses.

US won't sell F-35. India never trusted US, neither does US.

When we talk about strategically trust, one indicator is strategical assets.
India only buy none critical assets from US, such as helicopters, c-130, c-17.
Most offensive weapons come from other countries, such as France, Russia.

India is no fool, they knew what kind of beast US is.

 

[Figaro]

Maneuverability is not as important as it was, time changed.

I agree completely. But to a certain exist maneuverability is still very important. That is why the J-20 is going to get the 3D TVC and the F-35 can still hold its own in dogfights. The Russians cling on to maneuverability because that is the only place where their aircraft possess an edge over American ones. Of course the F-35 is gonna get clobbered if dogfights with a Su-57, but what are the chances of that happening before the Su-57 is shot down from BVR?

Also aircraft carrier not as important as it was, it's still very important, but won't dominate the sea power. But a lot of fans won't see it, they relie on experience.
Again, time changes. War model has fundamentally changed.

Carriers will still remain the center of battle groups. If carriers were useless due to carrier killer missiles, then why is China planning on 10 aircraft carriers? I don't think their importance has gone down at all ... it's just carrier doctrine/ops will have to change.

 

[vi-va]

I agree completely. But to a certain exist maneuverability is still very important. That is why the J-20 is going to get the 3D TVC and the F-35 can still hold its own in dogfights. The Russians cling on to maneuverability because that is the only place where their aircraft possess an edge over American ones. Of course the F-35 is gonna get clobbered if dogfights with a Su-57, but what are the chances of that happening before the Su-57 is shot down from BVR?

Carriers will still remain the center of battle groups. If carriers were useless due to carrier killer missiles, then why is China planning on 10 aircraft carriers? I don't think their importance has gone down at all ... it's just carrier doctrine/ops will have to change.

China is not planning on 10 aircraft carriers. China has long time ago foresee aircraft carrier is outdated, like any other weapons.

The carrier is still the most efficient power projection machine, espeically when you want to invade a mid size country.

But don't forget Sea Power top one priority is Sea Power dominance. Carrier is too damn vulnerable, you have to invest much more to protect the carrier before using it.

The next dominance of Sea Power is bomber, my friend.

 

[Figaro]

China is not planning on 10 aircraft carriers. China has long time ago foresee aircraft carrier is outdated, like any other weapons.

The carrier is still the most efficient power projection machine, espeically when you want to invade a mid size country.

But don't forget Sea Power top one priority is Sea Power dominance. Carrier is too damn vulnerable, you have to invest much more to protect the carrier before using it.

The next dominance of Sea Power is bomber, my friend.

Did you see Pop3's post though? Even if it is not 10 carriers, China will undoubtedly have close to that number. If China saw carriers as outdated, why go through the effort developing and constructing them?

Regarding the bomber, I could definitely see its use as a strike weapon against naval targets. But China's most lacking area in the PLAAF is the bomber. They need to roll out the H-20 if they want their bomber to be effective.

 

[vi-va]

Did you see Pop3's post though? Even if it is not 10 carriers, China will undoubtedly have close to that number. If China saw carriers as outdated, why go through the effort developing and constructing them?

Regarding the bomber, I could definitely see its use as a strike weapon against naval targets. But China's most lacking area in the PLAAF is the bomber. They need to roll out the H-20 if they want their bomber to be effective.

Carrier itself for Great Power Sea Dominator has been greatly weakened. The survival possibility in a hypothetical full scale Sea Power War is low.

In 2030, the carrier won't deploy forward, but backward, much further from enemy. It will be used to grant a safety zone for other purpose.

In a limited war with mid size country, carrier still the most efficient power projection machine, so China definitely need it, especially when China has much less military base overseas.

The role carrier played in the hypothetical war with another great sea power is very much different from the one with a mid size country.

So China will need both Bomber and Carrier, but 10 is too many for China, not because China can't afford, but not worth it any more.

But Bomber will play the most important role, so you can see there is little to none news on H-20, even though it's importance is higher than anything else.

China lag behind on Bomber, but China has prepared all the technique needed, including engine, frame, Electronic warfare, Optical instruments, radar, materials, aerodynamic experiments, undercarriage, weapons. Those sub systems were widely used or tested on other platforms.

China is well prepared for H-20, if not better prepared than US.