PAK-FA / Sukhoi Su-57 - Updates and Discussions

[Speedster1]

Ok, but what're your expectations from it? Is it good or bad? You wan't it in IAF or not? Or either ways you'are fine?
I'm happy that it is progressing & i'm fine either ways if it joins IAF or not. But it should not go to any of our enemy's hands.

Right now the cards are stacked against us geopolitically and Su-57 seems to be the only viable choice for a 5G fighter without mortgaging our sovereignty.

I just hope we get worthwhile offsets in other areas like metallurgy, cryogenic, hypersonics, small modular reactor, etc.

We must retain IP for everything developed in India including avionics, mc, radar, software, ew, etc. The Russians shouldn't get a free pass to our stuff under the guise of 'cooperation'.

True sensor fusion need RF+EO sensors. And if 1 sensor can do multiple functions then it is very good.
The rear radar don't need to have range equal to that of front radar.
AESA radars don't use all the TRMs to search, track, lock, but different beams do different functions simultaneously.

True sensor fusion need RF+EO sensors. And if 1 sensor can do multiple functions then it is very good.
The rear radar don't need to have range equal to that of front radar.
AESA radars don't use all the TRMs to search, track, lock, but different beams do different functions simultaneously.

The rear facing radar is part of the Su-57s ew suite, afaik. It is not functionally integrated.

In other words, it does not perform sensing and fire control (unless you consider cueing CMDS/DIRCM fire control) functions simultaneously.

In any case, Russian sensor fusion is still evolving compared to Western jets like the F-35 or even Rafale.

It has been already tested.
If it can take 50+Gs then it can do 180xN turns.

No pilot would want to expend the precious few ccm's he has w/o a positive lock on target. Can you give me an example of such a test?

 

[Bhartiya Naagrik Sainik]

Right now the cards are stacked against us geopolitically and Su-57 seems to be the only viable choice for a 5G fighter without mortgaging our sovereignty.
I just hope we get worthwhile offsets in other areas like metallurgy, cryogenic, hypersonics, small modular reactor, etc.
We must retain IP for everything developed in India including avionics, mc, radar, software, ew, etc. The Russians shouldn't get a free pass to our stuff under the guise of 'cooperation'.

News channels report that Russia is willing to give a lot of free hand.
We need to check carefully the differences b/w Russian domestic & exported versions.

The rear facing radar is part of the Su-57s ew suite, afaik. It is not functionally integrated.
In other words, it does not perform sensing and fire control (unless you consider cueing CMDS/DIRCM fire control) functions simultaneously.
In any case, Russian sensor fusion is still evolving compared to Western jets like the F-35 or even Rafale.

Ultimately, the final capability matters, ready in minimum timeline, ideally to stay ahead of adversaries or atleast at par.
Threat can approach from any direction + orientation of jet changes in flight & fight.

No pilot would want to expend the precious few ccm's he has w/o a positive lock on target.

We should keep ourselves in place of pilot & see if we wan't to survive, what capabilities are needed to evade enemy missile while hitting the enemy jet if it gets behind us & has superior agility.
If you think +ve lock = direct lock by missile, then there has been always indirect guidance or LOAL mode via SARH, data link, etc with BVR-AAMs & now the same data link is being used to direct CCM into enemy's quadrant, then CCM gets direct lock.
There is also concept of smaller CCMs called MSDM, HTKM, etc which would increase # of CCMs & help in shooting enemy AAMs like APS.

Can you give me an example of such a test?

This feels like job interview or university exam.
We should do some online homework, past, present, future R&D.
Watch the JSF documentaries & videos, especially the 1990s & 2000s advertisements.
(

) [from 2:16 to 2:32]
(

)
(

)

 

[_Anonymous_]

Currently we don't see any UCAV able to carry bigger AGMs, CrMs, AShMs, ARMs like Brahmos-NG, Rudram, etc. So MUMT won't eliminate IWBs of manned jet. We'll need many types of UAVs with dedicated & multi-role

There's the Ghatak under development reportedly with a weapons payload of 1.5 tons to be carried in an IWB .

Who says MUMT will eliminate the IWB of manned FAs ? These MUMT are meant to compliment those manned FAs to the extent the former can carry what the latter can't ?

Yes it's understood there's a requirement for multiple such CCAs & UCAVs .

JV engine #1 for AMCA Mk2 & JV engine #2 for 6gen which will be heavy class only.

RN there's nothing in the public domain about the 6th Gen FA program. We've not even signed up for the JV to develop the 120 KN TF . Unless that happens there'd be no movement on the 6th Gen FA.

It's only once studies are commissioned on the latter & the findings announced in public we'd know what exactly does the IAF & IN want .

I suspect that's what the Defence Minister was hinting at when he made that statement about focusing on 6th Gen platforms.

Till then we're doing what is the lifeline of every such defence fora which is to speculate . Beyond a point it doesn't serve any productive purpose.

Many people think that Indian peninsula doesn't need ACs when we don't need to travel & invade other countries.

ACs are typically offensive platforms . At best they can be used for defensive offence.

We just need to guard our shores & stop naval invasion. So i've not concluded my opinion yet.
BUT If new CATOBAR-AC will be sanctioned then atleast 5.5gen TEDBF can be inducted by 2040, IMO.

I was referring to 4 decades down the line. Till then ACs will have some role to play. Unless we've a war which either demonstrates the prevalence of Hypersonic AShM over ACs or vice versa this debate will continue for the time being.

IDK what you think of heavy class, you need to mention your specs. For now just imagine a Naval Su-57 to begin with, not J-36.

I was referring to a Navalised Su-57 as being infeasible & unnecessary besides being impractical for we just don't have the wherewithal to launch such an FA from the decks of an AC.

Even the Chinese have gone in with a J-50 for AC based operations which is certainly much more lighter in tonnage as compared to the J-36 from the visuals we've seen in the public domain.

The concept unveiled by Boeing for the F/A-XX program is < 20,000 kgs MTOW . The heaviest FA the USN gas flown from the decks of an AC is the F-14 Tomcat which is around the same weight category as the Su-57.

Its replacement the F/A-18 is < 25,000 kgs MTOW. Therefore it stands to reason most deck based FAs would be medium weight not exceeding 25-27000 kgs MTOW.

Every professional knows about life cycle managent, it is everywhere.

You didn't parse the link I sent you I'm guessing only glancing through the contents. My point was different. This is what the USAF undertakes which the IAF doesn't & by the looks of it , doesn't even have plans for anything on this scale or pattern.

https://twitter.com/x/status/2026543286543159682

https://twitter.com/x/status/2026726481129517154

 

[Rajput Lion]

So are we going to import S-70 UCAV also?

It's on offer and discussion regarding its procurememt isn't a lock at the moment. But in my opinion, IAF will most definitely explore this option.

Suppose we restore parity with J-20, J-35 with our Su-57 MKIs & UCAVs, it'll still take few years for few squads, say 2030.
What if China attacks us before that?

Having just a stealth fighter won't deter China or could counter it solely. IAF is preparing to counter Chinese VLO threats by creating an anti-Stealth grid comprising of UHF, VHF radars sensor fused with all our other military S/X- Band radars and backed by AI-enabled algorithms. We are also developing "PCLR" network to detect Chinese VLO. What IAF is doing is that, they are preparing to detect and track a pure stealth plane, i.e., a flying wing from long range. IAF is also looking to have an IR based anti-stealth network.

Kindly follow "India vs China: War Games" thread started by @_Anonymous_ and go through my entire posts of discussion with the OP and @randomradio and thou shall get full idea how IAF plans to counter Chinese VLO threats.

What if China attacks in 2035-40 with J-36, J-50 & its at least 5 types of UCAVs?

By 2035 our air-defence network would be substantially stronger and we'll likely have 100 Su-57MKIs ready along with Rafale, MKI UPG., LCA MK2, and 100s of our CCAs and other drones. We will be in a great position to deter China and counter PLA-AF by then.

 

[Bhartiya Naagrik Sainik]

Yes it's understood there's a requirement for multiple such CCAs & UCAVs .

I'm very happy that we established this understanding.

RN there's nothing in the public domain about the 6th Gen FA program. We've not even signed up for the JV to develop the 120 KN TF . Unless that happens there'd be no movement on the 6th Gen FA.
It's only once studies are commissioned on the latter & the findings announced in public we'd know what exactly does the IAF & IN want .
I suspect that's what the Defence Minister was hinting at when he made that statement about focusing on 6th Gen platforms.
Till then we're doing what is the lifeline of every such defence fora which is to speculate . Beyond a point it doesn't serve any productive purpose.

- Forums are meant for time pass & express self PoV, not wait for news channels. This year is the dawn, the seed laying for 6gen in India 7 su-57 can potentially be part of it.

- IMO, India the most populous nation now, needs to have its domestic & international PPP succeed. If GoI/MoD/GTRE can't do something, fine, let them do what they can. The remaining population should not be discouraged. Like there are new aerospace start-ups, if some people want to become like Anduril, Shield-AI, LM, NG, P&W, GE, let them start their way, it is their will & money, who're we to stop them.

ACs are typically offensive platforms . At best they can be used for defensive offence.

I was referring to 4 decades down the line. Till then ACs will have some role to play. Unless we've a war which either demonstrates the prevalence of Hypersonic AShM over ACs or vice versa this debate will continue for the time being.

After few decades if say 4 hostile ACs approach Arabian Sea & Bay of Bengal, then apart from LRAShM & subs, do we need our own ACs or we can operate well from shore bases?

I was referring to a Navalised Su-57 as being infeasible & unnecessary besides being impractical for we just don't have the wherewithal to launch such an FA from the decks of an AC.

I already mentioned a new CATOBAR-AC.

Even the Chinese have gone in with a J-50 for AC based operations which is certainly much more lighter in tonnage as compared to the J-36 from the visuals we've seen in the public domain.

I also imagine a jet little bigger than Su-57, not like J-36.
The J-50 is at least as lengthy as J-20 & Su-3X, longer than F-22, much wider & voluminous due to blended airframe.

The concept unveiled by Boeing for the F/A-XX program is < 20,000 kgs MTOW . The heaviest FA the USN gas flown from the decks of an AC is the F-14 Tomcat which is around the same weight category as the Su-57.
Its replacement the F/A-18 is < 25,000 kgs MTOW. Therefore it stands to reason most deck based FAs would be medium weight not exceeding 25-27000 kgs MTOW.

MTOW 20 tons is like MiG-29. F-22 empty weight is 20 tons. How can F/A-XX MTOW be 20 tons?
AMCA MTOW is 27 tons. F-35-C MTOW is 32 tons. Future DBF can be 27 tons MTOW if AMCA is navalised with same F414 class engine.

You didn't parse the link I sent you I'm guessing only glancing through the contents. My point was different. This is what the USAF undertakes which the IAF doesn't & by the looks of it , doesn't even have plans for anything on this scale or pattern.

I did get your point. But,
- citizens don't wan't to get sandwiched in blame game of IAF Vs GoI/MoD Vs HAL VS ADA.
- whether you put the departments within tri-services or centrally like ADA, it is the TIMELY results which matter bcoz war doesn't happen timely.
Beyond this i can't say which option is better, hence i said it is joint responsibility.

And 1000s of pilots are indeed taught all subjects of aeronautics to the extent they need to fly beyond which there is no need to spend more time, energy, money. They do give feedback on ergonomics & operation. If they wish to become test pilots, designers then they can study more. It is like voluntary post-graduation. But every pilot is not designer. Every pilot would dream of different design of cockpit, airframe, weapons, etc.

 

[_Anonymous_]

After few decades if say 4 hostile ACs approach Arabian Sea & Bay of Bengal, then apart from LRAShM & subs, do we need our own ACs or we can operate well from shore bases?

If you've propulsion systems for FAs which enable a Ferry Range of 18,000-20,000 kms why would you need an AC ? What you need are more bases in island chains like the A & N islands or the Lakshadweep Islands in the Indo Pacific & Atlantic .

I already mentioned a new CATOBAR-AC.

The proposed IAC-3 is supposed to be a < 70,000 ton displacement AC. Just how many 35+ ton FAs do you propose to carry on such an AC ?

I also imagine a jet little bigger than Su-57, not like J-36.
The J-50 is at least as lengthy as J-20 & Su-3X, longer than F-22, much wider & voluminous due to blended airframe.

View attachment 49939

MTOW 20 tons is like MiG-29. F-22 empty weight is 20 tons. How can F/A-XX MTOW be 20 tons?

Yes that's a mistake on my part . The empty weight is supposed to be 18,000 kgs .

AMCA MTOW is 27 tons. F-35-C MTOW is 32 tons. Future DBF can be 27 tons MTOW if AMCA is navalised with same F414 class engine.

 

[batman]

I'd say the Rafale investment would be worth if even if we didn't get source code. We have not built a Western fighter under license since the Jaguar acquisition if the 1980s.

Rafale will introduce Indian companies to the latest digital aerospace mfg best practices including automated drilling, riveting, digital design, etc.

This experience will come in handy when the AMCA comes through in the 2035-40 time frame.

Otoh, the Russian aerospace industry is the midst of a major import substitution drive for CNC machines, etc embargoed by the West.

So, Su-57 license assembly may not be much a step up for HAL in terms of mfg knowhow or assembly line automation.

5th gen ac need much higher mfg tolerances than older gen jets. It'd be interesting what proprietary processes the Russians may have developed.

First thing is that su57 is a generation ahead of rafale in terms of its design, technology and capabilities. France will also only give us the low level manufacturing components we can already do without anyone's help since our experience with manufacturing various parts for Tejas, su30mki and various other components for foreign planes. Lets also not forget that while france is offering 50% of the non critical parts, Russia is offering like 80% of a 5th platform and lets not discount Russia's capabilities, they are still the 2nd best fighter jet makers on the planet and best before the collapse of soviet union and beat americans to space first. The only thing rafale might be ahead is its electronic warfare, the Su57 beats the rafale badly in every other category, be it engine, performance, radars, stealth, weapons, sensor coverage etc

 

[Bhartiya Naagrik Sainik]

If you've propulsion systems for FAs which enable a Ferry Range of 18,000-20,000 kms why would you need an AC ? What you need are more bases in island chains like the A & N islands or the Lakshadweep Islands in the Indo Pacific & Atlantic .

Which FA has ferry range of airliner?
Lakshwadeep & A&N islands are only for southern shores, won't suffice for entire shore length from Gujarat to WB.

The proposed IAC-3 is supposed to be a < 70,000 ton displacement AC. Just how many 35+ ton FAs do you propose to carry on such an AC ?

It is difficult to say at this time bcoz only 6gen jet won't be there but also the MUMT UAVs & UCAVs & other support A/c.

But suppose if we consider only manned jets of medium category like F-18E, J-35, then 50-55 fighter jets only i guess.
If we inflate AMCA to AHCA then 35-40 fighter jets only.

China will be doing it, so we also need to do something.
Below is fan-art -



Below is AI enhanced image-



Because this Su-57 thread so i found some interesting edited images of Naval Su-57 -

 

[Speedster1]

The Su-57 builds on the design philosophy of the Su-27/35 family. It is designed for performance but at the cost of some stealth. This was a deliberate design decision to minimize dev risk and costs.

The Russians still lag behind the West when it comes to MFDs and INS/GPS receivers, let alone sensor fusion, HMS/D and even EW. They have been sourcing spares for French kit on their Su-30SMs via third countries.

Russia beats sanctions by going through Kazakhstan - AGN

Russia has evaded sanctions, obtaining French-made avionics for its Su-30SMs by exploiting its relationship with Kazakhstan.

aerospaceglobalnews.com

Apart from the FCS, the Su-57's core avionics suite will probably have to be rebuilt almost entirely to meet the IAFs demanding requirements.

If we end up integrating third party gear on MKI Su-57, India will have guarantee that there would be no tech leaks to Ru OEMs.

To give you an analogy, we can only hope for a Su-30K equivalent right now, until a Su-30MKI++ is ready perhaps 7-10 years from now.

We'd be investing a lot without getting IP, veto rights, royalties, etc as with MKI. We'd need to build a foolproof contract that covers these aspects before signing up, imo.

 

[_Anonymous_]

The Su-57 builds on the design philosophy of the Su-27/35 family. It is designed for performance but at the cost of some stealth. This was a deliberate design decision to minimize dev risk and costs.

The Russians still lag behind the West when it comes to MFDs and INS/GPS receivers, let alone sensor fusion, HMS/D and even EW. They have been sourcing spares for French kit on their Su-30SMs via third countries.

Russia beats sanctions by going through Kazakhstan - AGN

Russia has evaded sanctions, obtaining French-made avionics for its Su-30SMs by exploiting its relationship with Kazakhstan.

aerospaceglobalnews.com

Apart from the FCS, the Su-57's core avionics suite will probably have to be rebuilt almost entirely to meet the IAFs demanding requirements.

If we end up integrating third party gear on MKI Su-57, India will have guarantee that there would be no tech leaks to Ru OEMs.

To give you an analogy, we can only hope for a Su-30K equivalent right now, until a Su-30MKI++ is ready perhaps 7-10 years from now.

We'd be investing a lot without getting IP, veto rights, royalties, etc as with MKI. We'd need to build a foolproof contract that covers these aspects before signing up, imo.

So in addition to the Mk-2 , both phases of the AMCA , the TEDBF (?) , the proposed 6th Gen FA program we're also going to be MKI izing the Su-57 .

All this & no signs whatsoever of any additional intake in personnel in ADA. No clue about HAL which I expect will be the primary agency responsible for MKI zation of the Su-57 .

Meanwhile no news of the IAF setting up their own development labs in house as well which at this point is absolutely mandatory given the massive expansion in capacities IAF is primed for .

In Mumbai this is known as - badi badi baatein vada pav khate.

My assistant @STEPHEN COHEN can elaborate on this phrase to those who maybe interested.

 

[batman]

The Su-57 builds on the design philosophy of the Su-27/35 family

Completely wrong, its an entirely new design.

It is designed for performance but at the cost of some stealth. This was a deliberate design decision to minimize dev risk and costs.

It wasnt just about cost or development risks, the russians literally invented the stealth doctrine and formulas america hurried to copy, if they wanted to, they could have made something even more stealthier but it would come with some major decrement to the jets capabilities and maintenance and it assessed as not necessary, they have a different doctrine to warfare when they have to defend a very large landbase from nato level weapons and knew radars would keep getting more advanced and negate the added benefits of stealth, hence they opted for primary stealth features like angeled surfaces, flat body, blended fuselage and wings, composite materials, radar blockers on intake, ram coating, flat and serrated engine nozzles, internal weapons bay etc. Its current design is a perfect mix of stealth and performance and thats why future 6th gen platforms most closely resemble the Su57 unlike the f22 or f35, similarities include as I mentioned before, flattest stealth body, tiny vertical stabalizers, large internal weapons bay, levcons, massive range etc Su57 has a very good design behind it and was ahead of its time, it also possesses supermanuverability, 3d thrust vectoring, supercruise, high speed and combat range etc and is capable of true multi role unlike f22 or f35.

The Russians still lag behind the West when it comes to MFDs and INS/GPS receivers, let alone sensor fusion, HMS/D and even EW.

Maybe america yes but most countries lag behind them. Su57 has distributed sensor architecture, aesa radar with multiple arrays and sensors providing the best sensor coverage of any current fighter jet made with least blind spots and best counter measures against IR missiles, it also has a good EW suite with its Himalayas system.

They have been sourcing spares for French kit on their Su-30SMs via third countries.

Completely irrelevant, those are legacy dependency unrelated to the more advanced Su57.

 

[Speedster1]

The Su-57s engine nacelles aren't blended into the fuselage, only canted. This is a classic feature from legacy Sukhoi fighters.

The platform edge alignment and overall shaping is on par for a 5G jet. But build quality (exposed rivets, et all) is evidently lagging.

Sukhoi has clearly prioritized agility/kinematics over stealth. Imo, until the definitive Su-57 with the AL-51F enters service it will remain a LO jet for all intents and purposes.

Frankly, I consider conformal leading edge array radars a bit redundant in the era of high res QWIP IRST/EOTS/DAS sensors. I doubt those radars would even have a comparable range to 5th gen EOTS/DAS.

I won't comment on Russian RAS/RAM tech because there isn't much open source info on it.

But DIRCM is certainly a big edge that Su-57 enjoys over its Western/Chinese counterparts + big IWBs that should fit most tactical ASMs in our inventory. I'll give you that.

As for Su-30SM, it may be an older Flanker variant. But the fact that the Russians still haven't switched out Thales avionics for local stuff says a lot.

 

[babablacksheep]

The Su-57s engine nacelles aren't blended into the fuselage, only canted. This is a classic feature from legacy Sukhoi fighters.

They did tried to blend them as much as possible within limitations of weight,maneuverability etc requirements by VKS and budget.



Compared to other flankers.

The platform edge alignment and overall shaping is on par for a 5G jet

But build quality (exposed rivets, et all) is evidently lagging

Those are prototypes.

Sukhoi has clearly prioritized agility/kinematics over stealth

Kind of, requirements were put forward by VKS(russian airforce) and budget limitations( for example, no full s duct, because that will require more retooling hence more expensive, & more heavy requiring compromise in things like fuel,weight or maneureability).

Its not like they didn't want stealth.
Its that along with stealth VKS also wanted to not compromise on kinematic performance of the jet & again budget limitations, having to reuse lot of tooling initially made for legacy flankers.

Geometric stealth wise, its the best they could achieve within their circumstances. its not a lack of knowledge, but again constraints of requirements, budget & time.

Frankly, I consider conformal leading edge array radars a bit redundant in the era of high res QWIP IRST/EOTS/DAS sensors. I doubt those radars would even have a comparable range to 5th gen EOTS/DAS.

They're more for EW, IFF, presence detection.
Are useful.

Su57 has DAS.

EOTS , IRST has their own limitations in various scenarios.
SU57's L band arrays address them somewhat.

EOTS, is primarily focused on ground targets, the band of IR it uses is optimized for that, along with the crystal housing for stealth(degrade performance somewhat), in A2A along with limited POV its performance is also significantly worse than IRST( plus no stealth housing to degrade performance, but takes away stealth when its active).

Another example.

When an enemy aircraft (or missile) approaches head-on from the direction of the sun (i.e., you are looking roughly toward the sun to detect it), the detection range of an Infrared Search and Track (IRST) system is significantly reduced.

This happens because the sun is an extremely intense source of infrared radiation. It dramatically increases the background radiance/noise in the field of view, severely degrading the target-to-background contrast — which is the fundamental signal that allows IRST to detect and track a target.

Moderate degradation (sun low, hazy conditions, modern multi-band IRST): range reduced by ~30–60%.
Severe case (clear sky, sun high or directly in the look angle, older/single-band IRST): range can drop by 70–90%, sometimes to only 10–30 km or even less for reliable tracking (versus 80–100+ km in good aspect).
In the worst geometry (target very close to the solar disk in the sensor's field of view), detection can become almost impossible at any practical combat range until the target gets quite close, because the sun overwhelms the sensor (saturation, blooming, or contrast ratio falls below detection threshold).

I won't comment on Russian RAS/RAM tech because there isn't much open source info on it.

limited guessing can Be done, but yeah no accurate information.

 

[Speedster1]

They did tried to blend them as much as possible within limitations of weight,maneuverability etc requirements by VKS and budget.

The inlets are flatter at the mouth and stealthier than older Sukhoi birds, I agree. But those bleed air vents at the base and sides, they'd surely cause an rcs spike from some angles.

Perhaps there was no other place the designers could put them because of the engine nacelles are spaced so far apart.

Those are prototypes.

Aren't they all? I doubt the RuAF would have any production birds to spare until the Ukraine War winds down.

But the latest T-50-9 prototype that took part in AI' 25 had very visible rivet lines, panel gaps and other antennae, iirc. This one was reportedly close to production std.

EOTS, is primarily focused on ground targets, the band of IR it uses is optimized for that, along with the crystal housing for stealth(degrade performance somewhat), in A2A along with limited POV its performance is also significantly worse than IRST( plus no stealth housing to degrade performance, but takes away stealth when its active).

Another example.

When an enemy aircraft (or missile) approaches head-on from the direction of the sun (i.e., you are looking roughly toward the sun to detect it), the detection range of an Infrared Search and Track (IRST) system is significantly reduced.

This happens because the sun is an extremely intense source of infrared radiation. It dramatically increases the background radiance/noise in the field of view, severely degrading the target-to-background contrast — which is the fundamental signal that allows IRST to detect and track a target.

I don't know about Su-57 but the F-35 reportedly gets around this problem by triangulating targets with/correlating EOTS + DAS sensor feeds.

IMVHO, most AFs prefer passive sensors for ew as they provide non cooperative target recognition.

 

[babablacksheep]

The inlets are flatter at the mouth and stealthier than older Sukhoi birds, I agree. But those bleed air vents at the base, they would surely cause an rcs spike

Yeah, but Again its at the back of the aircraft.

Aren't they all.

There are noe 30+ , in service.

I doubt the RuAF would have any to spare until the Ukraine War winds down.

Most, production levels su57's are delivered during Ukraine war.

The latest T-50-9 prototype that took part in AI' 25 had very visible rivet lines, panel gaps and other antennae, iirc.

Again, prototype, especially a early prototype for flight testing.

IMVHO, most AFs prefer passive sensors as they provide non cooperative target recognition.

Su57 doesn't lack passive sensors,
Its just instead of EOTS(A2G) it choose IRST(A2A)
Along with that, it has additional complimentary systems like L band arrays too.

don't know about Su-57 but the F-35 reportedly gets around this problem by triangulating targets

So does su57, rafale etc.

 

[Ashwin]

Completely wrong, its an entirely new design.

If you are making such claims, then back them up with primary sources.

The only reason this project exist is because its less risky compared to other designs proposed.

 

[Speedster1]

Yeah, but Again its at the back of the aircraft.

I'm referring to those bleed air vents on the underside of the inlet lip. You'll notice they are covered by mesh grills I the pic below. On a 5G jet, you'd expect sawtooth panels at least.

Also, the underslung eo targeting pod is at odds with the whole VLO stealth sales pitch.

Again, prototype, especially a early prototype for flight testing.

T-50-9 is supposedly the latest prototype with near production std avionics and systems which is supposedly why it was at AI' 25.

But it is possible that the ac in question didn't have the full-spec RAM/RAS coating on.

 

[babablacksheep]

I'm referring to those bleed air vents on the underside of the inlet lip. You'll notice they are covered by mesh grills I the pic below. On a 5G jet, you'd expect sawtooth panels at least.

Also, the underslung eo targeting pod is at odds with the whole VLO stealth sales pitch

Ah.


These are variable geometry panels.


Open.



Closed

Though, zig-zag/saw tooth arrangement is not present.


As for targeting pod , yeah, it needs to sacrifice whatever stealth it has for missions requiring additional ground based targeting system for A2G munitions its carrying.

If you wanna maintain whatever stealth Su57 has in strike role, you need use munitions that fit inside its IWB and have their own targeting.




& As said before Su57 chose IRST for air search, as it was designed primarily As air superiority by its makers.
F35 was primarily a strike aircraft and chose EOTS( air to ground focused).

-50-9 is supposedly the latest prototype with near production std avionics and systems which is supposedly why it was at AI' 25.

The latest flying prototype of the Sukhoi Su-57 remains the T-50-11 (side number 511), which has served as the final pre-production testbed for the PAK FA (Prospective Aeronautical Complex of Front-line Aviation) program.

 

[randomradio]

The requirement for Su-57 is interesting. For now, I see it as a political ploy that's meant to kill three birds with one stone.

One, it gets Russia off our back. Currently they are negotiating with HAL and making a case for the local production of the Su-57E, with the 177S engine. That's pointless to the IAF. By pushing for 2 squadrons of M1E instead, the IAF gets to buy 2-3 years before it's ready. The M1 is expected to enter service only by the end of the year. This will prevent them from interfering in the Rafale deal. We need them to wrap things up in Ukraine as well.

Two, places pressure on France for the Rafale and the engine deal. Look at the timing, the IAF asked for DAC approval right as we are negotiating for both.

Three, this is a big deal, you could say the biggest reason for engaging with the Russians at the moment. The Americans are hesitating to sign the F414 production deal. There's a possibility they intend to backtrack and offer to only supply the engines directly. Trump also does not want to shift industrial production outside the US. Things were already on the edge after the war, but Op Sindoor seems to have spooked the Americans quite a bit, so it's natural to expect they want to place roadblocks in our path. LCA Mk2 is crucial for the development of AMCA and TEDBF, and any delay here will further delay the other two. We can't afford such silly antics at the moment. To further sweeten the deal, the IAF is offering to buy 40 more AMCA Mk1s, so the engine deal climbs up to almost 400 in order to make up for the significantly reduced quantity of engines required for TEDBF due to the switch to AMCA's engine.

It's unclear if the IAF has interest in the S-70 as of now. It's quite likely that the Su-57 deal is also meant to make a play for a drone class we are not gonna get for many decades. The S-70 will have 30% more payload, 50% more range, and 100% more MTOW than Ghatak, with a powerplant that's 100% more powerful. Given its bigger design, there's significant possibility of it being more stealthy too. So, if we go for 40 M1Es today followed by 40 more of the twin-seat version, we could opt to build 200-250 S-70s; HAL needs something after LCA Mk1A after all. And we could MKIze all the Su-57s and S-70s in the process. Right now, the Russians have taken a global lead when it comes to MUMT and we could take advantage of that. Neuron will become available only after 2033 and Ghatak after 2035 (2038 apparently).

Anyway, just the initial deal's gonna take time. It's far closer to the 2033-35 timeframe. I won't be surprised if the M1Es are MKIzed with the MKI-MLU avionics. With Rafale's signature expected in 2027, even a basic M1E import deal will probably take until 2029. We shouldn't expect it to become fully operational before 2035.

The Americans offering the F-47 in order to kill the Su-57 deal would be an option too.

 

[YoungWolf]

It's unclear if the IAF has interest in the S-70 as of now. It's quite likely that the Su-57 deal is also meant to make a play for a drone class we are not gonna get for many decades. The S-70 will have 30% more payload, 50% more range, and 100% more MTOW than Ghatak, with a powerplant that's 100% more powerful. Given its bigger design, there's significant possibility of it being more stealthy too. So, if we go for 40 M1Es today followed by 40 more of the twin-seat version, we could opt to build 200-250 S-70s; HAL needs something after LCA Mk1A after all. And we could MKIze all the Su-57s and S-70s in the process. Right now, the Russians have taken a global lead when it comes to MUMT and we could take advantage of that. Neuron will become available only after 2033 and Ghatak after 2035 (2038 apparently).

I thought Ghatak is a stealth UCAV programme independent of MUM-T programme(s). Unlike the IN which has officially chosen NRT's Abhimanyu as it's MUM-T component, IAF hasn't selected anything yet, though it has the luxury to choose between HAL's CATS and NRT's Abhimanyu, if they choose to follow the IN's lead.

HAL also has the Tejas MK2 to build, after Mk1A. Don't see how or why the IAF will play for an aircraft that doesn't exist outside of the drawing board (Su-57 twin seat). We really to get rid of the mindset of rescuing fledgling foreign aerospace programmes.

The Americans offering the F-47 in order to kill the Su-57 deal would be an option too.

Most probably they'll offer something they have (F-35), over something that hasn't even flown yet (F-47). Don't think we'll bite though.