Russian Military News, Reports, Data, etc.

TerraN_EmpirE said:

Because in this case the Russians are leaders in DIRCM. They introduced one of the first. And have been to degrees combat proven.

Click to expand...

What makes DIRCM combat proven? Because it's Russian and the Russians have said so? Sure some people claim some bubbles on the Su-57 is certainly warfare changing laser systems designed to blind or even burn through incoming missiles. Just like their space capable hypersonic stealth bomber, the perfected long range nuclear torpedo, and faultless khibiny jammer among others. So we're to take those claims without questioning them but as soon as it comes to let's say Chinese claims like carrier tracking, AShBM, metamaterials, sub propulsion, or engine manufacturing claims of breakthroughs and capabilities, it's all lies, stolen tech, and half baked vaporware.

Just pointing out the inconsistency in judgement many of us are unfortunately brought up with.

Successful fighter DIRCM is difficult to test and credit as "combat proven". It's been alleged in the past for the F-35. IIRC Iris-T and some new generation SRAAMs are capable of shooting down missiles so both active and passive means of defeating missiles homing in to the fighter have been pursued for a while. So we shouldn't consider the Su-57's supposed DIRCM system to be the first such system for a fast moving fighter and further we shouldn't assume that China is looking to acquire the Su-57 partly to take a good close look at such an alleged system to reverse engineer it. What technical barriers exist for the Chinese in developing a successful DIRCM? Let's begin with that before we make grandiose assumptions that China's possibly interested in this hypothetical Russian system.

In any case, DIRCM is considered far less effective against modern missiles which are able to home in onto the source of the emission. Unless we're talking about a groundbreaking new form of DIRCM effective against the newest medium and short ranged missiles, I doubt PLAAF will be even remotely interested. If anything is interesting to PLAAF on the Su-57, it is the latest Russian avionics, radar, sensor fusion, and of course the Izd. 30. How much can be learned from acquiring and disassembling these is questionable.

TerraN_EmpirE said:

Your wrong on this.
The claims of such were generated by a smear campaign against the F35, Using as evidence a flight test of an unloaded F16 and a X35 test article loaded with sensors and test gear with a highly restricted fly by wire flight control regime.
Pushing a narrative that the USAF was buying a “Turkey”. That the USAF had become entrapped in the supposed flawed logic of the F4 Phantom. Rather then the purest dogfighter of the YF16.
However even the Russians built fighters with the missile truck mindset the Mig23, Mig25 and Mig31 Interceptors.

Use of missiles in close engagements is a fully expected and standard weapons of choice. The counter to spoofing of IR will be the triseeker using a combination of IR with a Radar fall back and datalink.

Click to expand...

You are mistaking what I am trying to convey here, what I am saying is that from time to time with the introduction of a new fighter with a new system people are quick to declare all legacy fighters or tactics obsolete. Only for the opposite to be proven otherwise.
And I am skeptical that all the F-35's problems are of a smear campaign. As as far as I am concerned and aware off, it was the F-16 that was rigged against the F-35 by being forced to fly with a full load and not the F-35. But while the F-35 has it's fair share of problems, as far as I am concerned that is not the issue here.

Viktor Jav said:

And which article or scientific research supports that contention. As far as the reports can tell us, for a 5th gen fighter to be truly stealthy, it requires both an angled design and RAM, the latter to compensate when the aircraft is not angled in the correct direction due to various factors (manuevering, vector of attack, etc,etc)

Click to expand...

The RAM can't do anything if the aircraft is angled, it has function around the edges.

The edge behave like an antenna, radiation to all direction, so the RAM can suppress this effectively for shorter wavelengths .

Anlsvrthng said:

The RAM can't do anything if the aircraft is angled, it has function around the edges.

The edge behave like an antenna, radiation to all direction, so the RAM can suppress this effectively for shorter wavelengths .

Click to expand...

And yet somehow both the US, China and Russia deign to apply RAM on the entirety of the aircraft, included the non angled parts. As we can see with the recent F-22 pictures of it's coating being degraded on the upper part of the nose.
So either these 3 nations with their team of scientist are doing something very wrong, or RAM function is independent on how the angle works.

Viktor Jav said:

You are mistaking what I am trying to convey here, what I am saying is that from time to time with the introduction of a new fighter with a new system people are quick to declare all legacy fighters or tactics obsolete. Only for the opposite to be proven otherwise.

Click to expand...

It’s often the case that Legacy platforms are upgraded and retained for some time due to the fact that new fighters have kinks to be ironed. Where the existing system has the problems fixed and is getting elements of the same technology retrofitted. However after a point in time the performance upgrades gain smaller and smaller returns for the investment.
You and I will have to agree to disagree and leave any more of such to the F35 Thread where in we have long hashed that argument out.

ougoah said:

What makes DIRCM combat proven? Because it's Russian and the Russians have said so?

Click to expand...

The System on the SU57 is not yet combat proven however previous types and current types have been in use from Afghanistan to Syria.
If you reread some of the posts you will find that we have been highly critical and skeptical of a number of Russian claims. New carriers, new tanks, new hypersonic this or that. The price point of the SU57. The Russians have pulled their own hyperbole and made promises far beyond what can be delivered. There is no solid of a Mig41 or a PAKDA. Nothing on any second fifth gen fighters.
However @ougoah
As yet I have not heard of DIRCM used on J20. If there was one I would love to know more in the J20 thread. Neither F35 nor F22 have has yet been reported to have one installed, I know there was work on one for F35.
However I am skeptical that the PLA would even bother with SU57 as they have two indigenous Fifth gen fighter programs.

Anlsvrthng said:

The RAM can't do anything if the aircraft is angled, it has function around the edges.

The edge behave like an antenna, radiation to all direction, so the RAM can suppress this effectively for shorter wavelengths .

Click to expand...

The thing is that because the Jet is a moving vehicle it will not always face a Radar emitter by the same angle. Most the the radar calculations reported are based on the forwards angle. However a fighter moving through a radar field could enter facing the array transition to the sides and exit from the rear aspect. If engaging in maneuvers it’s angles can shift. As we are talking a three dimensional object moving in three dimensional space. As such the edges and angled surfaces may be facing different perspectives effecting how the radar beam is deflected.
Over the decades flight engineers tried a number of methods to reduce the radar cross section of aircraft. SR71 uniquely despite having been designed with slide rulers and paper and pencils without intending to be VLO became a semi VLO. In that it’s shape is stealthy with a Radar cross section on par with F/A18E. That means it has a Radar return equal to a human being. Yet that seems the limits without Materials. Just shaping alone seems to end at that size. Because although you are trying to deflect away Radar some features will still send a return. For example the intakes, Vertical structures the Nose of the fighter, Radar array. The pilot and interior of the cockpit. And as the jet moves across the sky. The side is more surface area than the front. Some areas you can’t do anything about
If an F22 goes cobra maneuver in the sky belly to the Radar it’s giving you a billboard sized RCS. So the ram is an attempt to clean up the excess reflections.

Viktor Jav said:

And which article or scientific research supports that contention. As far as the reports can tell us, for a 5th gen fighter to be truly stealthy, it requires both an angled design and RAM, the latter to compensate when the aircraft is not angled in the correct direction due to various factors (manuevering, vector of attack, etc,etc)

And it will make even less sense to sell the Su-57 at an operating loss (and to a foreign client no less) just to keep the production line alive. We have already seen such examples in the USSR beforehand and it ended with them promptly bankrupting themselves. Money is money no matter how one splices it in the end. If they could afford to sell the Su-57 at such a pittance, the Russian Air Force would be seeing more of them already.

And it is extremely amusing to see how this all winds up with the J-20 being the less capable aircraft. With all the crap heaped on the engines, while a good powerplant is a strong point of an aircraft, it is not the end-all be-all in the equation, seeing as the J-20 is way ahead of the Su-57 in terms of avionic integrations and radar. And with current developments, it is high time to put the idea that China makes crappy jet engines to rest. They may not be the best on the line, but they work well enough. And the J-20 is at the very least a fighter than China knows it can get on time and in the specific quality, rather than the Su-57 which is still languishing in perpetual R&D.

And China can already afford hundreds of J-20s, then why would it pour money to get the Su-57 anyway?

"the R-37M..........."

The missile which insofar we have yet to see an credible photo or video of it actually being deployed from a Su-57, but we are to believe can be done. We don't even know if the dimensions of the missile would allow it to be fitted on a J-20.

Click to expand...

No aircraft is truly stealthy, insofar as it's still emitting IR and at sufficient distances and with sufficient radar power, you can still detect it with radar. Stealth is more a question of "how close does it need to be before you can see it?", as well as "can I have an active seeker home onto the target?" If you have a bit of jamming, the end result is that the stealth aircraft closes into WVR range.

Now, the question is, how stealthy do you have to be to avoid getting killed in BVR? The Russians think their -4 dBsm (possibly closer to -36 dBsm, given that they think the F-22 is a -10 dBsm aircraft) is stealthy enough. Dropping RAM takes off about -10 dBsm, given average RAM absorbency, so you get a -26 dBsm, which reduces detection and tracking range by 78%. Vs a modern heavyweight AESA on GaAs, this drops detection range to about 90 km and tracking to about 45 km, and jamming can help further.

As for selling the Su-57 at an operating loss, selling the aircraft to the Chinese will probably require upgraded versions with full RAM and possibly Chinese metamaterials installed. This can easily put the price up closer to 50 or 65 million. But when the J-20 is claimed at 110 million a pop (about 700 million RMB), it's the price that makes the Su-57 make sense.

The J-20 is a true heavyweight fighter that requires excellent KD to make sense vs medium-weight stealth fighters like the F-35. At 50-65 million, the Su-57 only needs 1:1 kill ratios to attrition down the F-35s. The J-20 needs at least 2:1 to fight F-35s effectively given the F-35A's 85 million cost on the latest LRIP and its likely further price reduction as production ramps up. The J-20, likewise, is more characterized by high-speed maneuverability than the Su-57, so that interceptor-style hit and runs (whether it be a Scorpion tactic combining low-speed J-20s for target tracking, high-speed J-20s coming from the rear, and an AEW&C, or just straight "I see you, I fire, I ITR to reverse direction, then I run"-type tactics) are going to be the J-20's forte. The Su-57, on the other hand, is more likely to be employed to cover the J-20's escape.after they've dropped their loads, alongside launching missiles that the J-20's short bays can't contain.

===

This is basically the entire high-low concept of modern fighter aviation. You have a cheap plane with short range and low cost to attrition the enemy out in dogfights. You have an expensive plane with long range and high cost to snipe enemy fighters or provide concentrated force while the cheap planes are tangling it up. The 35-80 million Su-57 simply isn't in the same cost class as the 110 million J-20.

@Inst
Your argument seems to be based on a lot of assumptions here. You seem to be betting the farm.
Is there any report of the Russians reducing or eliminating the RAM from the new SU57?
Do you have what @Viktor Jav asked for a scientific paper proving that all you need is shaping? Or is it just assumption?

@TerraN_EmpirE

I'm just speculating on how the Russians got the Su-57 so cheaply. One possible answer is to cut corners. And as to RAM vs shaping, check out the following link. It's American popular understanding that stealth is more shaping dependent than materials dependent, although next-gen RAM is probably going to change the equation.



I was going to run a long post on why the PLAAF might be interested in the Su-57, but one point is that the Su-57 and J-20 represent different 5th gen philosophies. The Su-57 has given up on matching the F-22 and F-35 in stealth, instead aiming to be "stealthy enough" and win WVR. The J-20, from all reports, is 不错, i.e, not bad, good, etc in subsonic maneuverability, but its supersonic maneuverability is exceptional, and will just get better once TVC adds even more control authority in the supersonic regime. And the J-20, unlike the Su-57, seems to emphasize stealth more, with reports of metamaterials being developed to get the J-20 to -50 or -60 dBsm territory.

End-result: J-20 can do WVR probably at least as well as any 4th generation fighter, but it doesn't rely on WVR to win and emphasizes speed and stealth, i.e, it wants to win BVR. The Su-57, in contrast, wants to own WVR, seeing stealth simply as a means of getting into WVR range. Perhaps one of these philosophies is wrong; i.e, the J-20 can't beat its foes BVR, and gets thrashed WVR by superior American subsystems (missiles, laser dazzlers), the Su-57's stealth is insufficient to get it to WVR, or once it gets to WVR, it still gets thrashed by American subsystems. But by having aircraft with different design philosophies, you reduce the odds of both of them failing and increase the odds of at least one 5th gen design philosophy working.

Moreover, if you consider what happened to the Germans in WW2, the Germans were facing high-altitude fighters and bombers from the West (British and Americans) and low-altitude fighters and dive-bombers from the East (Soviets). The Germans were unable to adapt their fighter designs to counter both, with adaptations for high-altitude fighters making them worse at low-altitude, and adaptations for low-altitude fighters making them worse at high-altitude. Countering a combination of WVR-centric stealth fighters like the Su-57 and BVR-centric stealth fighters like the J-20 is more difficult than countering either alone.

Inst said:

No aircraft is truly stealthy, insofar as it's still emitting IR and at sufficient distances and with sufficient radar power, you can still detect it with radar. Stealth is more a question of "how close does it need to be before you can see it?", as well as "can I have an active seeker home onto the target?" If you have a bit of jamming, the end result is that the stealth aircraft closes into WVR range.

Now, the question is, how stealthy do you have to be to avoid getting killed in BVR? The Russians think their -4 dBsm (possibly closer to -36 dBsm, given that they think the F-22 is a -10 dBsm aircraft) is stealthy enough. Dropping RAM takes off about -10 dBsm, given average RAM absorbency, so you get a -26 dBsm, which reduces detection and tracking range by 78%. Vs a modern heavyweight AESA on GaAs, this drops detection range to about 90 km and tracking to about 45 km, and jamming can help further.

Click to expand...

Again this whole premise is based on premise that current radar tech stays at level they are at now which is a very generous assumption. Or that the F-22/35 radars has the exact kind of scanning power as you put forth. And they are ceding every tactical advantage to the Su-57 to begin with (no jamming of their own+ AWACs support).

Inst said:

As for selling the Su-57 at an operating loss, selling the aircraft to the Chinese will probably require upgraded versions with full RAM and possibly Chinese metamaterials installed. This can easily put the price up closer to 50 or 65 million. But when the J-20 is claimed at 110 million a pop (about 700 million RMB), it's the price that makes the Su-57 make sense.

Click to expand...

And that is money that Russia is never going to see in their coffers. If China was to apply metamaterials to the SU-57 it did have to be doing it at the production line itself already, which will mean that the whole production would have to take place in China as no way on earth is China going to be loose regarding its stealth tech. And the main claim for this contention is the extremely sketchy claim that a Su-57 without RAM is going to cose a mere 37 USD. I mean come on we are already seeing the Su-35S costing more than that (85 mil) and that is a fighter not build to stealth tech tolerance, no AESA radar and No RAM. Russia can make as many bombastic claims as they want but they cannot just simply wave a magic wand and hope the cost just vanish into thin air. In fact the very notion of it is borderline laughable.

Inst said:

The J-20 is a true heavyweight fighter that requires excellent KD to make sense vs medium-weight stealth fighters like the F-35. At 50-65 million, the Su-57 only needs 1:1 kill ratios to attrition down the F-35s. The J-20 needs at least 2:1 to fight F-35s effectively given the F-35A's 85 million cost on the latest LRIP and its likely further price reduction as production ramps up. The J-20, likewise, is more characterized by high-speed maneuverability than the Su-57, so that interceptor-style hit and runs (whether it be a Scorpion tactic combining low-speed J-20s for target tracking, high-speed J-20s coming from the rear, and an AEW&C, or just straight "I see you, I fire, I ITR to reverse direction, then I run"-type tactics) are going to be the J-20's forte. The Su-57, on the other hand, is more likely to be employed to cover the J-20's escape.after they've dropped their loads, alongside launching missiles that the J-20's short bays can't contain.

===

This is basically the entire high-low concept of modern fighter aviation. You have a cheap plane with short range and low cost to attrition the enemy out in dogfights. You have an expensive plane with long range and high cost to snipe enemy fighters or provide concentrated force while the cheap planes are tangling it up. The 35-80 million Su-57 simply isn't in the same cost class as the 110 million J-20.

Click to expand...

This premise has been talked about before , the heavyweight fighter vs medium weight fighter ala which is the better dogfighter. And we have seen that application in real life before, the P-47 vs the Fw-190 and the BF-109. In the end the P-47 was able to utilize it's heavier weight and inertia to effectively energy fight the lighter fighters, the same principle can be applied to the J-20 as well. In fact with the prevalence of high off bore missiles, we are likely to see a completely different kind of dogfight in the modern skies. Nor is the J-20 that hideously expensive when compared to the F-35, with just only 20 or so copies in service, a 110 million price tag is to be expected compared to the F-35 that has more than four hundred copies in existence.
And again, to say that the Su-57 can exceed in this role as a so called "low cost fighter" really does applies if the Su-57 can achieve that kind of price tag and still remain an effective fighter: That, when we have every single evidence to the contrary .

This whole discussion has devolved into the notion that China has a reason to buy the Su-57 in bulk, when that reason is propped up by very unsubstantiated claims. While the Su-57 is a competent fighter design with a lot of potential. There are still things that it cannot do, which is to bend the law of physics and economy.

Inst said:

@TerraN_EmpirE

I'm just speculating on how the Russians got the Su-57 so cheaply. One possible answer is to cut corners.

Click to expand...

Or that article is simply pulling s**** out of thin air, that or the Russians are making tall claims again Which is not surprising considering how that website has the propensity for yellow journalism of almost laughable degrees. Why are we even taking stock of it in the first place ?

Inst said:

And as to RAM vs shaping, check out the following link. It's American popular understanding that stealth is more shaping dependent than materials dependent, although next-gen RAM is probably going to change the equation.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Click to expand...

The article in question still does not explain way how a stealth aircraft can remain undetected if the radar scan is directly from any other angle other than directly from directly in front which the angle is most optimized for. And if the enemy is dumb enough to do that, he might as well throw in the towel at the start.

Inst said:

I was going to run a long post on why the PLAAF might be interested in the Su-57, but one point is that the Su-57 and J-20 represent different 5th gen philosophies. The Su-57 has given up on matching the F-22 and F-35 in stealth, instead aiming to be "stealthy enough" and win WVR. The J-20, from all reports, is 不错, i.e, not bad, good, etc in subsonic maneuverability, but its supersonic maneuverability is exceptional, and will just get better once TVC adds even more control authority in the supersonic regime. And the J-20, unlike the Su-57, seems to emphasize stealth more, with reports of metamaterials being developed to get the J-20 to -50 or -60 dBsm territory.

End-result: J-20 can do WVR probably at least as well as any 4th generation fighter, but it doesn't rely on WVR to win and emphasizes speed and stealth, i.e, it wants to win BVR. The Su-57, in contrast, wants to own WVR, seeing stealth simply as a means of getting into WVR range. Perhaps one of these philosophies is wrong; i.e, the J-20 can't beat its foes BVR, and gets thrashed WVR by superior American subsystems (missiles, laser dazzlers), the Su-57's stealth is insufficient to get it to WVR, or once it gets to WVR, it still gets thrashed by American subsystems. But by having aircraft with different design philosophies, you reduce the odds of both of them failing and increase the odds of at least one 5th gen design philosophy working.

Moreover, if you consider what happened to the Germans in WW2, the Germans were facing high-altitude fighters and bombers from the West (British and Americans) and low-altitude fighters and dive-bombers from the East (Soviets). The Germans were unable to adapt their fighter designs to counter both, with adaptations for high-altitude fighters making them worse at low-altitude, and adaptations for low-altitude fighters making them worse at high-altitude. Countering a combination of WVR-centric stealth fighters like the Su-57 and BVR-centric stealth fighters like the J-20 is more difficult than countering either alone.

Click to expand...

Okay, lets put things in perspective here :

First off Germany in WW2 actually have fighters of varying types for both high and low altitudes. At the start of the war most air battles and raids are from low to medium altitude , while the Eastern Front was perpetually cloudy so the predominant fighting altitude was low to medium, again no issues there.

It was only really at the very end of the war did air raids start to take place at very high altitudes. But then Germany readily adapted existing fighters to fight at increasingly higher altitudes. While the Soviets on the Eastern Front never conducted air raids of high altitudes for the entire war. So there was never a case of Germany having the wrong fighters for the wrong kind of war.

Second, why would you assume that a J-20 would automatically come of worse in a WVR with the F-22 and F-35, and that a Su-57 would be better off. And if the J-20 would get thrashed even with it having more advanced avionics and counter measures, I did like to see how a Su-57 with worse equipment in order to be cheaper is going to fair any better. Quantity has a quality of its own, Stalin likes to say, but even quantity must have some kind of quality for it to be worth a nickle. The design philosophies offered by both aircraft have such a minute difference that the cost to be incurred to procure both types far exceeds the potential benefits. Just because J-20 being BVR centric does not mean it can do WVR well enough, though I can reasonable forsee how the Su-57 would come off worse in a BVR exchange as it was to shed so much of its capabilities in stealth and avionics.

If the Su-57 comes with a better AAM missile with a higher off bore sight I might concur to that. But we will have to see what kind of missile is Russia prepared to offer , or is capable of making, for China. It did have to be at least capable of a 90 degrees off bore to be worth it.