• Welcome to TechPowerUp Forums, Guest! Please check out our forum guidelines for info related to our community.
  • The forums have been upgraded with support for dark mode. By default it will follow the setting on your system/browser. You may override it by scrolling to the end of the page and clicking the gears icon.

Russia unveils new fleet of 'invisible' supersonic fighter jets

CAPSLOCKSTUCK said:
the jet will carry K-77M missiles with a reported range of 125 miles. The U.S. AIM-120D Scorpion has a shorter range of about 100 miles.
Click to expand...

K-77M missiles>>> Combat Unproven
Its Competitor ( The AIM 120D)has racked up Confirmed kills in Combat

RejZoR said:
Wow, the Su-57 is so beautiful
Click to expand...
Might be beautiful but its a Combat Unproven plane Armed with combat unproven missiles Where as the opposition have simmer missile's that are combat proven with confirmed kills On the whole i prefer known working Combat Systems
Its a Brave and nervous pilot that engages in combat in an un proven plane with un proven Weaponry
 
dorsetknob said:
K-77M missiles>>> Combat Unproven
Its Competitor ( The AIM 120D)has racked up Confirmed kills in Combat


Might be beautiful but its a Combat Unproven plane Armed with combat unproven missiles Where as the opposition have simmer missile's that are combat proven with confirmed kills On the whole i prefer known working Combat Systems
Its a Brave and nervous pilot that engages in combat in an un proven plane with un proven Weaponry
Click to expand...
i rather recognise the beauty of something unproven than the might of a warbird stained by blood .... exception made for WWI and WWII planes and aces (following war were .... glory-less imho ... technically all war are ...)

and the F-22 first kills came from an unproven plane and loadout ... the Su-57 and K-77M are at the same stage ... no issue there :p
 
CAPSLOCKSTUCK said:
When they relied on state sponsored industrial espionage you mean?
Click to expand...
Nah, back when they just sucked their people's wallets dry, much like the way the US is doing now!
 
ne6togadno said:
ofc it wasnt in same league. it is 13 years older. that's a lot of time for tech in end of 20th
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grumman_X-29
vector trust 1990
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rockwell-MBB_X-31
Click to expand...
"PROTOTYPE STAGE" was the key word .... ofc the X-29 was great, but the Berkut was something higher (well it was also a prototype but .... i was closer to a functional fighter if it entered mass production) and the only thing they have in common is the FSW and it's not even the X-29 who featured a FSW first
Belyayev Babochka (1939 prototype)
Belyayev DB-LK (1939, first flight 1940 1 prototype also)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belyayev_DB-LK
technically the 1st "successful" fighter used in war was the
Nakajima Ki-43 Hayabusa (1941)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nakajima_Ki-43 althought the FSW profile was barely noticeable
Junker Ju 287
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Junkers_Ju_287 (still 2 built just like the X-29 iirc flight tested 23 May 1947)
OKB-1 140
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OKB-1_140 (russian Ju 287 .... so it does not really count if they made it fly :D nonetheless a little bigger since the real Ju 287 was the OKB-1 EF 131)


and for the Rockwell X-31 .... that's another piece of kit buuuuuuuutttt... woops prototype and the thruster nozzle errrrr paddle are ... *fails for words* (the F-22 is 2D vectorial, Su-30 MK or Su-57 are 3D )
although interesting (saw a lot of TV reportage from them on Planet+ recently) they look like overexpensives toys (that fails hard when the computer assistance fails o_O quite shocked of accident report)

first 2D jet vectoring was obviously the Hawker-Siddeley P.1127 Kestrel (1960, meanwhile the US did the Lockheed XV-4 Hummingbird 2 yrs later .... and quite a "beauty" compared to the Kestrel /sarcasme), Hawker-Siddeley Harrier (1967), Yakovlev Yak-38 (1971), VFW VAK 191B (technically a German harrier, 1971)then the Yakovlev Yak-141 (1987, which led to the F-35B Lightning II design) and then the Boeing X-32 JSF ( 2000, the unfortunate X-35 concurrent) actually the F-35B derivated from Convair/General-Dynamics Model 200 design (1972, which was only a design, that had a scale model tested in wind tube iirc and lost to the way more unrealistic Rockwell XVF-12 who got 1 flight prototype and was cancelled since unable to hover even with a engine delivering more thrust than his empty weight, 1981 ) tho the airframe is way closer to the Yak-141

3D vectoring ofc there was the F-15 ACTIVE, F-16 VISTA and F-18 HARV but all prototype on the other hand non experimental and entered in active production:


oh and btw i did get these 2 wikipedia pages during my posting you quoted.
 
...those are nice but there is still only 1 king:


lol
 
su 47 was never ment for serial production
it was financed with Suchoi's money with hope they will get government contracts for further development.
su 30 is just old su 27 with upgraded avionics and engines

as for the 2d and 3d vector dont forget that for f22 priority is stealth over high manioverability. vector is added in f-22 so it is easier to keep plaine controllable with simple control sticks pilots got used to.
i strongly doubt su-57 with 3d vector nozles will be better in stealth then f-117

FYI https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yakovlev_Yak-36
 
Last edited:
ensabrenoir said:
...those are nice but there is still only 1 king:


lol
Click to expand...
lol indeed .... and to say that i loved dearly that movie during my youth ... (albeit being only 1 year older than that movie ...) oh well i guess Clint Eastwood was a good actor ... eh?

well American production... a Mikoyan Gurevich MiG 31 (NATO codename Firefox) that has more in common with the XB-70 Valkyrie (another "good looking" Prototype that did cost 1.5b$ for 2 unit and 5 yrs test ) than a MiG 25 or even the real MiG 31 (which are also awesome machines )

that's a characteristic case of "the book was better than the movie" since in the novel the plane was closer to the MiG-25 in description

ne6togadno said:
su 47 was never ment for serial production
it was financed with Sukhoi's money with hope they will get government contracts for further development.
su 30 is just old su 27 with upgraded avionics and engines

as for the 2d and 3d vector don't forget that for f22 priority is stealth over high manoeuvrability. vector is added in f-22 so it is easier to keep plane controllable with simple control sticks pilots got used to.
i strongly doubt su-57 with 3d vector nozzles will be better in stealth then f-117

FYI https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yakovlev_Yak-36
Click to expand...
for the Su-47 i already know that.... i just implied that it was close to a actual fighter rather than just a prototype demonstrator.
also .... what's the issue with old upgraded if they perform close enough to last gen :p the Su-27 was already in advance over his time, that what i meant by "sometime upgrades package and retrofit are a better choice than a wholly new design."

F-22 RCS of 0.001
rafale and JAS 37 Gripen RCS of 1.0 (which is small by the way .... compared to a F-16 or F-15 or even Su-XX series )
F-35 RCS allegedly 0.005
F-117 RCS of 0.003 (well, if the SU-57 has a RCS of a F-117 .... it's not bad at all ... :laugh: since it would fall right in between the F-22 and F-35 )
also active and passive ECM/EM can be used on 4th and 4.5th gen and give them enough stealth capability.


the Su-57 is just a stopgap ... the 6th gen will follow soon enough .... you can bet

also Yak-36 .... mmhhhh ? i know that one but i didn't include it in 2D vector list ... since it was a unsuccessful prototype series :ohwell: (and post P.1127)

hum, 58 and 36km is close range indeed :eek: (ok the F-22 will spot the Su-35 from further away tho ... many parameter can go awry and put any of the 2 pilots in a dire situation )
F-Stealth_diagram1.jpg
 
Last edited:
Stealth technology on these fighters is a lot of marketing. The problem with effective stealth technology is it requires non-aerodynamic shapes to be the most stealthy. This makes them fly poorly, which is a problem for a combat role. Stealthy coatings aren't really proven and adding a stealthy coating to an aerodynamic shape rather than a stealthy angular shape won't necessarily make it hidden. Its a compromise between how well it should be hidden and how well it should fly. If you end up in the middle you end up with something like the F35 that doesn't fly well and its stealth is overrated. It is a real shame the F22 was scraped for the F35.
 
I don't like how the engine shroud at the rear looks (where it is brown). I suspect that's a RADAR hot spot.

Thrust vectoring actually isn't good in dog fights because it can cause the real airspeed to fall too much. The main advantage of thrust vectoring in the F-22 is its ability to supercruise: clamp down on the thrust increasing the force to efficiently cruise at mach 1.3 without afterburning.

GreiverBlade said:
the Su-57 is just a stopgap ... the 6th gen will follow soon enough .... you can bet
Click to expand...
I think the only difference is that 6th generation won't have a pilot.
 
Last edited:
FordGT90Concept said:
I don't like how the engine shroud at the rear looks (where it is brown). I suspect that's a RADAR hot spot.

Thrust vectoring actually isn't good in dog fights because it can cause the real airspeed to fall too much. The main advantage of thrust vectoring in the F-22 is its ability to supercruise: clamp down on the thrust increasing the force to efficiently cruise at mach 1.3


I think the only difference is that 6th generation won't have a pilot.
Click to expand...
Yep the NGAD. Removal of pilot will make such a big difference on design. Should be very interesting to see what drone fighters are capable of.
 
Vario said:
Stealth technology on these fighters is a lot of marketing. The problem with effective stealth technology is it requires non-aerodynamic shapes to be the most stealthy. This makes them fly poorly, which is a problem for a combat role. Stealthy coatings aren't really proven and adding a stealthy coating to an aerodynamic shape rather than a stealthy angular shape won't necessarily make it hidden. Its a compromise between how well it should be hidden and how well it should fly. If you end up in the middle you end up with something like the F35 that doesn't fly well and its stealth is overrated. It is a real shame the F22 was scraped for the F35.
Click to expand...
So much BS in this post.

F-117 Nighthawk was the only stealth aircraft that utilized non-aerodynamic shapes because it was based on the "perfect diamond" with translated into "Have Blue." Once Lockheed built the technology (mostly CAD tools and a facility to test mockups), they discovered that continuous curves are just as good at reducing cross section as flat panels with sharp angles. F-22 Raptor is a marriage of both designs: the super structure is continuous curves while the intakes and tail fins use sharp angles. YF-23 was more stealthy than YF-22 but the Air Force prioritized dog fighting capability over RADAR evasion.

RAM (RADAR Absorbent Material) is a proven technology going back to WWII. The British built gliders out of wood that had very little RADAR cross section considering their size. It was that observation that spurred the development of the B-2 Spirit coupled with the knowledge that continuous curves and sharp edges reduce cross section. RAM is really as simple as the concept of black paint not reflecting as much light back to the source as white paint. RADAR works on the same principles but in a different spectrum.

Stealth aircraft are a combination of shape and RAM surfaces. The really stealthy aircraft (especially B-2) also cool and defuse the engine exhaust so infrared can't easily find them as well.

F-35 is a multipurpose fighter/bomber. F-22 is an air superiority fighter. F-22 lead the charge clearing the air space while the F-35 and B-2 follow taking care of RADAR installations, SAM sites, and everything else that's a threat to establishing air superiority. Once air superiority is established, F-22s reconfigure for a support role (kill anything that flies in case something was missed before otherwise hit targets of opportunity on the ground) while the B-2s are replace with B-1B and B-52 for dropping mass ordinance in support of ground operations.

F-22 orders were canceled because F-18 is capable of killing pretty much everything that flies at substantially lower operating costs. F-22 was built to kill an enemy that doesn't exist. Let's be honest: the 100 or so F-22s the Air Force already has is enough to kill all of the Su-57's Russia manages to build (a few dozen at the most). It just doesn't make economical sense to build a massive fleet of F-22s.


Edit: on the subject of cancelations, Zumwalt-class destroyers were supposed to have 32 built. 29 were canceled.
 
Last edited:
TheMailMan78 said:
20 years behind the US. Man I miss old Russian advancements they used to hang/beat American tech. WTF happen.
Click to expand...

What do you mean? This looks more advanced than the F-22 is every way.
 
YF-22 first flew 29 September 1990. Production F-22 first rolled out on 9 April 1997. Yup, 20 years old. USA will debut a 6th generation fighter in less than a decade.
 
FordGT90Concept said:
Yup, 20 years old. USA will debut a 6th generation fighter in less than a decade.
Click to expand...
actually ... no one care about the 20yrs behind ... because it's a "non true" fact or rather irrelevant .... and also mainly because not only USA will debut 6th gen in a decade (or less who know ... )

i thought we could avoid the warmonger patriotic argument but i was wrong ... (USA is teh best, Russia is Stronk, ok both statement are true)

oh ... sometime 100 versus 12 can have an odd result ... depending on many factor, so the .... "we can destroy them with ease cause we are superior" taste incredibly bad ....

i prefer my point of view as i am from neither side, as i wrote i love all planes equally (might differ on pilot performances tho) and since i am Swiss i rather fond of the F/A-18 over any other american planes (although i had a F-14 Tomcat and F-16 Falcon love syndrome due to "Top Gun" and "Iron Eagle" movies and also for the Grumman A6 Intruder from "The Flight Of The Intruder".... )

as i wrote ... the 4.5th gen can probably take on the 5th gen .... highly situational ofc

Gasaraki said:
What do you mean? This looks more advanced than the F-22 is every way.
Click to expand...
well the F-22 and F-35B are not particularly advanced ... supercruise is not really an exclusivity, and their logical advancement are also found in different design, including stealth profile (without mandatory odd shape).

i rather want to stop any "war competition" comparison ... and focus on the other sides of the performances and raw data
 
Last edited:
Why bother? The odds of fifth generation fighters duking it out in an actual live fire situation is damn near nonexistent.
 
Last edited:
Been fighting A-G campaigns mainly.

Btw the F-16 is 4th Gen but F-16V make it 5th Gen. F-22 maneuvering was from F-16 VISTA, F-16 was used to test F-35 intake too.
F-16s handle SEAD missions (50/52, 40/42 can as well)

F-16 is the Multirole/Dog Fighter, F-15 is the Air Superiority Fighter, F-35 replaces oldest F-16s, F-22 Replaces Oldest F-15s. 22/35 are used to impregnate enemy defenses and the conventional fighters do the bulk of the work.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Dynamics_F-16
 
F-15E Strike Eagles all the way.
 
Last edited:
I know nothing about planes but defense spending is ridiculous. We build warplanes to fight 3rd world countries (or more importantly to sell to oil rich gulf states, who in turn, fight their own 3rd world neighbours).

The immorality of it all is staggering. Who needs planes when men now drive trucks into crowds to kill people. What use is a 100 million dollar plane against that? Or a cyber attack? It's all just cock waving nonsense.
 
I think it's more about the fact that the threat is present so we keep pushing the technical envelope should an event arise that requires mass production of most recent gen military hardware (e.g. WW3).
 
FordGT90Concept said:
I think it's more about the fact that the threat is present so we keep pushing the technical envelope should an event arise that requires mass production of most recent gen military hardware (e.g. WW3).
Click to expand...

WW3 will not happen with conventional weaponry. Europe is at peace with itself and China now favours consumerism. The only wars now will be small regional conflicts using outdated hardware or that which is sold by the major powers. With rogue states like North Korea jumping in on the Nuclear club, the threat of conventional war diminishes. Look at the Russian annexation of Crimea. A civil skirmish that should not have been a confict at all but one that led to a passenger jet being shot done by a Russian missile (all propaganda of course if you believe the russian side). Nobody intervened because formally, Russia was not involved. You can't fight a country that denies responsibility without using the UN as a jump point. We all stand back because war just sucks and nobody want it in their own back yard. Best to bomb some sand bunnies because you know, what can happen to us in return? *cough* terrorism. Despite Trump's bluster and Putin's muscle, neither country wants to fight. Nor does China or Europe.

Drones, Cyber and anti-terror are where we should be at. Not massive hardware splurges.

And Star Wars. We really need a serious laser based ballistic missile deterrent (and I know they are being worked on).
 
You describe a situation USA was in leading up to WWII. Europe needed help and USA had no means to give it to them, not until FDR mandated the war economy. Then the technology wasn't there to go toe-to-toe with the Germans either so we basically spammed them to death. Allies were sending men and machines at the Axis faster than they could fend them off. That's not a smart way to wage war.

North Korea/Iran could easily be the spark that triggers the WW3. It may start with a nuke but it will end conventionally.


Oh, and I still think a second US civil war isn't in the too distant future. What role the US military plays in that remains to be seen.
 
Russia unveils new fleet of 'invisible' supersonic fighter jets

That's the thread title- discuss
 
The USA has 180 or so F22's plus they are working on 6th gen too. Let's assume that this thing is better than Raptor, but I doubt Russia will be able to manufacture them in comparable quantities by the time the next gen rolls in. There will be 2 thousand of F-35's by then (more than 230 already), which, while not directly comparable in the role, is still 5th gen plane. There will be 12 Su-57 in 2019 compared to some 400 F-35's plus the 180 F-22's. Disbalance in 5th gen is quite obvious, no?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top