I don't think the distinction is worthwhile. The US may not have introduced them into general use because those purchases were not Soviet/Russian sanctioned and were done without Russia's knowledge. The US also does not use and is not familiar with Russian equipment and the purchases were of even smaller numbers, often an individual unit. The Chinese purchase is all public knowledge and a direct deal between Russia and China. Russia wouldn't sell just a handful despite this being what China requested. The minimum was eventually decided to be 24 units and why not put most of them to use? I don't understand the point you're trying to make. There seems to be some underlying suggestion but it's very flimsy.
Russian Su-57 Aircraft Thread (PAK-FA and IAF FGFA)
- Thread starter A Bar Brother
- Start date
I don't think the distinction is worthwhile. The US may not have introduced them into general use because those purchases were not Soviet/Russian sanctioned and were done without Russia's knowledge. The US also does not use and is not familiar with Russian equipment and the purchases were of even smaller numbers, often an individual unit. The Chinese purchase is all public knowledge and a direct deal between Russia and China. Russia wouldn't sell just a handful despite this being what China requested. The minimum was eventually decided to be 24 units and why not put most of them to use? I don't understand the point you're trying to make. There seems to be some underlying suggestion but it's very flimsy.
I don't think anyone here claimed Su-57 is a parity product.
Not even the Russians claim it. Su-57 is a product made for Russia by Russia to meet Russian demands and within Russian constraints ( technologically, economically).
@anzha
I think this sums the concept up perfectly. I don't get why this is confusing. The minor differences in details exist but jeez that's a stretch to say the idea of purchasing units purely for training and evaluation cannot be a thing for the Su-35 and any potential future purchase of Su-57.
Would China buy a Su-57? Of course if it were for sale. Would the US? Sure! Why wouldn't they?? It's just a matter of price and whether the purchased versions are going to be an accurate reflection of the Russian version/ most capable version. For China the Su-35 just offered a lot more than the equivalent of what the Kh-31 or Su-27 secret acquisitions offered the US. The Chinese can make good use of the Su-35 and evaluate its PESA and TVC. They can't copy it because you can't unboil an egg but it's good training against Su-30MKI and useful as a fighter as well.
Would Russia buy a J-20 or F-35 if it were available? Russian chauvinists will shout "NO! The J-20 is Chinese garbage for tricking its own citizens and the F-35 is an overweight cow, stealth is fake!" ... but the Russian government and military will be more honest about it.
Last edited:
Don't remember seeing that and don't think it's realistic now. It'll require quite a redesign of internal structures, electrics, forward fuselage needs to meet the lowered structure and attention for geometric stealth principles applied to make it work, and some further reinforcements to counter the dramatically increased volume and lowered density.
broadsword
Brigadier
If China could build another fighter with these features, is it still worth buying from them?
Yes. Because building a completely different fighter requires massive investments into Tooling and creation of skilled workforce. Also required are years of study in wind tunnels and years on mechanical components.
Why do all that when you can pay the Russians to get three squadrons, replace some components and modify it for Chinese use? But as Ougoah said, there remains the question of structural integrity when we talk about modification of the weapons bay. I don't think it is an insurmountable issue. Maybe China and Russia can tackle it together since they'd both end up getting a platform that can do some very special missions.
If China cannot even perform such modifications on their Su-35s, how would you expect them to do so on the Su-57?
I think I mentioned that all this is subject to the approval of TsAGi engineers (and ofcource Russian MoD.)
There is no use case for Su57 other than its very long weapons bay potential. buying Su57 makes a lot of sense then. (especially when JH-XX remains a wish).
Most things are negotiable for price and subject to conditions. If China says that China will take in the airframe (don't need the Is30 Engines) and proposes to widen the bay, at a good price point 70million? 80 million? an aircraft then...
plawolf
Lieutenant General
Any Chinese purchase if the Su57 would be a limited number test and evaluation deal much the same as the Su35 purchase.
China already have the J20, is developing the J31/35 as well as the JHXX LO striker.
There is no niche left for the Su57 to fill no matter how attractive the price other than to help with DACT training.
The Su57’s main weapons bays are the reason why it doesn’t have true S-Ducts like every other 4.5 gen, never mind 5th gen fighter. There are almost certainly other significant opportunity costs to have that weapons bay design, likely a lot of additional weight as you need to compensate for the primary load bearing structural foundations that would have gone right through the space that weapons bay now occupies normally, hence the need to keep the Su27 lift body nacelle layout.
To take out the central partition support would add enough more weight as you would need to significantly beef up other areas to compensate for its loss.
China made the right choice to just had a dedicated striker rather than have that niche capability cripple far more important aspects of their main 5th gen heavy fighter design.
China already have the J20, is developing the J31/35 as well as the JHXX LO striker.
There is no niche left for the Su57 to fill no matter how attractive the price other than to help with DACT training.
The Su57’s main weapons bays are the reason why it doesn’t have true S-Ducts like every other 4.5 gen, never mind 5th gen fighter. There are almost certainly other significant opportunity costs to have that weapons bay design, likely a lot of additional weight as you need to compensate for the primary load bearing structural foundations that would have gone right through the space that weapons bay now occupies normally, hence the need to keep the Su27 lift body nacelle layout.
To take out the central partition support would add enough more weight as you would need to significantly beef up other areas to compensate for its loss.
China made the right choice to just had a dedicated striker rather than have that niche capability cripple far more important aspects of their main 5th gen heavy fighter design.