Su-57: is it INVISIBLE?
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 24 сен 2021
- The Su-57 final episode. It has been widely covered, but still there are many comments that show that it is not clear why the Su-57 is what it is.
So we go through the common fallacies around the Su-57 and the biggest of all those: STEALTH.
#Su-57 #Felon
Join this channel to support it:
/ @millennium7historytech
Support me on Patreon / millennium7
One off donation with PayPal www.paypal.com/paypalme/Mille...
Support me on Subscribestar www.subscribestar.com/millenn...
Join the Discord server / discord
----------------------------
Ask me anything!
Take part to the community Q&A clicking the link below!
forms.office.com/r/LNPQtf3Tc0
--------------------
Visit the subreddit!
/ millennium7lounge
---------------------
All images and additional video segments contained in the Thumbnails and/or B-roll segments are used in strict compliance with the appropriate permissions and licenses required from the source and in accordance with the RUclips Partner Program, Community guidelines & RUclips terms of service.
Join this channel to support it:
ruclips.net/channel/UCVDkfkGRzo0qcZ8AkB4TMuwjoin
Support me on Patreon www.patreon.com/Millennium7
One off donation with PayPal www.paypal.com/paypalme/Millennium7star
Support me on Subscribestar www.subscribestar.com/millennium-7-history-technology
Join the Discord server discord.gg/6CuWEWuhsk
Didn't mig 31 also have a L-band radar ?
You are the best my friend and your opinion is totally right. In Egypt we have a great mix of eastern ,western and domestic arsenal in all military equipment and if there is an army that can support your point of view by practice it is the Egyptian Army
Any chance you could do an in-depth video about how Russian aviation doctrine affects their fighter designs? It might inform some of the more stubborn detractors if you explained why US/NATO planes would face a severe challenge in penetrating Russian airspace. A Su-57 doesn't need the 'best' stealth... only stealth which is good enough for the projected battle space (which with their networked, multi-platform air defences seems formidable). Similarly, I'd like to see it clearly explained why the USSR/Russian designed rugged planes with minimal maintenance to increase sortie rates.
I like the way you put things, I don't know why everyone assumes that wars will be fought by single round man to man duels. Like in case of a war Russia and the US are going to both build 1 giant robot and put their best pilot inside and duke it out. Although that would be kinda neat.
Don't get offended by military propaganda Bots from both sides which influence real comments... Just do your stuff. It's fantastic ! Thank you and cheers from CH
I really appreciate this series. Anyone talking like that is actually disrespecting the time and effort put into this kind of research. And as you mentioned in the video: "underestimating your opponent is the first step to defeat". Thank you!
I think he slightly overcooked the ribeye steak also I would not have used a sauce and served with a simple green salad.
Each time i underestimated my opponent in tennis i lost the game...even if he was lower ranked than me...always be focused as if your life was in game and to the best of yourself...always !!!
This is quite simply one of the best military channels on YT, hands down.
You are probably the most knowledgeable person on these topics on RUclips. Thanks for these series.
You must have a very shallow set of references. :)
Was he a pilot? Or Aeronautical engineer? I’m not trying be a dic or anything just genuinely curious since you said hes the most knowledgeable?
@@fredmdbud you play a video game and know it all!
As an electrical engineer became fascinated with stealth after studying the Jaumann Absorbers and Ferrite absorbers the German WW2 Navy used on its periscopes and snorkels. These simple to make German WW2 technology could absorb around 99.5% of microwaves if combined. It's clear the Su-57 has a considerable degree of stealth. Pro Indications of stealth are: 1 Weapons Bay 2 the Upward Angled AESA radar which will reflect waves upo and away. 3 the leading edges of all control surfaces (with one exception) is aligned to minimize scatter. 4 The Intakes hide the engines 5 Angled side surfaces. Negative Indications are 1 the leading edge slats which create a seam, 2 the exposed IRST sensor 3 visible seams of the panels 4 the chine angles are different 5 external antenna and aerials and 6 exposed nozzles. Nevertheless its clear that from the frontal aspect the aircraft should achieve at least a 256:1 to 512:1 reduction in RCS over say a Su-34 in the frontal quadrant in the Air to Air role. I'm assuming a 128:1 reduction due to stealth coatings and and another 4:1 due to shape factors. For instance it won't have exposed weapons, its radar will reflect incipient radiation back the slats will have RAM as will the wing structure and surface behind, the cockpit canopy will also absorb radiation, the engines will be hidden and most of the angles will deflect radiation. There are many flaws but there is a considerable reduction which will have a significant effect. On the side and read quadrants the engine nozzles will be visible both to radar and infrared.
Since the SU57 avionics are all about data fusion, and it has two L band arrays in conjunction with the three x band arrays, I think we’re underestimating it’s ability to create tracks on other stealth aircraft. Yes an individual L band array is no where near the accuracy needed to create a track on an aircraft, however using two of them at different angles to locate a target, then focus all three of the X-band arrays (which all would also have slightly different angles) I think it’s well within the realm of possibility that the Su57’s on board computer could create a track with that data alone.
When the SU 57 is not in the same level of RCS as F-35 or F-22, add L band array is what is call better then nothing. The fact is you need big L band array to just see a target at good range. That why there are question able the SU 57 L band array. They are just two small to be very affective at all. For the three x band array, two are side array so they don't help search for target from the front. The main x radar is also smaller then the ones on the f 22 and f 35 with meaning hard to track VLO fighter. the two side array on even smaller. They didn't make a big different if it data fusion when the senor are not as good vs its rival. SU 57 is great vs for 4 gen fighter but vs VLO fighter is hard to say.
@@jimc1654 Can’t tell if you’re trolling or just really far off the mark. SU57 is the *only* combat aircraft to have multiple radar arrays. Not to mention one of the only aircraft to field *both* Xband and Lband radars. This gives it unprecedented detection capabilities. I’m sure you didn’t know this, but the way the Russian air defense radars work is by combining a series of different radars across different wavelengths not only to detect aircraft but to create weapon tracks. This technique is so effective it is the basis for why the US navy positions Aegis vessels in super carrier fleets. Additionally this technique is also employed via F35 tactics; using a combination of data links and physical maneuvers to exponentially increase the detection capabilities of the aircraft when flying with other F35’s. The difference is that the SU57 uses this proven and tested technique *in a single aircraft* which is not something other combat aircraft are capable of. RCS factor is irrelevant. What is relevant is which aircraft can detect the other aircraft first, and both in an individual level and at an operational level the SU57 has the advantage.
@@92HazelMocha Sorry, I guess you know understand the size of the radar is a factor to all detection capabilities. You have a L band radar the size of handheld flash light vs something that is S400 with is like an searchlight. The S400 works because the size of the radar is big. There no way to can get a track by L band with that small radar. That mean you need x band to do all the track and fire control. That why F-22 and F -35 have a big x band radar. For it T/R count, F-22 , EF , F35 is known to largest for a fighter. The Aegis ship use S band radar the size of SU 57 for tracking and search. It have x band radar to light up the target. To say RCS factor is irrelevant is to say S400 don't need an x band range. However, it still do.
@@jimc1654 Idk if you’ve ever seen an airplane, but the Lband arrays on the SU57 are dramatically larger than you’re describing. Like probably around 8-10 feet on their longest axis.
Secondly radar size doesn’t matter. The F22 and F35 radars are good because they’re modern AESA radars not just because “they’re big”.
Finally, even an early cold war L band radar is exponentially better at picking up stealth aircraft than a brand new AESA xband radar. The F-117 shoot down is proof of that. You don’t seem to understand how radars work or *why* L band arrays are so effective in this manner. The short version is that the wavelengths are so long that it dramatically diminishes the geometric stealth that stealth aircraft rely on, the trade off being instead of a precise location as with an Xband, it’s a much larger area due to the wavelength. RCS is irrelevant because the only thing that actually matters is if you can detect the enemy aircraft before he detects you and having L band arrays alongside Xband arrays ensures it plays out that way.
I’m going to ignore your comments on Aegis and S-400 (which by the way is an anti-ballistic missile platform, not an anti-aircraft suite) because it’s absolutely clear you have no idea what you’re talking about.
@@92HazelMocha Sorry but true L band radar need to be a lot bigger then the ones on the SU57. It is to small to good range detection. The size of the L band radar is just somewhat large then the one it use as IFF. The F-35 have a L band IFF on it wing with mean it can detect L band so once you turn your radar on. it will know you are there. Fact is you can only use the X band to shot and both F-35 and F22 have a better x band.
F-117 was shot when the radar was less the 10 mile away. The same radar that shot it down have a normal range of 50 miles. Even that radar is bigger then su57.
LOL Aegis and S-400 is just of anti-ballistic missile. That is so funny. Maybe you need to google first.
I was wondering when you would be addressing the elephant in the room regarding the Su-57 and what a fantastic explanation at that.
It always annoys me how uncritical and shallow much of the internet discussion is about the Su-57 and by extension the J-20. Besides constantly falling prey to Mirror Imaging most of us are unwilling to search for and seek other sources of information. In many forums like the Secret Projects Forums that are well moderated, the people who read and speak Russian and Chinese often translate and share important information that is very revelatory in nature. There is a lot that most are unaware of simply due to the language barrier. You learn more from such a well moderated forum than in most news sites.
And I have heard of many unfounded criticisms like regarding the "RCS is about that of a Super Hornet" but "It has no internal weapons bays" is a new one. That one had an eyebrow raise from me. Man are some people profoundly stupid.
If I were to criticize any one aspect of its stealth features, it would be the lower aft engine nacelles fairings. Round instead of being more trapezoidal and blended like with the rest of the aircraft OML as seen with the J-20. And maybe some access panels not being serrated as well as the round IRST and DRICM turrets. But overall it's LO is honestly very good, may very well be VLO from the front in particular. And given that the Russian's have plenty of smart people thinking such things through, I am sure I will they would have given thought to such issues and know far more than me regarding the choices they made.
But in my time from observing the Su-57 develop and learning more about stealth, the more I realize what I don't know. And from what I have seen in typical Western discourse we don't know shit.
A fantastic video to wrap up a fantastic series. Literally the only one on RUclips who has put effort into dispelling myths and looking things over with logic, reason and facts. Simply fantastic.
Me wholeheartedly agree too. This is the only channel that has tried to make an honest and proper assessment of true capabilities of SU57 and Russian thinking that goes behind it. Russians are no fools and they design their aircrafts keeping in mind NATO as an adversary. I doubt very much when Americans conceptualised F35 they had really considered military confrontation with Russia as a real possibility. It is really an aircraft to dominate 2nd/3rd world adversaries against whom Americans enjoy unparalleled qualitative and quantitative superiority. How much of a chance it has against Russian ADS ( of which SU57 is a part only) is a matter of sheer speculation.
I am waiting the J-20 special from Otis and his sidekick. These videos are highly addictive.
The “RCS being comparable to a clean Super Hornet” came from an article, I guess it was comparing the prototype. I only heard about the current missiles not fitting into the weapons bays, never heard of it not having any either that’s definitely ignorant.
Good points. It’s really unrealistic to expect people to know much about subjects that require a high degree of technical mastery of the relevant applied physics, even within the aerospace world. Most engineers, pilots, and technicians have a compartmentalized view of their worlds, so while someone working on door actuators for example on a very controlled access program, might not have much of a clue how turbofans even work, let alone the various RAM and VLO techniques.
Another aspect to that are engineers who go to school to become a ME, structural engineer, avionics engineer, mathematician, or propulsion engineer. They will learn a lot about the various aspects of aircraft design in-detail, but still will be specialized in their work. There are decades of developments that have occurred on the exact programs they worked that they don’t know about because it wasn’t their piece of the pie. The few who get to dive into all of the details are overall program managers, but they’re more concerned with schedules and people who are delegated to solve the technical problems.
The AvGeeks who just love airplanes and the romanticism about technological combat are not privileged to these communities, so they have zero relevant access to reliable information. By the time what limited reliable information leaks into the AvPress, it’s often out-dated anyway. That’s just talking about legacy fighters as an example, not secretive programs like ATF and JSF.
One thing I would point out that makes the Su-57 look better is that with the ATF DEMVAL Prototype Air Vehicles, none of them were VLO airframes meant to demonstrate that aspect of the program. They were flight dynamics, propulsion, and airframe demonstrator vehicles, with parallel RCS pole models tested in-secret at remote facilities designed to assess those features. So we should look at the T-50/Su-57/PAK-FA prototypes in that light and not expect to see VLO surface features. When studying the Russian language sources, you get a very clear picture about what each of the prototype airframes were assigned to test in the program, starting with basic flight dynamics, then propulsion, then combat avionics. Once they transitioned to the avionics, they had to change the weight, length, and wingspan to accommodate the heavier weights.
You can see the main differences between the first stage Su-57 prototypes vs the 2nd stage by looking at that area of the engine cowlings you describe. The first stage Su-57 prototypes have exposed metallic cowlings, which represents a massive IR signature source, but on the 2nd stage prototypes, they covered those metallic cowlings with uniform surface material and there was a Russian source that mentioned some type of thermal blankets to insulate the engine bays.
I compared his statements with production line photos and saw a volumetric increase around the motors that would support those statements, which also affects area-ruling. The same changes were made on both ATF proposals in the US, but in the opposite direction since the thrust-reverser requirements were dropped, while still retaining IR VLO features.
But from outsiders looking-in, there are only tiny pieces of the puzzle available to observe in many respects. Someone with a background in AeroE and technical exploitation will see things that most others would never consider. Those who have done technical exploitation of foreign materials will see even more.
@@LRRPFco52 Very well said. I don't think I saw a volumetric increase around the engine bays but it would not surprise me for there to have been an increase.
Also, most people do not visually understand how stealth works. When they hear "stealth" and decide to believe in it, they think of it being something like "predator" stealth from the movies. Simplifying it to the degree of something like holding a paper cup in front of a model aircraft and then simulating different bandwidths by changing the cone to a traffic cone or a vodka shot glass could help.
you Literally can`t see it
This was totaly needed and fun to watch and read. And its almost certain an airforce pilot wouldnt coment any of this. A big 👏 to you for setting the bars.
Agility with vectored thrust are useful for dodging missiles, not just dogfighting.
How? Thrust vectoring bleeds energy, and an aircraft will never be more agile than a missile.
I don't mean it can't be useful, but mostly only as a last resort.
@@chefchaudard3580
Trying to shake a missile isn’t last resort?
Remember missiles are usually gliding and burning off energy fast while predicting an intercept so short sharp deviations force a big response from the missile.
@@chefchaudard3580 "aircraft will never be more agile than a missile" - in a dogfight, yeah. In BVR - wrong. Plane has engines that provide constant thrust, any energy that it loses can be recovered. Missile has engine that provide massive thrust but burn out in SECONDS and after that missile is going by inertia, any energy it loses it doesn't it recover. In quire a few instances plane can not just dodge but out run the missile because all the "juking" causes the missile speed to drop down to low sub sonic.
@@brucebaxter6923 no, dodging missiles can be deliberate. It is an option to force your adversary to spend his missiles against you. If you have a good knowledge of the missiles performance, you can force him to shoot them, one after another, so you can kill him afterward.
Former French pilot Ate Chuet has released a video on YT showing how a fighter can force a frigate to shoot and how to dodge the missiles.
When all missiles are exhausted, the frigate is a sitting duck.
This can be used in BVR too, and there is no need of thrust vectoring. On the contrary, bleeding energy is not the best way to achieve it.
@@uegvdczuVF That's precisely the point: sacrificing energy for agility in BVR is not the best option. Better use speed, terrain configuration, distance to dodge a missile. Bleeding energy must only be used as a last chance, as I said in my message.
Shaking your aircraft at high Gs is pointless against a missile that can take ten times more Gs. Better use something else, if you can.
Never fight an enemy on his strong points.
I really feel that the Sukhoi 57 is underrated. Did we make an oopsie by dropping out of the program. I know for a fact that the Russians are pretty opaque with transfer of technology and know how with the Sukhoi 30 Mki, we still need knock down kits to make them in India. However, having something of this calibre while facing the numerically and technologically superior Chinese would have been reassuring. I feel we should brave the sanctions and buy su-57, even if it has hair on the armpit bays
"even if it has hair on the armpit bays" 😂😂😂😂
Nope. It is not about CAATSA. India is already buying S400 without caring for CAATSA. It is more like the delay in production of Su-57 and Russians being unwilling to work on FGFA or sharing the required tech. IAF thought it was best not to pour more good money after bad.
It is well understood that Su-57 would take time to mature. However, the option that Russia has to buy modified Su-57 block on block basis or getting their modification on demand be incorporated into it, wouldn't have been with IAF as Russia wasn't sharing tech or divulging details.
Anyhow, at the end India got wiser and cut the cord off. Now, we are developing techs ourselves for AMCA and most of those 5gen techs will its way into Tejak Mk1A and MWF/Tejas Mk2. We will own the tech and can improve upon it as and when we need so.
In the interim, we have Rafale which is pretty damn good aircraft in itself.
It was a mistake and the extra funding could have helped speed development but it will still be available. India and China must resolve issues peacefully and im sure will. Getting dragged into QUAD is Indians biggest strategic blunder ever.
@@Jpab_in You guys screwed the pooch cuz you got pissy that Russia wasn't about to hand over their hard-earned IP for a handful of dollars. Get serious bud. You really think India is capable of building a 5G fighter by itself? Or you think the absurdly high priced Rafael is going to stand up to an Su-57? Or that your Tejas is going to be anything other than 3rd rate low-capability cannon fodder?
@@Internetbutthurt Ahem. It was India who extended the hand to China for friendship when Modi went to China and invited Xi to India. Yet, the result was Doklam. So, no thanx. We are better off without resolving issues with China as history is witness that Communist China doesn't care for friendship.
Quad is a response to Chinese agression in the Pacifics. How many artificial islands have China built to capture its neighbors' territories? One would be stupid to believe that a nation which only can have failing nations such as Pakistan and North Korea as friends, can actually harbor any goodwill for a democracy like India.
I thoroughly LOVE your videos and I thoroughly appreciate the technical content of your videos. The Russians are a formidable "foe". In all honesty, I am not one of those sheeple who only watch CNN or BBC or SKY NEWS or MSNBC, so I don't fall for the "them vs us" bullsh.t which the MSM constantly propagandizes. I actually have a soft spot for the Russians. Your videos are good, and the fools who aggressively criticize the SU-57 mostly are fools want to appear informed hence they throw around acronyms like BVR etc. Keep up the fantastic work. I will be watching your productions.
Well, if you ever listen to Putin speak about West the words he uses most common is "partners" and "counterparts".
Those fools are Russia's allies themselves.
India, China and Vietnam have critized the Su-57
@@uegvdczuVF If your English was better you'd have a much better understanding of what he means, and, he refers to the American politicians as "Our American Partners". You disappoint.
@@junkookbts1273 as someone from Russia never heard of those guys being our "allies". They are just trade partners. Some of them want technology transfer and when denied they start whining and telling the that thing they wanted is not as good as it actually is )))
I guess 1/3 of these comments are direct from Lockheed Martin, 1/3 are from the Pentagon and the 1/3 are from fan boys. The Fan boys forget, this is not a contest between 2 race cars. There will be no "race" which proof their guesses right.
I really enjoy the way you present your videos. You explain technical topics in a way that is easy to understand and and very thorough. Im surprised you dont have a larger audience tbh. Keep em coming :)
It is always stupid (and unprofessional) to underestimate your (potential) adversary. Even someone who’s in theory completely outclassed might surprise you with unconventional tactics.
A lot of people on the internet that are aviation fans (such as myself) tend to overestimate their own expertise on the matter.
An excelent example is how in dissimillar combat training between the USAF (4x F-15s) & RAF (2x Tornados & 2x Hawks), the RAF convincingly won 4-0 every time, thanks to thinking outside the box & not playing to the strengths of the USAF, despite the F-15 being an objectively better air superiority fighter than either British planes.
never underestimate one's opponent.
words to literally live by.
But also don't overestimate either, otherwise you might not use some advantages you have. As usual a balance is needed.
Russia's own allies : China , India and Vietnam have underestimated that russian aircraft.
@@FirstDagger
underestimating one's opponent makes one lax. expectations that one's tactics can't be countered reduces one's ability to change tactics in a timely manner when expectations are found to be faulty.
one should always be looking for holes in one's plans...underestimating one's opponent reduces the drive to find those holes.
it is better to overestimate then underestimate...more options for change of tactics is beneficial.
@@johnaikema1055 ; Overestimation can result in you developing unnecessary stuff, wasting capability and focusing equipment in the wrong sector, which is why fake Armies and fake nuke Silos are a thing. Budgets are limited.
@@FirstDagger
still better to overestimate then underestimate.
Lmao, your little comment compilation at the beginning is a perfect summary of American arrogance.
It's funny to hear how ignorant some people are, and they show it to everyone else to laugh at. :)
This is an excellent serie about the best looking airplane today.
Thank you sir for finally doing this. I watch and love your channel. Honestly, I am sick too of these idiocy about who is what nonsense. Thanks again and keep up the good stuff!!!
Thanks for this series I really appreciate the effort and fairness in it and has really helped with my research for my novels and games thanks!
You're right about BVR and not having fought any competent opponents...or equipment. The last time the USAF thought all fights would be BVR or at missile range we ended up in Viet Nam, where the USAF and DoD got schooled in dog fighting.
The only way to know for sure how stealthy it is will be to blast it with radar waves and see what bounces back. I wonder when the opportunity will arise.
Бойся!
I recently found your channel on YT and turned out to be the best aerospace-defence related channel I've ever watched! Ur explanation is so simple and beautiful that we won't miss out any minute piece of info
I love your channel man! I spent so much time here, every video you make is a masterpiece. I really hope you will have more subs/views and keep on doing the thing you love!.
Hopefully, we'll never get to see for ourselves which of them: f22/f35 or su 57 is better in a direct confrontation.
@@CaptainDangeax Knowing China, they may very well have tons of issues of their own with their j20, just less transparency. They still didn't manage to copy russian thrust vectoring, after all.
@@CaptainDangeax Anyone who describes the JSF series as an average ground attack plane immediately outs themselves as a know-nothing on this subject.
@@CaptainDangeax your delusional if you believe the f-35 is a failure, read about the results from red flag and other exercises
@@CaptainDangeax ofc the f-22 was shot down in a WVR engagement, because it was never created for that purpose. Stealth is only useful for Bvr. If the US wanted another WVR aircraft, then they would’ve kept the f-15 as the primary air to air fighter. Also the f-35 is still relatively young, and any technology that’s new is prone to bugs, and mechanical errors. But despite this mechanical error, that doesn’t make the entire program a failure, because the f-35 is a huge success on the global market rn. Even Finland chose the f-35 over aircraft like the f-18, and the overrated Gripen
Many of these comments were from trolls writing the same BS on different channels. People with close to zero knowledge about the subject never have a valid argument, just an irrelevant opinion. RUclips have become pretty good at sorting comments, with the worst ones last. (IE, ranking users based on previous interactions)
Keep up the awesome work making informative and enjoyable videos. Otis is a great sidekick. 😉
Says the troll who has nothing to say about the video.
@@hectorlopez1907 What a childish accusation, does your mother know that you are making stupid comments on RUclips? Your comment only refers to yourself. 😄
OH man , I love this channel! So Unbiased and straight to the actual point and REALITY!!!
If it was invisible, how did the cameraman take photos?
It really is a beautiful aircraft, I pray we work together and never see who would come out on top in a conflict. Perhaps U.S. and Russia against another thieving elephant in the room.
Work with Russia ? Lol
No , thanks
Who is sanctioning Russia? The US.
Who is funding colour revolutions in Ukraine, Georgia, Kazakhstan, Chechnya? The US.
Who is whipping up anti-Russia hysteria in the media and elsewhere? Both political parties in the US.
Who has funded Islamist extremists ever since the 1950s to work against first Soviet, and then Russian Federation interests in Eastern Europe and the Middle East? The US.
Who orchestrated the downfall of the USSR that led to 3 million deaths in Russia and up to 7 million excess deaths across the USSR and satellite states? The US.
Which country, even today, tries to incite the Russian military by running exercises in the Black and Baltic seas, while moving ballistic missiles up to Russia's borders through NATO proxies? The US.
When the USSR fell, which country spirited away most of the country's top scientists in aeronautics, biological warfare, chemical warfare and nuclear weapons? The US.
When you see a descendant of the Yak-141's VTOL nozzle in the F-35B, and there are mathematical equations derived from Russian work on radar stealth in use on the shaping of American stealth aircraft today, and technologies like LEDs and FPGAs come from Soviet work now "patented" under the US - who is the thief?
@@MonMalthias ,The YAK-141 had two separate engines to lift up front. The F-35 uses an elevation fan that is completely different. Also, the lift fan was invented and developed by Lockheed and Rolls Royce.
One thing is a copy and another is to buy a license, that is what Locked Martín did with the F-35B with the Joint Strike Figther contest that required three aircraft models (the normal one for the air force, the vertical take-off for the Marines and the aircraft carrier) and as Lockheed Martin had no experience unlike Boeing that manufactured the Harrier, but as he had money and in the mid-90s the US - Russia relations were good, since the license was bought from Yak-141 and the vertical take-off system and that is why the F-35 won the contest over the F-33.
Russians stole tech and copied the B-1A (Tu-160) copied the XB-70 (Tu-44) copied the B-29 (Tu-95), drone X-47B (Othoknik), NASA X-29 (Su- 47 Berkut), F-111 (Su-24/34), C-130 (IL-112V), P-51 Mustang (Yak -3), copied the Concorde (Tu-144), copied the atomic and hydrogen bombs , copied Space shuttles (Buran) copied whassap (Telegram), copied RUclips (RUclip) copied Google (Yandex) copied Facebook (VK) etc 😆
Russia is anti west , pure and simple.
Their continuos attacks on european elections , their targetted assasinations on European soil , etc.
Now they "joined" forces with the Devil...What worries Russia is the risk of falling under China's dominance. The Putin administration, which tries to foster pride in the greatness of Russia, operates on a principle of rejecting influence from all other countries in regard to its domestic policies..
Russia is basically a poor country whose Soviet legacy # allows it to continue to feel adequate compared to other third world countries. But not by much. 20 more years and it's over !!! Russia will always have a Stalinist character that seeks to have a dictatorial power. It's the way they roll. Pity his hundreds of years, past, present and future, of misery, poverty and utter despair. The reason why there is so much alcoholism in that country, more than in any other ... Hopelessness is what they live in Russia.
@@MonMalthias mashallah. Thank you.
@不過我拒絕 だが断る modern economics is a Western PsyOp, that is being unravelled.
I'm just happy to learn about the technology used...
I REALLY don't wanna find out which one wins in a fight.
Overall great job, I work with munitions and many of you detailed explanations have allowed me to understand the topic better than our technical orders
Really? I can't believe that!
Personally, I am very impressed with the Sukhoi SU-57. The Bureau continues its track record of excellence... The SU-57 may not be as bound to the 'orthodoxies' of stealth aircraft design as its American counterparts, but the compromises made are in service of maneuverability, durability, and the military doctrine of Sukhoi's main client. They make sense and many innovations can be found in its design.
I see it as a much more effective '5th Generation' fighter design than its Chinese rivals, which are far more derivative. If it can be produced in sufficient numbers, along with its newer sibling the Su-75, it will likely keep the Russian air force competitive for many years to come.
When the American '6th generation' fighters break cover, it will be interesting to see how the dynamics of air power change. Being first isn't always best, after all.
It's invisible. Because it isn't being made. Still doesn't have its engines and it sure as hell doesn't have a foreign buyer.
I think you are correct in your statement about high tech warfare being it’s own first casualty. Imagine two near peer high tech opponents coming at each other with all their radar/data links and jammers operating in full power combat mode.
Add UAV’s and decoys flying around + surface based threats and then take into account the combined closing rate of opponents flying at each other at 1,000kph or more each. You have an excellent chance of ending up in a WVR merge which is where the SU 57 shines.
Many actual fighter pilots who obviously know what’s up have also stated that two fighters both equipped with helmet sights and HOBS missiles have an excellent chance of a mutual kill , pilots can wave to each other on the parachute ride down if they are lucky enough to eject successfully!.
There are different levels of high technology where the premise that everyone is on similar paths might not hold true. In the US, the processing power and EW systems are ahead of everyone else, as is the antennae semiconductor technology and quality. There are entire segments of the SC market that aren’t allowed outside of their DoD contracts, and they have the best SC wafers with the most electron mobility. When you combine those baseline capabilities into sensors, weapons, and antennae used for EW, it gives you a qualitative edge that can’t be reached with hope or any form of patriotism. It just is, and is based on decades of aggressive development in closed enterprises.
Exactly. Against a capable opponents large number of support drones, and decoys will be used. Also by detecting the proximity of a stealth fighter the producer of the video is not taking account the EW, decoy and UAV enviroment.
Thank you so much for this video, it's very important to know the geopolitical situation behind when we speak about doctrines and their evolution in each country. I hope a lot that I won't meet too much "experts" of russian history and actual situation here in the comments section
My thoughts on the whole "future is BVR, who needs dogfighting? " is...
..Stealth will probably take away any BVR advantages, so that to fire a missile at a stealth plane, you need to be close enough to get a lock. meanwhile non stealthy planes are getting sneakier with RAM paints and jammers. So in the end, even though radars are also getting better, I don't think it will change much from today. If anything I think it might all in all bring the ranges closer.
But in the end, it all depends on what kind of tactics they use. Stealth is useless if you insist on flying at 30,000 feet with your radar on, but it's hard to use long range missiles when your engine is sucking up tree tops and making the air smell of fresh pine. To get the best out of any technology, it has to be used the right way.
To add to that, all of the "stealth" features are coincidentally exactly the same stuff that makes plane type recognition much more difficult.
And you can't go around blowing stuff out of the sky if you don't know if it's on your side or not.
@@CaptainDangeax You don’t need Within Visual Range PID when your long range PID is superior already. Things have changed a lot in that department. Especially with JSF, the ability to PID at extreme ranges is orders of magnitude better than even the F-22A, and the Raptor can do it better than legacy fighters by an order of roughly 4:1.
@@CaptainDangeax "Rafales detected and destroyed a convoy of Toyota pickups at a range of 55 kms using their front camera" - Don't see how that's related to the argument at hand. If anything, you're arguing that WVR has blended into BVR.
"non stealthy planes are getting sneakier with RAM paints and jammers" - RAM does not undo the fact that they have reflecting geometries and external weapons. Jammers also have the problem that they become a beacon that can be homed on.
@@CaptainDangeax The Rafale OSF and RBE2 AESA are far behind JSF EOTS, DAS, APG-81, and the passive RF sensors all fused together.
The combined AESA/EOTS/DAS imagery of surface or airborne TGTs is substantially better than the Rafale, and the Rafale is quite good in that area.
More impressive is the fact that F-35s in CENTCOM accidentally detected, geolocated, and PID'd a strategic threat TGT that dedicated spy planes and ISR platforms had been searching for, but could not find.
During initial testing of the JSF sensor suite, they detected and tracked multiple rocket launches at over 800 miles away. The AESA, EOTS, and DAS tracked those rockets into low earth orbit altitudes, tracked the booster stage separations, handed-off to the subsequent active motors, after gaining a track within 1 second of launch.
That was just 1 early testbed laboratory pre-LRIP, not even 2 production model JSF platforms with interleaved sensor-sharing.
You can literally watch the video of it.
As far as trucks go, JSF can detect and fused-sensor image them at much greater distances than Rafale can. RBE2 didn't even have radar ground map moving target indicator last I heard. Meanwhile, APG-81 is imaging and tracking individual people with GMTI, which is shared with the EOTS/DAS.
There's imagery of that as well. It's a next generation set of capabilities that exceed 4.5 Gen quite significantly.
I'm a military nerd so i love your content! Plz keep it comming.
8:07 note to self: the RCS is basically how big the plane is according to a radar.
SU57 is a capable beast indeed. Could you explain why the new wave of western drones chose not to use flying wing designs, whereas Russian and Chinese drones do?
I didn't notice that ...
Do you mean the current loyal wingman designs ? I'd guess that the B-2 style wing is more stealthy, but less manoeuvrable and possibly less capable of super-sonic speeds. The answer is likely to be based on the operating requirements being designed for.
Once again I'm late viewing another great vid you produced. Informative, funny and I loved the sarcasm! I have a question about the L-Band radar, how accurate is it detecting stealth? Is it hey its in front or center, to the right, to the left and does it give altitude and heading? Cheers and Levcons!
I want to thank you for VERY informative series, it is MUCH appreciated. As a citizen of country friendly with Russia and using Russian tech I am aware of their doctrine and can appreciate the time you invested in compiling all of the scattered data and presented it in very concise manner. Many things involved in military airplane tech I learned from you now, and in some cases it was eye opening.
Ignore the majority that can not see further then their noses, they are indoctrinated in school and by MSM media to NOT think, just parrot most patriotic slogans they can.
It was to expect that you get some mean comments as you tried to show the SU 57 as what it is. And it must be hard for these "But the internet sayes that X has Z times more Range as Y." guys to watch your videos. Thank you for this well put together series.
Just found your channel. Informative and funny, my favorite things.
Great video! People who love to boast about 'their own' forces and condescent on those of other countries tend to forget that it's not only the hammer that deals the blows but the one who yields it. So many military defeats - with Afghanistan as the most recent example - lie in the reverence of technological solutions and forgetting the most crucial part: the intelligent application of strategy and tactics. An art that's rapidly losing ground under the ongoing pressure of industry to buy ever more outlandish and expensive technology.
I really really need a channel like this
But sadly, when it comes to military topic on YT,
There are just bunch of biased(most of them are pro-us/west, to be exactly),or meaningless
VS comparison videos
Btw great work as always, sir.
This video series is great 👍
Thanks for this unbiased view and making a video of it.
Just love your channel. However, would it be possible to ask for an update on the Eurofighter as I havent seen any?
11:00 honestly they should leave some models with only that level of paint, looks great in all grey. I'd super doubt the "digital camo" paint ever makes a difference.
I really enjoyed the series. Thank you.
I've never seen one flying here in Germany. So maybe it IS invisible...
The best channel about modern aircraft ! Thank you for your work !!
Looking at Russia’s failures in Ukraine, I don’t think they’re the near peer adversary we all believed they were.
Good video, what do you think of the old Air Power Australia analysis of the SU-57? Do you have a view on the frontal X-band RCS of the SU-57 is compared to the F-35 and F-22?
Great video, it was needed to put down some fires. A different approach doesn't mean a bad approach (I had similar discussions with my wife) 😁
Sir, you always excels in your videos!
Given the shaping of the fuselage it looks like they are concentrating on being stealthy from the forward aspect. Since their IR sensor is on the front that suggests they intend to fly straight at a potential opponent. That the L band radars are spread out along the wings, and maybe even to the tips, I’m guessing they can beam steer and triangulate their signal for a more precise bearing (and altitude if they roll on their side). I don’t think the data sharing concept used in our F22s and F35s was lost on them, and two or more Su57s spread out over a klik or so would create a virtual antenna of considerable size and locating precision against one of our stealth fighters. As I noted before, their L bands are likely to be used in short blips to narrow down the section of sky that the IR sensor would then passively scan.
They may not be as stealthy from the rear as an F22, but extreme maneuverability can be as effective in breaking a missile lock as stealth, and could make the difference of who gets on whose six in the first place once distances are visual. The F22 is no slouch in the maneuverability department, but the Su57 is exceptional. I suspect we’ve got a peer opponent there.
One on one I think the Sukhoi would wax an F35, but F35s are optimized to fight in packs and we’re building a lot of them. Two Su57s could have a lot of trouble with 4 Lightnings.
..i forgot to say...it is magesticly beautifull in action!
I think GOODik is a bit of a fanboi...
Really it's just xenophobia if someone states they know that, without knowing any actual details about 2 respective aircraft, that the Russian one is "clearly worse" (especially despite the advantage of being much newer) or "a piece of junk".
Assuming their engineers, personnel & equipment is automatically the best, seems to be quite prevalent in American culture.
"despite the advantage of being much newer" - What? What does age have to do with anything?
@@ChucksSEADnDEAD The cumulative knowledge that's been gained in that time...? Plebs on the internet now have a rudimentary understanding of how low observability to radar works... All that stuff was top secret at the time the F-22 was being developed.
You can see what other nations have been doing with theirs & copy/adapt/inspire as suitable.
You get the benefit of advances in technology across the board like not being stuck with microprocessor designs from the 80's.
@@sergarlantyrell7847 "The cumulative knowledge that's been gained in that time...?" - So? We have more cumulative knowledge in 2021 than in the 1700s, but if you try to make a telescope right now it's probably going to be worse than what the craftsmen did centuries ago. Something being newer doesn't mean better. The expertise in the designers and builders, the budget constraints, etc. has a greater effect on the end result than the date on the calendar.
@@ChucksSEADnDEAD yeah if any old idiot tried to make it, but a company who specialises in telescopes now, heck even a trained engineer who's studies on the topic) is going to make a much better one than those 300 years ago.
Likewise planes are not designed by any old fools, they're designed by aerospace engineers working for companies/design bureaus who's speciality is just that.
Just because they're Russian, doesn't make them less of a subject matter expert.
That dude (GOODik) is a Ukrainian troll that just posts some negative crap on every single video about new Russian military.
The final?! But what about other components of the Su-57 system? Such as S-70?
It would be nice to see some videos about 'drone warfare' in general. And maybe several country specific videos.
I believe drones will be introduced with the 6th gen fighters. But only the US maybe some of their allies and possibly China will have access to that kind of strategy
The main doctrine should be. Never underestimate your enemy.
With a RCS between .1m and 1m according to Sukhoi, the answer is no, it’s more visible than even some 4th Gen fighters and that’s why some people struggle to even call it a 5th Gen fighter because it’s stealth is so poor. In comparison the F22 has an RCS of .0001m and the F35 an RCS of .005. Fun fact: the Su-57’s stealth(or lack thereof) was a primary reason why India pulled out of their joint project with Russia on the Su-57, stating that it lacked stealth and was poorly designed, amongst other things.
Another fun fact is that the Su-57 has the same RCS as that of a clean F/A-18 Super Hornet.
hello, lets talk non-stealth. the yak130 and Aermacchi M-346 Master/FA planes. particularly interested in M346 FA, how effective is it, specially for a developing country? better than a 3rd gen fighter? like the chinese f7 or russian mig-21? *(except the interceptor role)
5:25 i never thought it actually have missiles in under the wing area on both sides.
Low wave length doesn't give a weapons quality track though. That's the point of stealth. Not invisible but harder to detect and lock weapons onto. The f117 was primitive stealth but flew a lot of bombing sorties with minimal detection.
I got quoted! :) And the fanboy responses - they don't sway me much, either. Pitting hyperbole against hyperbole doesn't prove much. Though it was perhaps telling that the Su-57 was withdrawn from Syria after a very short stint Was it an opportunity for some "real-world" testing? Maybe, but that would be speculation - much like a lot of this series. Much like the Su-47 Berkut was going to be a major platform in the Russian Air Force. Insert slide-whistle sound here.
For context- Russia, 39% of GDP on military. US, 3.4%. And the US dollar amount is 12.6X Russia's. Of course, this is total defense spending, not specifically R&D and procurement.
@@fredmdbud Where do you come from? Su-57 was there for almost a year and a half. Su-47 was never considered the main platform, but was a test bench, during testing it turned out that its operation was too expensive. Russia's GDP is 1.5 trillion dollars and this is a separate conversation about how your GDP is calculated, 63 billion have been spent on armaments. Don't watch your fake news😁
great series i learned so much thanks
I really appreciate your point on doctrine- equipment doesn't exist in a vacuum. Got a sub out of me. Cheers!
Sukhoi fighter aircrafts have been fascinating since decades, most obviously with their unique maeuverability. They can't be the fastest nor the fastest accelerating ones at the same time, but taken into the overall picture, they seem to be superior in combat anyway. And if this wasn't enough, they are convincing with best cruising capabilities, what seems to be a major factor for such a big country. Before being able to do anything, one has first to move into the related area, within the shortest possible time, and the F35 is a lame duck in comparison, can never be able to fly very far away, could soon get terribly lost in such conditions. It is amazing to see all these properties combined in a new generation, that looks very differently at the same time, this is a really very well considered development, originated from the nation of the greatest chess players, is exactly what is being needed, as well for my own benefit here in Switzerland. I love many Americans for their open minds, that are in some cases even reaching deeply into the holy cow of theology, this is what the Russians should learn from them, to free themselves from such mostly wrongly beloved official anti-science. I want to see a strong Russia, of corse only in Russia, and probably true allies of a free choice, along with a strong America of a similar nature, and a strong and independent western and middle Europe, that is worthy to be called so. I'm looking back worried to the mentioned past times, while it is encouraging to observe how the turn around could be possible, and I'm enjoying the geopolitical silence, as it has grown with or from the increasing balance… thänks.
Trolls will be trolls
You being one I guess
The lower tolerances thing could also be a deliberate decision. Maintenance of the F35 is finicky largely because of the very high tolerances everything is put together to. While paying so much for an aircraft and cheaping out on the hanger seems stupid, if the country is relatively large having the expensive aircraft tied down to a single or even a couple of locations is a major down side. Even for smaller countries it is a defensive liability. There would be little point putting rugged landing gear on the aircraft if it also needed climate control for maintenance.
I'm beginning to believe that Russian doctrine is not particularly different, and that the super manoeuvrability is a cool side effect of thrust vectoring being used to avoid dangerous departure modes (important if you intend to sell it to poorly trained air forces). Good enough thrust vectoring could make pretty much anything fly, so thrust vectoring hides a multitude of sins. It does make for a good sales pitch though, which for an export aircraft is a big deal. On the off chance the visual range combat does occur it will help, but just because they say it is important doesn't necessarily mean the believe it.
In my layman opinion, i think that best thing about OVT is that it gives you much better maneuvering in very high altitudes where control surfaces just don't work as well because air is to thin. And those are the altitudes that you *need to* go to get range and speed when launching missiles for those BVR engagements.
@@uegvdczuVF Doesn't really make sense, because you want to be going as fast as possible which makes the control surfaces more effective. If you have enough air to get the lift required to stay up, you have enough air to use control surfaces, and if you don't then there is a decent chance you will flame out your engines anyway. I did wonder about the same thing for a while though.
The Russian execution of production is based on industrial limitations in their manufacturing sector. They can design aircraft with really tight tolerances, but they can’t produce them. They’re still using Su-35 assembly line technology for the Su-57, with a lot of out-dated processes that even the Chinese are looking down on.
If they had more than 8-9 flying it may be worth discussing, but they don't.
F22 is older than Russia (starts 1991, post USSR collapse).... thereby, it's epic that such a new country is building such jets!!
And what country was before USSR since like 9th century?)) after collapse Russia became successor of USSR and took over and paid off all the debts of the all former USSR.
Russia was one of the republics inside USSR. When USSR colapsed Russia still existed. So no, Russia is not a new state. Moreover Russia officially is a successor of USSR, Russian Empire and Rus.
@@fedorevdokimenko3978 - Epic nonetheless
@@nv3796 Not sure you understand what "epic" means. Check the dictionary.
@@amazonprimer2675 Ofcourse.. you're not sure about anything important... only nonsense
"L Band arrayS". have to stop you there. Just because two components are not right beside each other does not mean they are not part of the same system. I believe it far more probable that they are a two parts of a single array that are spaced that far apart to improve accuracy. This is hard to do in X band, but in L band could be done relatively easily. The same techniques that got us that black hole image can be used.
Interferometry and combing data electronically - can be very beneficial. However, you still end up with the question of how fast and how data can Russian computers process verses western ones. Too slow, as seems likely, means not real time and slow updates. Head on, from many km distance in the closing phase that might not matter at all. However, as the range closes and manoeuvre for advantage kicks in, the effectiveness will diminish. There will certainly be an area between visual and what we might call BVR under a stealthy situation where the F-35 (say) is undetected, when radar and IR data fusion is relied on by the pilot for their 3d spatial awareness. It's likely that western systems will fare better here.
@@nickbrough8335 Why would you think it would be any more complicated than any other phased array? The only difference is that you are missing some of the elements. It is still just a case of applying appropriate delay to each element. You can do some synthetic aperture tricks, but at the basic level they are not needed.
Signal processing is probably done on regular GPU hardware, not domestically produced. There is no reason to expect it to be substantially worse, especially as the code will largely be common with the ground based radars which are already a big seller for them.
Whether the gimbaling IRST is better than the f35 system is impossible to know, but being on a gimble the SU57 system could be expected to have better long range performance (all other things being equal) while the radar is able to provide a small search space to make up for the low field of view. I agree the western optics are probably better, but wouldn't be prepared to bet against the more focused Russian system picking up an F35 first, if the radar works well.
@@agsystems8220 In this case basic physics. Whatever way you analyse the radar, the number of individual arrays and the array density (combined with their inherent sensitivity) counts. A smaller array has less capability and given fixed position probably a restricted angle of "vision". If you use smaller multiple arrays to collect the dame data density as a single large array, you're adding extra data for the software to process as the field of view, beam angles etc all need to be adjusted for before you combine the data. In addition, the overall speed of processing (which comes down to radar solution, number of targets tracked etc) has its own very important effect. Slower computers require less data input, longer time to recalculate as the aircraft moves. It's very hard to believe current Russian electronic capability meets with current western standards standards, bandwidth or processing speed. The radar arrays tell you this already. Russian radars use higher power (and thereof more easily detected at range) and are physically larger and heavier than equivalent US systems. That tells us you Russian equipment is inferior, even if it turns out end performance ends up being the same (which is unlikely).
Russian electronics used to be mostly made in Ukraine and Russia has undergone a transition to domestic production as a result. They have bought western equipment (mostly French from what I've read) that has been integrated in esport Sukhoi's - most notably Indian versions), but there is little evidence that they use off the shelf western made components that I've read. Chinese processor designs also (currently) lag behind current western designs technically. Similarly there's no particular reason to think that Russian or Chinese made systems are somehow able to compensate for inherently less technical capability using software either.
@@nickbrough8335 So speaks the science PhD who explained in an argument with me that while you understood neither the math nor the physics involved, you were informed because you read what the experts had to say - and those were your very words. If you don't recall, I'm the PhD physicist that you accused of not understanding signal processing - based on words that I never said that you put in to my mouth - and discovered in your imagination that you understood the subject better than I do. And yet here you are again, arguing with the all of the personal authority of someone who knows radar math, physics, and numerical methods - and of course, all about embedded systems - when you simply know what you believe and you are once again, Mr Expert Thirdhand Source. Today's video was about you, Sky Admiral. Have a nice day.
PS - You have a lot of nerve lecturing people about basic physics. What's your PhD in, exactly? Expertology from the University of The Internet?
@@Ni999 but you're a self acknowledged genius. By the way you don't have to understand all the detail to appreciate the principles involved.
What's your PhD in ?
How about information on the tactics that are most likely to be used with the SU-57 and the tactics most likely to be used to counter it? I know there's not a ton of information available but it would make an interesting video.
My expectation is that it would be used as an anti-stealth escort for sorties of other types. Likely equipped with a wide array of sensor types on it's missiles. I believe the Russians have studied the Iran-Iraq war and make no bones about the idea of launching missiles as a defensive op, in a major engagement. That would mean, shoot first, even if the probability of a kill is very low. In fact especially in this instance, because it forces your opponent to become reactive.
At this point, accompanying aircraft would be more able to help in the engagement, due to flare use, and hotter engines on the opposing (Western) aircraft making them visible at longer ranges on IR sensors.
I'm never tired of repeating this: Nice video, as always!!!
Cheers from Brazil!
wow. i am impressed. this guy's unbiased commentaries really puts the Su-57 in a new light! I have come across non-stop jabs on the aircraft like the exposed rivets, RCS being equivalent to a clean F/A-18 (??), over emphasis on BVR blah blah...this video gave me a new perspective, and reminded me that the Russians, and the Soviets before them, engineer things differently.
At first I have to congratulate you for the quality of the videos and the accuracy of the information given. I have a request for a video on the subject of cost per flight hour for all the 4th and 5th generation fighters. F16, F18, F35, Rafale, Europhighter, Mig 35, Su 35 , Su57. There is no reliable information in RUclips on the subject. Thanks again.
CPFH is a very difficult and non-standardized metric to try to apply across different airframe designs, or even within an airframe series. I’ve studied it since the early 1980s, including macro to micro, primarily for the teen series and some other aircraft that were still in the force structure at the time (F-4G, F-111F, EF-111A, A-7D, etc.).
The CPFH on F-16A Adversaries used by the US Navy is much higher than later block F-16Cs in the USAF, if you look at DoD comptroller figures down to the dollar amounts.
The most overlooked omission regarding CPFH is that ancillary systems aren’t included in official reports, even though you aren’t really mission-capable without them.
An F-16C Block 50 CCIP Viper is non-mission capable for its primary set if it doesn’t have the LITENING pod, HARM Targeting Pod, and especially the centerline 800lb ECM pod-all of which are separately accounted for and maintained by different shops. They aren’t included in MC rates. Just the airframes are.
Even for the early 1980s, an F-16A without ECM pod would be extremely limited in what it could do.
So when you see F-16 = X CPFH, know right away that number is totally bogus and mostly meaningless.
With the F-35A/B/C, you can’t hide any of those systems costs because all of them are embedded into the airframes. The FLIR is in the nose with EOTS. EW systems are all embedded into the sensor/processor/countermeasures configuration that is basic to the airframe.
Generally, your twin-engine fighters cost more to operate for obvious reasons.
Older fighters cost more because they’re hitting the edge of the bathtub graph where they start seeing more systems replacements, component wear, structural problems, and requirements for SLEP.
Newer fighters initially cost more because they require new logistics, training, maintenance infrastructure, with limited spare parts. Once the organization gets into a stride, the costs come way down on newer jets.
It would be really impossible to compare all of those you listed though.
There’s a movement to look at cost per effects vs CPFH.
For example, a cheap lightweight fighter with minimal systems like the A-10 looks great in CPFH, until they start getting shot down in even a lower threat IADS, with very limited mission profiles they can contribute to the overall force. That’s a high-cost platform at that point when you start losing airframes and pilots, who can’t even go deep due to the higher threat IADS. That’s exactly what happened in Desert Storm. They had to be grounded.
It would make an interesting video if people with a lot of maintenance and program management experience covering decades were interviewed.
@@LRRPFco52 Thank you very much for the enlightening reply. I'm looking forward for a video or individual interviews on the subject. Presently my motherland Greece decided to purchase the Rafale. It's a very good platform and you have made nice videos about it. But in my humble opinion because of the CPFH I think it will destroy the Greek Greek airforce. The high cost to operate it will force the government to cut training hours and the biggest advantage of our airforce wich is the good pilots is going to vanish. From what I have heard the best choice was the F18 super hornet. And by the way it was the choice of the Greek airforce since 1978 but canceled from the socialist government in 80s . I will like to have your opinion on this. Thanks again. You are doing a marvelous job.
@@chryslym1391 For clarification, I didn't make this video.
Looking at the Greek Rafale deal, it's 2.5 Billion Euros for 12 used Rafales, and 6 new production models.
That's $168.9 million USD unit program cost, which is pretty high. The India Rafale deal for new ones is $213 million unit program cost. Unit flyaway cost is $144 million per on Rafale F4 latest variants.
As you know, Hellenic and Turkish Air Forces have been skirmishing with each other for decades, shooting and maneuvering each other into crashes several times.
There has been relative parity between the 2 air forces flying F-16Cs and Mirage 2000s. Rafale will allow the Hellenic Air Force to fly circles around the Turks but at a very high cost.
Dassault told India they are committed to getting the Rafale CPFH down to $25,000. I've seen French reports of it being 27,000 euros/hr.
The method for assessing CPFH varies drastically depending on whether lifetime costs are amortized into the figure. That usually doubles the CPFH and is very confusing for people who aren't familiar with defense acquisition and O&M costs.
France did really well for themselves with that deal with Greece because they're selling used Rafales at $168.9 million per, which goes into modernizing the French Air Force.
It reminds me of the deal where Germany sold used Tranche 1 Typhoons to Austria at insane prices, and now Austria is trying to get rid of them due to excessive maintenance costs with no capability other than IR missiles. They got raped.
@@LRRPFco52 I think the price included the weapons. But anyway they are expensive. And unfortunately this government was out of options. The France was refusing to provide spear parts for the Mirage 200 as far as I know. Unless they will get the Rafale. But 27.000 is already to much and I think the real number is the double as you said. But this is the result of a bad designation in 1985 to get the Mirage 2000. The first bad decision derives to the other. Thanks again. You know the military aviation subject very well I think. At the beginning I thought you are the creator of the video replying from a different email address.
@@chryslym1391 Mirage 2000 airframe is rated to 5,000hrs, then extended to 7,500. That helps keep costs down, whereas the US typically demands a minimum of 8,000hrs for fighter airframes.
That could be part of the reason for turning the faucet off on Mirage 2000 in Greece, in addition to financing the Dassault production line as a strategic industrial base for France with new Rafales for them, and used early model Rafales for Greece.
The Mirage 2000 depot maintenance schedule for overhauls is based on a 900hr or 3 year cycle, so assuming 300 flight hours/year/airframe.
That gives you 16yrs, 8 months of service on the 5000hr life, 25 years on the 7500hr extension, assuming no over-g incidents or corrosion-induced fatigue of critical structures on the airframe, with regularly-scheduled mx as prescribed by the manufacturer.
I thought the Mirage 2000 would have a higher structural life certification being a delta wing, but cost and materials must have dictated its rating.
Depending on how many hours have been flown and how many "hard hours" with the French, those used birds might actually be more expensive long-term than new Rafales.
Say you get airframes that French pilots have been trying to bend doing BFM and DACT against coalition partners, been pushed hard in Afghanistan or Africa in harsh environments over the past 10 years.
If they already have 3000-5000hrs on the frames, what's the expected life moving forward and what's the Cost Per Airframe Life Hour?
How are the French pilots treating those frames right now?
"Jaques! These birds are going to those dirty Greeks, so we can run them ragged like rented mules! Pull all the gs! We're getting brand new F4 variants hot off the line, paid for with Greek money!!"
There are only a little over 200 Rafales ever built. Which ones will France transfer over?
It would be interesting the hear your comments on how the Su-57 would be used in a conflict
Nice video. I like your style 👍
When i look at the su 57 i can't help but think... Stick Clint Eastwood in it and you've got Firefox.
I think that as stealth technology progresses, the effectiveness of bar tactics will become more and more diminished while wvr tactics will become more and more viable
Bravo, beautifully clear video another 13 minutes of my life well spent, just worth it for the metaphor on discussions on RCS and "size"... 😂
What an educational presentation. Thank you bro
Su 57 is more like an extremely capable 4++ zen fighter than a stealth jet.
More like 5+ with the Izd30
@@johnathancooper3897more like barely on the same footing as the eurofighter lol
Great information! Just great!!
Thanks for your calm response, your a very good aircraft specialist!
can you talk about the area in thr rearbetween the engine exhaust what is inside this area and how is it used
i think he mentioned in another video that there might be another radar array in the tail, but there are no sources available to support this.
Excellent video!
One of the best episodes 'till now! Congrats
Well done. I have the highest respect for Russian technology. The SU57 is easy on the eyes.
Russian tech is overrated
I've seen the assumption of the "no internal bays" about the Su-57 is due that there are no pictures or videos of it around that are "not photoshoped". It is easy to say that if the Su-57 didn't really have internal bays or was not stealth, why it was developed in the first place? They could just improve the Su-35, right?
As an aircraft afficiasonado
Your comments,, your inability to grasp the wonderful information this gentleman provides. He is additional sense of humour
If someone wasn’t aware that one of the main design features of the Su-57 included internal weapons bays, they didn’t do even any basic research.
Great Video!
Can never tell with any new plane, how it will perform until Air Combat. And stealth in the theatre against another super power? will be another learning curve.
The biggest actual issue with the Su-57 is that it seems to be "too late" for lack of a better term. By the time it's actually going to be combat ready in any significant numbers, numerous 6th gen airframes, including probably Russia's own version, will be either in the prototyping stage or close to it. It's a beautiful aircraft and is no doubt capable, especially with the new engine refit, but it's probably destined to be a relatively lightly used plane that fades away, as opposed to a massive air-superiority platform as Russia originally hoped.
Su 57 will be modernised, that is the answer
A new "generation" appearing still doesn't mean the end of the previous one, just have a look at how the F-22A is being superseded by none other, than the F-15...
@@lape2002 The F-15 is not superseding it, the NGAD is. The F-15 is a stopgap measure, a source of fresher F-15 airframes that can be handed down to the air national guard, and a little welfare tossed Boeing's way.
The 6th generation gonna be unmanned but actually we don't know how the conflict between serious countries can go. In case of using EW and anti satellite weapons different UAV systems can fail.
Congrats to my country for securing its 14 Su-57 deal along with other 14 Su-35 & 14 Su-34 deals & for being the 1st costumer to own those wonderful fighter jets. All the best...
India?
Typical RUclips comments section 😄. I've been enjoying this content 🙂👌
fun fact: a quantum leap is the smallest possible distance any article can travle at once. its literarely the smallest possbile size.
Millenium- what would you say to the thesis that No air force, and I think especially the US air force, has no good reason to give out any really complex information about stealth design, stealth use, stealth management or maintenance, et cetera, and so we get the sorts of tidbits of information which fit into a small picture in the newspaper?
You won't know anything that is really useful in combat ... you will get only what can be already inferred or seen by pictures. Industry marketing, though, may make claims that shed some more light. It can't be any different.
Notice that the best weapon is no a secret one, it is a public one that let you wondering "how effective is it?".
I suspect the Su-57 will play a big role in seeking and destroying ships and AWACS that are approaching Russian territory....all while flying undetected. On Russian soil, the Su-35 will be Russia's top fighter (with the S-400 supporting it).
That may well be the intention, but it doesn't mean it will be successful. Any AWACS or ECM aircraft deployed will be supported by F-22 or F-35 forward defence as well as integrating data collected from both ground based and other airborne radar systems within the operating environment. Long range missile system are likely to detected inbound for a considerable time period and subject to electronic warfare attack (by defending F-35 or the AWACS aircraft or both) followed by AIM-120 D attack before the AWACS itself needs to take evasive action.
@@nickbrough8335 The AWACS will be defended well for sure. Hypersonic missiles fired by the Su-57 from a good distance is going to be a major problem though. In terms of homeland defence, Russia has no peer at the moment, imho.
@@carlcueto2689 Possibly. The "hypersonic" missile is very large) too large for an Su-57 to carry in its weapons bat so far as I can see), which makes detection and targeting easier in practice.
How effective are EW systems are ? I don't know. I think we also have to consider laser weapons will be deployed relatively soon. At high altitude, these ought to be pretty effective at destroying the electronic systems our doing other damage to the missile.
Unlike with hypersonic (or supersonic) anti ship missiles at near sea level (which cuts detection and defence time to seconds) at 150km an aircraft has (comparatively) a long time to defence or evade a missile on a balletic trajectory.
On homeland defence, i think otherwise. The Russian airforce is capable, but lacks sufficient numbers to defend in depth across such a wide area.
Airborne cruise missiles fired outside Russian airspace in large numbers simultaneously or a series of waves, targeting key logistic sites would be very hard to defeat in practice. Russian offensive capability against European targets on the same tactical basis needs to penetrate western airspace by hundreds of kms to achieve a similar effect and they actually have lower aircraft numbers and lower capability overall.
Mig31bm as interceptor would be a better choice to detect and destroy AWACS, since it has no stealth, but powerful radar, great speed and very long range missiles so it can (in theory) zoom in, attack AWACS from 200+km and zoom out. Mig31k can do something similar against high value surface targets from 800+km. Su57 on the other hand to stay stealthy would have to be a lot slower, carry more compact missiles and limit its radar usage.
Su57 can add value to any mission and help any other russian asset, so imo its not a solo player, but force multiplier (given how few of them are atm ordered).
@@Daokl The Mig-31 will no doubt accompany the Su-57. I imagine the Mig-31’s radar sharing the location of the AWACS with the Su-57, firing missiles and then getting out of the area ASAP. The Su-57 will stay behind and ensure that the AWACS is destroyed, even firing missiles of its own at a closer yet safe distance for good measure.