Chinese aircraft designer: Su-57 in a battle with F-35 does not have to be invisible

193
On the channel of China's State Television, a material was published on the development of fifth-generation fighter programs. The material presents the opinion of the chief designer of the Shenyang Aircraft Research Institute Wang Yongqing. A specialist in the field of aviation spoke about the fifth-generation Russian aircraft Su-57.

Chinese aircraft designer: Su-57 in a battle with F-35 does not have to be invisible




Recall that in the Chinese aviation platform, fifth-generation airplanes belong to the 4 generation.

Wang Yongqing is developing the latest Chinese invisible fighter J-31. In the future, this aircraft is planned to be made part of the aircraft wing of the PLA Navy aircraft carriers, including the Type001A aircraft carrier, which should be part of the Chinese naval fleet after a few months.

Wang Yongqing, sharing his thoughts on the Su-57, noted that this Russian aircraft is truly unique. According to the aircraft designer, the concept of the Russian fighter is such that the aircraft ultimately surpasses foreign, including Chinese, aircraft in a number of parameters, the same J-31 and J-20. In particular, it is noted that Su-57 may soon receive a hypersonic weapon, which has no analogues in China or the United States.

After such statements by the Chinese designer in the Chinese edition of the Global Times, a material was published criticizing his words. In particular, it is stated that "the Su-57 assembly line itself is in doubt."

From the material:
In Russia, only 10-12 of such aircraft is acquired. They are being tested. And according to some information, the Sukhoi aircraft manufacturers create each Su-57 fighter almost by hand, which leads to a rough build quality.


At the same time, the material of the Chinese edition noted that "despite the fact that China has bypassed Russia in terms of creating the latest combat fighters, the experience of creating the Su-57 can be adopted." This idea was supported by the same Wang Yongqing:
Possessing an innovative aerodynamic design and the ability to control thrust vectoring, Sukhoi attaches great importance to supersonic cruising capabilities and super-maneuverability. The concept of the US next-generation fighter stresses attacks from outside the detection of aircraft, but while American missiles will fly in the direction of the Su-57, it has plenty of time to get away from the strike. He will be helped in this by the new radar, which is able to track missile launches from fairly large distances.


Wang Yongqing notes that invisibility for the Su-57, which in China is often called the weak point of Russian fighters, is not particularly needed in such conditions. It is noted that if the American F-22 or F-35 enters the Su-57 visibility zone, in this case they themselves become vulnerable, including due to the super-maneuverability of the Russian fighter, which will significantly increase after setting on it the engines of the "second stage" .

At the same time, in China, the main problem in the development of the J-20 and J-31 fighter programs is precisely the engines. And what about the Chinese side with other parameters?

The implementation of the Russian and Chinese programs of the 5 fighter generation for the Military Review was commented by a member of the presidium All-Russian organization "Officers of Russia"major general aviation Mikhail Makaruk:

- We must pay tribute to the Chinese designers and scientists in the field of aviation technician - they use not only the achievements of Soviet and Russian aircraft, but also the achievements of designers from other countries of the world. And they have superiority in some parameters. But to say that the new Chinese aircraft J-20 and J-31 surpass the Russian Su-57 definitely can not.

It is necessary to compare individual parameters: flight duration, aircraft engine resource, the ability to detect radar targets, aircraft invisibility, and others. Some parameters may be better, some worse. But I cannot say that these Chinese fighters are superior to the latest Russian samples in the complex.

The Chinese have used, use and will use our achievements, and not only Russian, but also from other countries. The USSR and Russia helped China a lot in space and aviation, but if they surpass us in some way, I think it will be useful for us to analyze these achievements and realize them in the interests of combat use at a new stage in the development of domestic aircraft industry.

If we assume that the Chinese and Russian fighters would meet in battle, then I think the Chinese would not have a comprehensive success. We must believe in the combat potential and combat capabilities of Russian pilots.
193 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. -23
    1 February 2019 12: 04
    The Su-57 is nothing more than a platform for testing key solutions for a promising domestic fighter (aerodynamic layout, omnidirectional UVT engines, optoelectronic location, Hunter-type artificial intelligence, ground targets, etc.).

    The serial fighter will have at least a different aerodynamic scheme, since the Su-57 scheme is unsuccessful in terms of stealth technology.
    1. +4
      1 February 2019 12: 05
      No need to discount the advantages of the aircraft noted by a Chinese expert.
      1. -8
        1 February 2019 13: 08
        Quote: bessmertniy
        No need to discount the advantages of the aircraft noted by a Chinese expert.

        The whole point is stealth - I saw it before, I shot it earlier. You can perform missile defense maneuvers as much as you like, but until you shoot yourself you won’t win. Americans are not stupid, at least this is indicated by their position on the world stage, no one will climb into the near maneuverability on airplanes designed for another.
        1. +30
          1 February 2019 13: 43
          Well, yes, well, yes, under Khrushchev, they also thought that with the advent of explosive rockets, fighters would not engage in maneuverable battles, took off guns, but practice showed differently, that fighters even engaged in maneuverable battles, so they had to urgently hang cannon containers. It’s the same here. Stealth stealth and maneuverability and guns are also needed
          1. -3
            1 February 2019 15: 39
            Quote: Klingon
            under Khrushchev, they also thought that with the advent of explosive rockets, fighters would not engage in maneuver battles

            Think of cavalry instead of tanks at the beginning of the 41st. Combat tactics and weapons are rapidly improving. Now the aircraft alone maneuver from missiles is not enough, because rockets can afford more serious overloads. For example, the Russian R-73M, has a loading capacity of 40 g, At the same time, the pilot faints even at 9 g,
            1. +13
              1 February 2019 17: 35
              Medium and long-range missiles with overloads that are many times greater than the pilot's overload capabilities have been around for a long time. The experience of using such missiles has shown that their effectiveness against fighters is low. During the Ethiopian-Eritrean war, pilots from both sides fired a mass of medium R-27 missiles from a large (maximum) distance with zero result. However, when the pilots of Ethiopian Su-27 fighters began to approach the enemy and attack Eritrean aircraft at short range with the help of short-range missiles R-73 (AA-11 Archer), they often destroyed the target.
              The greater the distance from which the rocket launches, the less the effect of surprise and the longer the anti-ballistic maneuver. Long-range missiles can only be shot with low-maneuverable targets: DLRO aircraft, bombers, cargo military aircraft, etc.
              1. -1
                1 February 2019 23: 17
                Quote: wisealtair
                fired a mass of medium R-27 missiles with large (maximum)


                Then the missiles did not have radio command homing.
          2. +5
            1 February 2019 18: 10
            Quote: Klingon
            Well, yes, well, yes, under Khrushchev, too, they thought that with the advent of explosive rockets, fighters would not engage in maneuverable battles, took off their guns, but practice showed another thing that fighters very much engaged in maneuverable battles, so it had to be urgently
            In those days, about which you write, we did not shoot anything, but the Americans, yes, took off all the cannon-machine gun weapons. Moreover, they put machine guns (as many as 6 pieces). which in our planes only made holes, unlike our guns, which completely tear off the wing!
            1. +2
              1 February 2019 18: 47
              on ours were NR / NS-23/37 later GS and as far as I know the caliber did not drop below 23 mm, correct if wrong (YakB 4-barrel on the Mi-24D does not count)
              1. +2
                1 February 2019 19: 40
                Quote: Klingon
                on ours were NR / NS-23/37 later GS and as far as I know the caliber did not drop below 23 mm, correct if wrong (YakB 4-barrel on the Mi-24D does not count)

                But what about the HP-30?
                1. +2
                  1 February 2019 20: 32
                  Well, yes there are both HP-30 and GSH-30-2; I mean on our aircraft there is no caliber of aviation guns less than 23mm. unless of course my knowledge is wrong
                  1. +3
                    1 February 2019 20: 56
                    Quote: Klingon
                    Well, yes there are both HP-30 and GSH-30-2; I mean on our aircraft there is no caliber of aviation guns less than 23mm. unless of course my knowledge is wrong

                    We didn’t have guns smaller than 23 mm in principle, so don’t worry drinks
                    1. 0
                      1 February 2019 22: 56
                      Quote: Doliva63
                      We didn’t have guns smaller than 23 mm in principle, so don’t worry

                      good Less than 23 mm - this is a heavy machine gun, and not a gun
                      1. +1
                        2 February 2019 20: 29
                        Quote: helmi8
                        Quote: Doliva63
                        We didn’t have guns smaller than 23 mm in principle, so don’t worry

                        good Less than 23 mm - this is a heavy machine gun, and not a gun

                        In some places there were 20 mm cannons, and still seem to be practicing laughing
                      2. 0
                        2 February 2019 23: 44
                        Quote: Doliva63
                        Somewhere met 20 mm guns

                        We there were no guns less than 23 mm in principle

                        How would I talk about it ... smile
                    2. +1
                      2 February 2019 07: 52
                      In modernity or in general? Historically - of course there were, ShVAK, for example
                      1. 0
                        2 February 2019 20: 33
                        Quote: Left Shot
                        In modernity or in general? Historically - of course there were, ShVAK, for example

                        I mean during the SA. When everything has settled down. And earlier - throwing in search of the optimal solution.
                    3. 0
                      3 February 2019 01: 40
                      Specify that after 1945. In general, there were 20 mm ShVAK and B-20
          3. 0
            1 February 2019 21: 21
            Melee and a gun for an airplane, the same as a gun for a pilot! These are the last arguments in the battle, and if you don’t have them, you are a corpse! Yes hi soldier
            1. 0
              1 February 2019 21: 35
              * stylet of last resort bully
            2. +4
              2 February 2019 00: 02
              Quote: Gillaton
              Melee and a gun for an airplane, the same as a gun for a pilot! These are the last arguments in the battle, and if you don’t have them, you are a corpse! Yes hi soldier


              "The dagger is good for the one who has it, and woe to the one who does not have it at the right moment ..." (c) White sun of the desert.
            3. 0
              2 February 2019 16: 12
              Do not tell A-10 with its meat grinder from half a kilometer of "betera" holes like cans.
              1. 0
                2 February 2019 21: 08
                one and there are cans .. this is not a tank
                1. 0
                  3 February 2019 11: 52
                  It’s from the top of the tank as a can
                  1. 0
                    3 February 2019 22: 03
                    and I mean ...
        2. +10
          1 February 2019 15: 41
          Quote: Vol4ara
          Quote: bessmertniy
          No need to discount the advantages of the aircraft noted by a Chinese expert.

          The whole point is stealth - I saw it before, I shot it earlier. You can perform missile defense maneuvers as much as you like, but until you shoot yourself you won’t win. Americans are not stupid, at least this is indicated by their position on the world stage, no one will climb into the near maneuverability on airplanes designed for another.

          Something I do not understand you. Stealth is a stealth technology that has nothing to do with early detection. If a stealth plane "fills" with radar in all directions, then it is not stealth, from the word at all. The whole point of the battle of two stealth fighters, if they meet, it will be within line of sight, i.e. a maneuverable battle cannot be avoided. What is not enough in the F-35 concept?
          That's right, well done, - Maneuverability.
          1. 0
            1 February 2019 17: 48
            Quote: 17085
            If a stealth plane "fills" with a radar in all directions, then it is not stealth, from the word at all.

            Learn materiel - read about the LPI radar mode.
            1. +3
              1 February 2019 18: 15
              Passing, so what? I saw the FU-35 su-57 before, launched the rocket and ... The SU-57 saw and froze in place and say to the rocket: Et not me! Hare next! ... laughing
              1. -7
                1 February 2019 18: 25
                There is a big difference between an air show and a real air battle, all of these bells and cobras have dubious practical value.
                1. +4
                  1 February 2019 22: 53
                  Every day, Israeli pilots use VP figures as relief requires. And by the way, sorties f-35 minuscule, compared with f-16.
                2. +3
                  1 February 2019 23: 02
                  Quote: Passing by
                  There is a big difference between an air show and a real air battle, all of these bells and cobras have dubious practical value.

                  Come by.
                3. +2
                  2 February 2019 05: 41
                  Quote: Passing by
                  There is a big difference between an air show and a real air battle, all of these bells and cobras have dubious practical value.

                  Brain obstruction ... Your comments certainly do not carry any value.
                  Because of the "cobra" in 90-95% of cases, aviation anti-aircraft missiles in service (both in our country and abroad) will lose their target. "Bell" - with the transition to a controlled spin, this is generally a miracle. You can watch / read how it is used in modern air combat schemes.
                  In general, read more ...
                  1. +1
                    2 February 2019 16: 07
                    Quote: 17085
                    Your comments certainly do not carry any value.

                    At least my comments are based on sobriety, and not like yours, on rampant fantasies.
                    What 90%, what are you talking about? When exactly were there studies on this topic, or at least who composed the theoretical assessment methodology? The same sofa analyte?
                    Turn on the brain, and try to understand how exactly the maneuver of the bell or cobra synchronize with the timing of the missile attack? Manually? It will be a circus number, and not a regular reception of an ordinary pilot. This circus has no practical value.
                    1. 0
                      2 February 2019 19: 35
                      Quote: Passing by
                      Quote: 17085
                      Your comments certainly do not carry any value.

                      At least my comments are based on sobriety, and not like yours, on rampant fantasies.
                      What 90%, what are you talking about? When exactly were there studies on this topic, or at least who composed the theoretical assessment methodology? The same sofa analyte?
                      Turn on the brain, and try to understand how exactly the maneuver of the bell or cobra synchronize with the timing of the missile attack? Manually? It will be a circus number, and not a regular reception of an ordinary pilot. This circus has no practical value.

                      Why manually?
                      https://weapon.temadnya.com/1239129008268380281/aviatsionnye-stantsii-preduprezhdeniya-o-raketnoj-atake/
                      Read more ...
                      1. +1
                        2 February 2019 22: 08
                        Quote: 17085
                        Read more ...

                        What are you saying, but I didn’t know about Birch since the nineties, you just opened my eyes to me, you are our enlightener ...
                        I repeat once again in other words, in case the problem is not obvious to you - how to synchronize the time of hovering and the moment of rocket launch? Given the various possible speeds and ranges of the aircraft and the rocket among themselves?
                        Those. if we hang too soon, then we will have to pick up speed again, and accordingly we will become visible, too late, too, will not do.
                        In addition, cruising will take place at speeds much higher than flights at an air show, and accordingly, it will take much longer to slow down to zero, and there may simply not be enough time to maneuver.
                      2. 0
                        4 February 2019 22: 28
                        The logic is reinforced concrete, I’ll go further ...
                        Not very smart customers, ordered from not far-off designers, and workers whose hands are growing, not like you have a very educated and enlightened one, but from a completely different place, blinded a volley. BUT, a man came and opened his eyes to everyone.

                        Quote: Passing by

                        There is a big difference between an air show and a real air battle, all of these bells and cobras have dubious practical value.


                        And interfere in the argument at a glance, taking the phrase out of context ...
                        Since you do not want to read, go have a drink. drinks
            2. +2
              1 February 2019 20: 30
              Quote: Passing by
              Learn materiel - read about the LPI radar mode.

              You do not take into account the main thing - situations where both aircraft go at each other with a radar in passive mode. How then to see someone? That's right - the advantage will be for someone who will support their own ground-based radars by transmitting the coordinates of the target, so draw conclusions ...
            3. +2
              1 February 2019 23: 00
              Quote: Passing by
              Learn materiel - read about the LPI radar mode.

              Read about "container" radio radars - they generally don't care about stealth.
            4. +1
              2 February 2019 05: 35
              Quote: Passing by
              Quote: 17085
              If a stealth plane "fills" with a radar in all directions, then it is not stealth, from the word at all.

              Learn materiel - read about the LPI radar mode.

              Do not distort. I'm talking about stealth, not LPI. At what distance will the two aircraft find each other if they use only LPI equipment and are conditionally stealth? They will collide, but they will not see anything.
              1. 0
                4 February 2019 21: 44
                Are you serious? Probably a Merarian education? If your radar does not see itself, this does not mean that the enemy does not see you either. It’s the same as relieving the need in full view of everyone by closing their eyes and at the same time thinking that no one is seeing you. laughing good
                1. 0
                  4 February 2019 22: 15
                  Quote: alexneg
                  Are you serious? Probably a Merarian education? If your radar does not see itself, this does not mean that the enemy does not see you either. It’s the same as relieving the need in full view of everyone by closing their eyes and at the same time thinking that no one is seeing you. laughing good

                  Some kind of nonsense ... What are you talking about? You have problems with logic, and maybe not only ...
                  1. 0
                    4 February 2019 22: 18
                    So I was right. If you think straightforwardly, it will be difficult for you to understand. Perhaps the exam is to blame? I have excellent Boolean algebra (this is about logic), I program controllers and partly with artificial intelligence.
          2. +1
            1 February 2019 22: 33
            Quote: 17085
            The whole point of the battle of two stealth fighters, if they meet, it will be within the line of sight,

            You forget about the FMR. On the 40 km of the plane, visually not yet visible, but the IR signature is already drawn ....
            So, "not all black is visible at night!" (from)
          3. -1
            2 February 2019 19: 54
            Quote: 17085
            What is not enough in the F-35 concept?
            That's right, well done, - Maneuverability.

            Sure? Read reviews of the same Norwegians. There is more agility than F16 - and this is a very agile machine.
            1. 0
              4 February 2019 22: 18
              Quote: Pimply
              Sure? Read reviews of the same Norwegians. There is more agility than F16 - and this is a very agile machine.

              I meant that the F-35 is not as maneuverable as the Su-57, about the F-16 did not even think ...
              1. 0
                10 February 2019 14: 47
                Quote: 17085
                I meant that the F-35 is not as maneuverable as the Su-57, about the F-16 did not even think ...

                Americans are betting on weapons, trompe l'oeil and EW. Look at their nomenclature of weapons at least.
                1. 0
                  10 February 2019 14: 59
                  Quote: Pimply
                  Quote: 17085
                  I meant that the F-35 is not as maneuverable as the Su-57, about the F-16 did not even think ...

                  Americans are betting on weapons, trompe l'oeil and EW. Look at their nomenclature of weapons at least.

                  I do not argue. They just have no other choice. But no one forbids the Su-57 to possess the same that, in principle, along with its inherent characteristics, it puts a F-35 one step higher, I think even the F-22.
        3. +2
          1 February 2019 16: 00
          Quote: Vol4ara
          The whole point of stealth - I used to see, I used to shoot

          So the Su-57 will fire earlier. And much earlier. A) his radar sees almost 2 times farther than the F-22. At the same time, the RCS is almost the same - 0.4 m2 for the F-22 and 0.5 m2 for the Su-57. That is, our aircraft will detect the enemy much earlier. B) The range of air-to-air missiles is also much greater for our aircraft. > 300 km versus 120 km for the F-22. And this is without taking into account the developed hypersonic "mini-Dagger" C) In close combat, all the more, F has no chances
          1. -5
            1 February 2019 17: 39
            Quote: Aretov.S.
            he sees the radar almost 2 times farther than that of the F-22.
            Oh really? What are you saying? And do they know about this?
            1. +4
              1 February 2019 18: 21
              Quote: Back
              Quote: Aretov.S.
              he sees the radar almost 2 times farther than that of the F-22.
              Oh really? What are you saying? And do they know about this?

              Do you know about this? No? So know.
          2. -5
            1 February 2019 18: 01
            Quote: Aretov.S.
            In this case, the EPR is almost the same - 0.4 m2 for the F-22 and 0.5 m2 for the Su-57.

            0,4 m2 is nonsense. Just turn on the logic, if non-stealth fourth-generation aircraft such as Rafal or Eurofighter have an EPR of about 0,5 m2, then how can an EPR stealth aircraft have the same?
            So there will be no 300 km of destruction range, but 30-60 km.
            1. +2
              1 February 2019 18: 32
              There's no such thing. 4+, Rafal and Su-35 EPR 1-1.5 m2

              Quote: Passing by
              So there will be no 300 km of destruction range, but 30-60 km.

              AHAHAHAHAHA
              1. -3
                1 February 2019 19: 03
                It makes no sense to argue over specific numbers, because official data do not exist. But, the order is clear, in the area of ​​a square meter, plus or minus. And then it makes sense to fence a super expensive stealth structure, with coatings and constant coating of joints, to get not 1 m2, but 0,4 m2? There is no sense, therefore, we turn on the logic, and we understand that the meaning appears if the EPR is reduced by an order or two. And for an EPR of 0,01 m2, the detection range drops from the conventional 300 km to the conventional 30 km (you can count more accurately, but laziness), and there is nothing funny here, on the contrary, it’s right to shout the guard.
                1. 0
                  1 February 2019 20: 33
                  Quote: Passing by
                  And then it makes sense to fence a super expensive stealth structure, with coatings and constant coating of joints, to get not 1 m2, but 0,4 m2?

                  Because not from 1m -> 0.4, but from 5-6 m2 -> 0.4m (and 0.3 for a slightly smaller F-35). For 1-1.5m is EPR 4+ (+) machines with already partial stealth - Su-35, Rafal, etc.

                  Quote: Passing by
                  meaning appears if you reduce the EPR by an order or two

                  Impossible. Already squeezed everything they could and rested

                  Quote: Passing by
                  And for an EPR of 0,01 m2, the detection range drops from the conventional 300 km to the conventional 30 km


                  I repeat, impossible. Such an EPR is only possible for stealth versions of some missiles and bombs. For example, the composite and small bomb GBU-39 EPR are just 0.01 m2
                  1. 0
                    1 February 2019 22: 57
                    You are mistaken. In the definition of EPR, the coefficient is important. absorption coating. And there are already quite breakthroughs, including with absorption / reflection of more than 10000 to 1.
                2. 0
                  4 February 2019 21: 49
                  ESR 0,01 m2 for what wavelength? Do not tell me? Or are the laws of physics no longer working?
              2. 0
                2 February 2019 11: 03
                As soon as the F-35 is used with external suspensions, its EPR grows to the values ​​of F-18 .... and then Rafal ...
            2. 0
              2 February 2019 11: 02
              Even the diagram showed somewhere that the ESR of Su57 was somewhere near Rafal ... reprints from Western publications. Who knows the true EPR of the invisible?
              1. 0
                2 February 2019 11: 16
                Quote: Zaurbek
                Who knows the true EPR of the invisible?

                Su-57 - 0.5 m2
                F-22 - 0.4 m2
                F-35 - 0.3 m2 (due to its smaller size than that of F-22)
                F-117 I don’t know for sure, I’ll assume that it is similar to the F-35, maybe a bit lower. 0.2-0.3 m2


                Normal version Caliber and Tomahawk - 0.1 m2

                Thus, we see that even non-stealth cruise missiles made of conventional materials are less noticeable targets than most stealth aircraft

                And even if the weak Armor shot down 14 of the 16 gbu-39 stealth bombs with an EPR of 0.01 m2, then imagine what the much more advanced S-400 complex with the much more noticeable F-35 will do

                Stealth versions of Caliber and Tomahawk, as well as GBU-39 miniature stealth bomb - 0.01 m2
                X-101/102 - somewhere in the same place, maybe a little higher, in the region of 0.015-0.02 m2

                Eurofighter, Rafal, Su-35 and other representatives 4 + (+) - 1-1.5 m2
                Standard versions F-15, Su-27, generation 4 aircraft - 4-5 m2
                Strategic bombers Tu-95, B-52 - 30-40 + m2
                1. +1
                  2 February 2019 11: 21
                  Su-57 - 0.5 m2
                  F-22 - 0.4 m2
                  F-35 - 0.3 m2

                  Where does this data come from? For F-22/35, at least I saw three options for EPR ... from 0,01-0,1. The versions of the X-101/102 missiles initially come with the STELS body shape, how can their EPR be higher than that of the round Ax and Caliber?
                  1. -2
                    2 February 2019 11: 24
                    You
                    Read more...
                    Can you?
                    1. -1
                      2 February 2019 19: 57
                      Read more...
                      Know how
                      И
                      We wait
                      Sources of
                      А
                      not
                      Show off
          3. 0
            1 February 2019 22: 37
            Quote: Aretov.S.
            And this is without taking into account the developed hypersonic "mini-Dagger"

            Lord! And the "dagger" - which side to the maneuverable air combat!? belay
            1. -1
              1 February 2019 22: 44
              I don’t understand how you tied these 2 things together. I suppose that the Su-57 with a "mini-Dagger" and 1.8 times more powerful than that of the F-22 radar will notice the enemy much earlier, and will release this "dagger" at a huge distance of many hundreds of kilometers. This "battle" will end. However, there is actually no great need for this "dagger" - an air-to-air missile with a range of more than 300 km is already in service. The Americans do not have a rocket and 200 km
              1. 0
                1 February 2019 22: 51
                Quote: Aretov.S.
                I don’t understand how you tied these 2 things together. I suppose that the Su-57 with a "mini-Dagger" and 1.8 times more powerful than that of the F-22 radar will notice the enemy much earlier, and will release this "dagger" at a huge distance of many hundreds of kilometers. This "battle" will end. However, there is actually no great need for this "dagger" - an air-to-air missile with a range of more than 300 km is already in service. The Americans do not have a rocket and 200 km

                Zircons will carry the Su-57, not Daggers.
                1. +1
                  1 February 2019 22: 57
                  FAQ?) Zircons - this is generally a sea-based missile - for ships and submarines (possibly new generation coastal complexes in the future)

                  And the Daggers are just an aviation complex. A full-fledged large rocket will be carried by the MiG-31K (already being carried), Tu22M3 and Su-57. A mini-dagger of the air-to-air type (the large dagger is an air-to-surface missile) is intended / at the moment / only for the Su-57. And Zircon, once again, is a sea-based complex)
                  1. 0
                    1 February 2019 23: 26
                    Quote: maximum 8
                    Quote: Aretov.S.
                    FAQ?) Zircons - this is generally a sea-based missile - for ships and submarines (possibly new generation coastal complexes in the future)

                    And the Daggers are just an aviation complex. A full-fledged large rocket will be carried by the MiG-31K (already being carried), Tu22M3 and Su-57. A mini-dagger of the air-to-air type (the large dagger is an air-to-surface missile) is intended / at the moment / only for the Su-57. And Zircon, once again, is a sea-based complex)

                    What would you know Zircon is a versatile compact hypersonic missile, both air and sea-based. Look on the Internet for a statement by Zelin, the former commander of the then Russian Air Force, where he talks about creating a GZUR about 6 meters long, weighing 1500 kg and a speed of 6 max, with a range of 1500 km. TGUR must be carried by tactical aviation because its mass is similar to that of the KAB-1500 (1525kg). The GZUR works both on the ground and on ships. This is Zircon which reached 8 max on the march and, consequently, the range increased by increasing speed a quarter to 8 max to 2000 km, i.e. also a quarter increased range.
                    1. +2
                      1 February 2019 23: 29
                      In theory, it is all universal. For example, from the S-300 and S-400 you can even hit ground targets, if it’s impatient) in a tank, for example. From the anti-ship Bastion, too. The dagger can be launched both on boats and on the ground, etc., etc. But this does not mean that there is no preferred role - the same S-400 - in the first place, the anti-aircraft complex, and Zircon - anti-ship. Otherwise, the Russian Armed Forces would have 1 rocket for all occasions
                      1. 0
                        1 February 2019 23: 40
                        Quote: Aretov.S.
                        In theory, it is all universal. For example, from the S-300 and S-400 you can even hit ground targets, if it’s impatient) in a tank, for example. From the anti-ship Bastion, too. The dagger can be launched both on boats and on the ground, etc., etc. But this does not mean that there is no preferred role - the same S-400 - in the first place, the anti-aircraft complex, and Zircon - anti-ship. Otherwise, the Russian Armed Forces would have 1 rocket for all occasions

                        There is the latest guidance system. In Syria, Onyx was shot from the Bastion at a ground target. Zircon is a hypersonic analogue of Caliber. It can also be used at sea or on land targets like a medium-range missile.
                      2. 0
                        2 February 2019 09: 40
                        Quote: maximum 8
                        Zircon is a hypersonic analogue of Caliber

                        Rather, Iskander) and not an analog, but already the second generation of hypersound. Iskander has a top speed of about 6 Machs, Zircon - at least 8

                        Quote: maximum 8
                        like a medium-range missile.

                        Rather, like a short-range missile. Probably the maximum range of Zircon will be in the range of 400-800 km. Most likely they will make up to 500
                      3. 0
                        4 February 2019 22: 12
                        At the exit from the INF Treaty, the distances can be adjusted, since they can go from the sea-based to the ground version. The Merrikans themselves, not wanting it, made it possible for Russia to swirl in such a kaleidoscope for the West that in those people the remnants of the brain would flow in a transformed form into the lower hemispheres.
                      4. 0
                        4 February 2019 22: 18
                        Just to increase the range of Zircon to 2-2.5k km, it needs to be significantly increased in size. The Dagger has the advantage that it starts up A) already at a tremendous speed Mig-31K (~ 3 Mach) B) At high altitude, where air resistance is minimal. Therefore, the Dagger also has a radius of ~ 2k km. But Zircon still needs to rise, and break through the thickness of air resistance
                      5. 0
                        4 February 2019 22: 25
                        What did you get on Zikron, Avngard - it will probably be Loaf laughing and no nails. hi
                      6. The comment was deleted.
                      7. 0
                        4 February 2019 22: 28
                        It’s a pity that in the comments you can’t just answer good
              2. +1
                2 February 2019 15: 34
                Quote: Aretov.S.
                that the Su-57 with a "mini-Dagger"

                Colleague! Generally, it is customary on the site to "swear" with already established concepts (definitions). So, for example, the nickname "Dagger" (so it will be clearer to you) was assigned to the airborne GZKR, which is used against large NKs, class AVM, DKVP, UDC, etc. Therefore, any normal person perceives "mini Dagger" as a reduced copy of the GZKR " Dagger "carried by the MiG-31K.
                Now answer: - "Well, how can an anti-ship missile system participate in a maneuverable air battle?"
          4. 0
            5 February 2019 13: 32
            Yes Yes. But you forget the main thing. The quality of pilot training, how much they flew. And here the ratio is clearly not in our favor. And in general, we are all so cool, trained, weapons are the best. That's just something in all conflicts, we have much more losses than the states. So don’t throw all the hats here
        4. +2
          1 February 2019 18: 56
          Americans are not stupid, at least this is indicated by their position on the world stage, no one will climb into the near maneuverability on airplanes designed for another.

          Tell me, please, why aren’t stupid Americans stubbornly putting the most ordinary air guns on their super-duper stealth if, as I understand from your story, these aircraft were not designed for close combat?
          1. +2
            1 February 2019 20: 33
            Quote: Herrr
            Tell me, please, why aren’t stupid Americans stubbornly putting the most ordinary air guns on their super-duper stealth if, as I understand from your story, these aircraft were not designed for close combat?

            Because there is still a high probability of being in this very close fight, but without a gun it is death ...
            1. +1
              2 February 2019 04: 03
              Well, that's the way I am about the same. The thing is that stealth technology is, of course, good. Who would argue with that? But, nevertheless, the plane is primarily a flyer, and only then - everything else. And in this sense, over-maneuverability in its meaning means no less than stealth both for approaching an attack, and equally for evading it. And according to the EPR of the Su-57 airframe, as I understand it, there is nothing concrete so far - so, there are only speculations. Behind him, of course, judging by the thrust-weight ratio with the engine of the second stage, it will be more noticeable than the F-35, well, its flight speed is much higher, and it is not recommended to turn back to the enemy at all. And further. Pay attention to this thing, located exactly between the engines at the rear of the Su-57. Most likely there is a radar of the rear hemisphere under the composite cover, and, as you know, with all the consequences arising from this.
        5. 0
          1 February 2019 20: 50
          When someone does not want to stand in line and begins to make his way to the front in various ways, where by fraud, where with the help of outright rudeness and lawlessness, this does not mean that he who does this is smart. Sooner or later, he will run into one who once and for all will thoroughly put the insolent in his place. But Americans behave in exactly this way; this does not say anything about their intelligence.
        6. 0
          1 February 2019 22: 26
          Quote: Vol4ara
          no one will climb into the near maneuverable on airplanes created for another.

          Then the tactics they have. - fired and wali from the battlefield, without entering the SU-57 detection zone. Otherwise - a rapprochement ... and a maneuverable battle!
          And this is not ICE for them!
        7. 0
          4 February 2019 21: 34
          Quote: Vol4ara
          The whole point is stealth - I saw it before, I shot it earlier.


          And what is the guarantee that the rocket will reach the goal if the enemy’s samul possesses unique maneuverability. The launch of a missile will be detected in any case, and retaliation is inevitable.
      2. +12
        1 February 2019 14: 11
        Moreover, in the material of the Chinese edition it is noted that "Despite the fact that China has bypassed Russia in terms of creating the latest combat fighters, the experience of creating the Su-57 can be taken into service. " This idea was supported by the same Wang Yongqing:

        Bypassed? With what a cross? Those new fighters that China creates now in their performance characteristics do not even reach the SU-35С level, not to mention the SU-57.
        1. +2
          1 February 2019 16: 01
          Read my mind)
    2. +2
      1 February 2019 12: 10
      Will they redo the scheme again? Where did the information come from? The Belka radar is already ready, at the F-35 level?
      1. +4
        1 February 2019 16: 07
        Quote: maximum 8
        Radar Squirrel is probably ready, at the level of F-35?

        I don’t know about the F-35, but I know what is 22 times superior to the F-1.8 radar
      2. 0
        1 February 2019 18: 18
        Quote: maximum 8
        Will they redo the scheme again? Where did the information come from? The Belka radar is already ready, at the F-35 level?

        I’m embarrassed to ask, what kind of KEY FOB is and who has the protein, and even on Friday?
        1. 0
          1 February 2019 18: 23
          Quote: sabakina
          Quote: maximum 8
          Will they redo the scheme again? Where did the information come from? The Belka radar is already ready, at the F-35 level?

          I’m embarrassed to ask, what kind of KEY FOB is and who has the protein, and even on Friday?

          Yes, the campaign is with you. Do not smoke.
    3. +13
      1 February 2019 12: 12
      Quote: Operator

      Su-57 is nothing more than a platform for working out the key decisions of a promising fighter

      Why are you talking !? So, this platform already has its own name: T-50! Like the Su-27, Su-30, Su-33, Su-34, Su-35, one platform ... T-10.
    4. +16
      1 February 2019 12: 24
      Quote: Operator
      The serial fighter will have at least a different aerodynamic scheme, since the Su-57 scheme is unsuccessful in terms of stealth technology.

      I completely disagree with this. We must look at what tasks were assigned to the designers when they began to design the T-50 PAK FA. The Su-57 has many signs of stealth, but not for the sake of flight performance. And this is the Russian approach to the "fifth generation".

      And in the future, with the creation of ROFAR, the qualities of stealth can even go by the wayside and not even into the background.
      1. +13
        1 February 2019 12: 43
        Quote: Kurare
        And in the future, with the creation of ROFAR, the qualities of stealth can even go by the wayside and not even into the background.

        I agree with you. The disdain with which Russian military designers treated the idea of ​​stealth (and not only in aviation) indicated that there were serious developments that would level this most notorious "stealth". And the Radio Optical Phased Array (ROFAR) is only the first, albeit very important part of minimizing the concept of stealth.
        1. -18
          1 February 2019 13: 31
          Quote: Chertt
          Quote: Kurare
          And in the future, with the creation of ROFAR, the qualities of stealth can even go by the wayside and not even into the background.

          I agree with you. The neglect of the Russian military designers related to the idea of ​​stealth

          This only speaks of their shortsightedness, and now they are frantically trying to create this same stealth, lagging behind by 20 years
          1. +12
            1 February 2019 13: 41
            Quote: Vol4ara
            ... and now they are frantically trying to create this same stealth,

            And how are these convulsive attempts manifested? I personally do not see them. If you mean the new project "Hunter", then everything is there without unnecessary convulsions. He simply does not need to write somersaults in the "dog dump", so they will turn out to be more subtle.

            What the lag is, however, is in the control and information transfer systems, i.e. network-centricity.
            1. jjj
              +9
              1 February 2019 13: 58
              With "invisibility" our foe directed the enemy on the wrong path. Americans began to understand this, but the system of earning and cutting funds no longer allows them to curtail programs
          2. +1
            1 February 2019 22: 53
            Quote: Vol4ara
            and now convulsively trying to create this very stealth, trailing behind 20 years

            To assert this, you need to be well, ochchcheny informed person! And such, as a rule, are herded by "men in black" (in production - from the 1st department, in the ranks - from the office). Therefore, one should not think pejoratively about our kulibins. It seems to me that our stealth technologies lie in the plane of EMZ - protection from means of detection, by distorting space, bending around the electromagnetic waves of the protected object, etc.
            The only problem is the torsion and infrared fields of the LA ... But the geeks are laughing at this ...
            And how do you want? Without this today it is impossible! Yes
        2. -5
          1 February 2019 14: 47
          Quote: Chertt
          The disdain with which the Russian military designers treated the idea of ​​stealth (and not only in aviation) indicated that there were serious developments that would level this most notorious "stealth".

          Or just a serious lag in this area and the inability to reach a comparable level?
          1. 0
            1 February 2019 23: 10
            Quote: Pimply
            inability to reach a comparable level?

            Reaching a comparable level is to abandon the superior performance characteristics in favor of stealth, which is not a panacea at all.
            1. 0
              2 February 2019 04: 38
              Quote: KaPToC
              Reaching a comparable level is to abandon the superior performance characteristics in favor of stealth, which is not a panacea at all.

              How superior? And whether superior? Is the aircraft performance characteristics better than the performance of modern all-round missiles?
              1. 0
                2 February 2019 13: 59
                Quote: Pimply
                How superior?

                As far as it's possible! As far as possible.
                Quote: Pimply
                And superior?

                Why update the fleet if the new aircraft is worse than the old?
                Quote: Pimply
                Is the performance characteristics of an aircraft better than the performance characteristics of modern all-angle missiles?

                Why compare them?
                1. 0
                  2 February 2019 18: 50
                  Quote: KaPToC
                  As far as it's possible! As far as possible.
                  And you talk about it as a matter of course. Are you sure they will surpass?
                  Quote: KaPToC
                  Why compare them?
                  Then the question is how much can a super-maneuverable aircraft confront a more maneuverable rocket?
                  1. 0
                    2 February 2019 21: 27
                    Quote: Pimply
                    Are you sure they will surpass?

                    Progress is inevitable.
                    Quote: Pimply
                    Then the question is how much can a super-maneuverable aircraft confront a more maneuverable rocket?

                    Why would he resist a rocket?
        3. +2
          1 February 2019 17: 47
          If our designers had neglected stealth, they would not have created PAK YES in the concept that we know about now. And this is the concept of B2. Designers followed in the footsteps of the american: maximum stealth. long flight range, speed and maneuverability are not given much importance. PAK YES not even supersonic.
          1. +4
            1 February 2019 17: 59
            Quote: wisealtair
            then they would not have created PAK YES in the concept that we know about now.

            We saw just pictures. What will it be in reality, we do not know
            1. 0
              3 February 2019 15: 35
              Well, the fact that it will not be supersonic and will be built according to the "flying wing" scheme with the maximum use of stealth geometry has been repeatedly announced. However, there are not so many options for how the PAK YES will look like. As for the appearance, you can just predict with an accuracy of 80 percent.
          2. 0
            2 February 2019 16: 57
            And the Americans followed in the Soviet footsteps. The first stealth concept was described in open press by a Soviet engineer back in the 60s. And then he left for the USA, on Lockheed, it seems ...
    5. +11
      1 February 2019 12: 51
      After all, the topic of aerodynamics of the Su-57 has already been discussed more than once. For some reason, many people think that the Russians should follow the concept of the 5th generation aircraft that the Americans proposed in everything. But after all, the goals for Russia and the states are different and, accordingly, the concepts for using fighter jets are different.
      Su-57 will probably go into series, first of course, as you can see now, it will be small. This machine is not cheap and therefore, to run it in a series, all systems must be worked out and tested.
      Su-57 will surely become a platform for creating other machines, remember the same Su-27 and how many wonderful machines were created on its basis.
      1. +4
        1 February 2019 23: 10
        Quote: irbis0373
        Su-57 will probably go into a series, first of course, as you can see now, it will be small ... Su-57 will surely become a platform for creating other machines
        Let me express my personal, personal guess.
        1. SU-57 no big party will be. Not for this they were built.
        2. In the concept of breaking into the leaders of military aviation, he is assigned the role of a sixth generation combat drones control aircraft in the struggle to gain air supremacy and attack land targets.
        Articles have already appeared in the open press, stating that the control systems of the Okhotnik are being tested from the SU-57. That "Product 70" has systems similar to those on the SU-57.
        3. Therefore, it is logical to assume that we are going to jump over the "5th generation due to the drones of the 6th! And this is the shortest way to gain a decisive advantage over Yankee aviation.
        Of course, I could be wrong. But something tells me that the further development of our military aviation will follow this path. Do not judge strictly. This is my personal vision of the problem. hi
        1. +1
          2 February 2019 15: 38
          In the concept of breaking into the leadership of the military aircraft industry, he is assigned the role of a sixth-generation combat drones control aircraft in the struggle to gain air supremacy and strike against ground targets.
          Articles have already appeared in the open press, stating that the control systems of the Okhotnik are being tested from the SU-57. That "Product 70" has systems similar to those on the SU-57.

          All this is good and interesting, but only these articles are only at the rumor level.
          And yet, by the time the Hunter goes into the series, the Su-57 will probably already have to be in service and used in units.
          It will take years, not a month or two, to bring to mind the new shock drone. After all, the Su-57 did not immediately lead to its current appearance and condition.
          This, of course, is also my subjective opinion.
          Time will tell what and how it will be with these machines.
    6. +13
      1 February 2019 13: 10
      The serial fighter will have at least a different aerodynamic scheme, since the Su-57 scheme is unsuccessful in terms of stealth technology.

      It was not even conceived as a "stealth", in the foreground were flight characteristics, and "stealth" was already being snapped at it - "as far as possible", i.e. so that he was present as much as possible, but so that he did not interfere with flying well.
      Su-57 and F35 - have different concepts in general.
      The concept of the Americans is the defeat of the target from outside the enemy.
      The concept of Russian dominance in aerial combat is already in contact with the enemy.
      And accordingly, aerodynamic schemes are each sharpened for their own concepts.
      And the battle itself will not be between airplanes, but between concepts.
      Given that the Americans are counting more on an attack than on defense, they have the same plane.
      The Russians have the opposite.
      Accordingly, in case of war, Russian aircraft will confidently destroy the enemy in the area of ​​their radar
      The Americans will feel more confident with insufficient adversary support with additional detection systems.
      The armies of these countries have different tasks and, accordingly, different strategies, tactics and equipment.
      Everyone does what he specifically considers insufficient for the successful implementation of the general concept, i.e. strengthens weaknesses.
      Therefore, it is impossible to specifically consider only airplanes or air defense or electronic warfare or any other equipment separately.
    7. +6
      1 February 2019 13: 28
      Quote: Operator
      The serial fighter will have at least a different aerodynamic scheme, since the Su-57 scheme is unsuccessful in terms of stealth technology.

      ---------------------------
      If in aerodynamics, on the contrary, the Su-57 has the most harmonious fuselage from the entire 5th generation lineup. And stealth itself as a concept itself gives rise to a lot of problems in aero and hydrodynamics, being implemented in aircraft fuselages and hulls of surface ships.
      1. +8
        1 February 2019 13: 47
        Quote: Altona
        And stealth itself, as a concept, itself creates a lot of problems in aero and hydrodynamics, being implemented in aircraft fuselages and hulls of surface ships.

        The stealth concept can only be checked in one case - the statistics of aircraft lost in battle for a certain period. As an example, we look at the vaunted Leopards and Abrams burned in Syria and Iraq.
        The main message of the article is in another ....
        The Chinese wise guy announced the assembly system of the Su-57 on stocks in limited batches sucks. Along the way, he complained about the build quality:
        And according to some reports, Sukhoi aircraft manufacturers create each Su-57 fighter almost by hand, which leads to rude build quality

        Key phrase - "And according to some sources ..."
        Those. this is Chinese Mozhaisk is absolutely sure that Chinese assembly diagram high tech combat aircraft on the conveyor - this absolute ideal...
    8. +1
      1 February 2019 15: 57
      What fierce nonsense. And the Hunter is not a fighter at all, it is a drone. It has nothing to do with the "replacement" of the Su-57
      1. 0
        1 February 2019 16: 18
        "Hunter" in relation to the Su-57 is not an aircraft, but an automated system with elements of artificial intelligence, a "co-pilot" so to speak.

        Knowledge of equipment is our everything laughing
    9. -6
      1 February 2019 16: 55
      The SU-57 is in the army in the amount of 15 aircraft, but there is no one to fight with yet, it was created to destroy what the Americans still have in the projects on paper, by American standards, the SU-57 is a 7th generation aircraft !! Target detection range from cr missiles to UAVs and aircraft = 1500 km, hypersonic missiles range air air 800 km! and for the American trash f-22 and f-35, the SU-27SM with a missile range of 400 km is enough, even the Su-35s does not take seriously the f-22 and f-35, light targets, it will shoot them effortlessly like a dash !! But the Su-57 in general does not consider the American mockery to be opponents, not that class!
      1. +1
        1 February 2019 22: 54
        Quote: Vanguard2090
        The SU-57 is in the army in the amount of 15 aircraft, but there is no one to fight with yet, it was created to destroy what the Americans still have in the projects on paper, by American standards, the SU-57 is a 7th generation aircraft !! Target detection range from cr missiles to UAVs and aircraft = 1500 km, hypersonic missiles range air air 800 km! and for the American trash f-22 and f-35, the SU-27SM with a missile range of 400 km is enough, even the Su-35s does not take seriously the f-22 and f-35, light targets, it will shoot them effortlessly like a dash !! But the Su-57 in general does not consider the American mockery to be opponents, not that class!

        Something flared up in the evening. Avangard 2090 no longer pour.
      2. 0
        1 February 2019 23: 12
        Quote: Vanguard2090
        by American standards, the SU-57 is a 7th generation aircraft !!

        However, already the sixth generation - should be aerospace.
        1. -3
          2 February 2019 10: 32
          do not tell tales, you have no idea how these generations are defined !! When a military ordering a next-generation aircraft, they set requirements for the performance characteristics of the next-generation aircraft, they must exceed the previous generation !! From here and confusion! According to the requirements of the Russian military, the American f-22 and f-35 do not reach the 4th generation aircraft with a maximum of 3+, even the Russian SU-27SM twice exceeds them in all combat capabilities!
          1. 0
            2 February 2019 13: 57
            Quote: Vanguard2090
            do not tell tales, you have no idea how these generations are defined !!

            Heh, you are amazingly right, but the bottom line is that no one knows what a fifth generation airplane should look like, not to mention the subsequent ones. The Americans literally sucked the parameters of the fifth generation aircraft from the finger of the twenty-first.
            1. -1
              2 February 2019 14: 04
              And I’m talking about the same thing, there aren’t any exact standards for the next generation airplanes, and therefore they are different about all countries, and therefore even the SU-27SM is several times higher than the discontinued f-22, and the world mockery of the f-35 is even weaker than f-22 and therefore Pantigon postponed its acceptance into service for another 3 years!
      3. 0
        2 February 2019 01: 26
        The fact that the SU-57 7th generation aircraft is complete nonsense, however, like your other statements.
    10. 0
      1 February 2019 18: 22
      Quote: Operator

      The Su-57 is nothing more than a platform for testing key solutions for a promising domestic fighter (aerodynamic layout, omnidirectional UVT engines, optoelectronic location, Hunter-type artificial intelligence, ground targets, etc.).

      It looks like something like a new series of aircraft, as the Su-27
      Quote: Operator
      The serial fighter will have at least a different aerodynamic scheme, since the Su-57 scheme is unsuccessful in terms of stealth technology.

      I doubt it. This is a form of compromise between stealth technology and combat qualities.
    11. +1
      2 February 2019 16: 16
      The whole topic of stealth technologies is not worth a pittance, our designers realized this long ago, so they did not bother with visibility and focused on a normally "flying" glider, and not an ax that strives to dive like the F35. All stealth aircraft are perfectly visible on radar, and a good hypersonic missile will complete what it started, the American will not understand what it was. By the way, infa slipped through that the F35 again has big problems and the declared resource of 8000 hours turned into 2000 hours, and all this for hundreds of millions per plane.
  2. +4
    1 February 2019 12: 04
    Moreover, in the material of the Chinese edition it is noted that “despite the fact that China bypassed Russia in terms of creating the latest combat fighters, the experience of creating the Su-57 can be taken into service. "

    What did I just read ?!
    1. +1
      1 February 2019 12: 11
      Quote: Yujanin
      What did I just read ?!

      China has not yet become a "hegemon", but is already bruised in the head. Maybe it's contagious wink
      1. +6
        1 February 2019 12: 20
        You do not praise yourself, no one praises.
        1. SSR
          +2
          1 February 2019 13: 03
          Quote: maximum 8
          You do not praise yourself, no one praises.

          One and a half billion will not be forgiven to the government if they are not the "leaders" in military affairs. )))
          People must eat their fair share of "patriotism."
      2. +2
        1 February 2019 13: 16
        Quote: Chertt
        China has not yet become a "hegemon", but is already bruised in the head. Maybe it's contagious

        China, in fact, boasts of its strengths: organization of production, replication in any quantities, repeatability of product characteristics. But he also acknowledges our achievements: design and development of completely new products, achievement of unique characteristics with limited technological capabilities, etc.
        It is quite objective, given that they themselves must be praised.
        1. 0
          1 February 2019 23: 13
          Quote: kasatky
          replication in any quantities

          Have they also learned how to "replicate" pilots in any quantity?
          1. +1
            2 February 2019 17: 00
            For some reason, it seems to me that they will not have problems with this ...
            1. 0
              2 February 2019 21: 27
              Quote: meandr51
              For some reason, it seems to me that they will not have problems with this ...

              For some reason it seems to me that you are mistaken.
      3. 0
        3 February 2019 12: 09
        China is not S. Korea there does not all require the consent of the party organization — this is the opinion of a single expert who certainly didn’t fail and draw patriotism there by the ears .. just in case. Just like ours.
    2. -4
      1 February 2019 12: 35
      Well, if the government continues to support banks and the oligarchy, then in ten years it will be so ...
      1. 0
        3 February 2019 12: 15
        Why write nonsense if you do not fumble in economics and politics. "Oligarch" and banks, as you put it, give work to millions of Russians, and in those very banks their funds are stored .. if that. Or do you think all the money should be distributed to the people ...? Then right the next morning you will see price tags with a bunch of zeros and nothing will be left of the money.
    3. +1
      1 February 2019 12: 35
      Quote: Yujanin
      Moreover, in the material of the Chinese edition it is noted that “despite the fact that China bypassed Russia in terms of creating the latest combat fighters, the experience of creating the Su-57 can be taken into service. "

      What did I just read ?!

      Waiting for when it will be possible to disassemble it in the hangar or take a closer picture, suddenly they missed .... smile
    4. 0
      1 February 2019 13: 31
      What did I just read ?!

      that China is cooler, but experience is not enough.
  3. 0
    1 February 2019 12: 07
    Who in the subject is there with weapons for the Su-57? Product 180, product 180-pd. The R-37M at 350-400km seems to be experiencing. There is silence on medium and short-range missiles.
    1. 0
      1 February 2019 17: 11
      Quote: maximum 8
      R-37M at 350-400km sort of like

      How is it experienced if this rocket has long been ready
      1. 0
        1 February 2019 18: 26
        Quote: Aretov.S.
        Quote: maximum 8
        R-37M at 350-400km sort of like

        How is it experienced if this rocket has long been ready

        Is there new info on new medium-range missiles?
  4. -2
    1 February 2019 12: 20
    Time will tell when there will be a finished version of the Su-57, but I do not think that our aircraft will be inferior to the American, or even less so Chinese. A distinctive feature of our technology is that we do not PR, like the Americans or the Chinese, and our technology is really at the highest level. But the quantity and other doctrine about the latest technology, these are already questions for the Ministry of Defense.
    1. -1
      1 February 2019 12: 34
      Time will tell when there will be a finished version of the Su-57, but I do not think that our aircraft will be inferior to the American, or even less to the Chinese ..


      Will be. If you don’t do something. The problem is that the Americans, and the very same Chinese, work out their planes in life, and this is much better than constantly modifying and finishing something. So when there is a finished version of Drying, then others will already begin the next generation. But bad or not, but the F35 will be stamped with thousands ...
      1. 0
        1 February 2019 12: 52
        On the serial machine something seriously change will not work. Only polished. On a pre-production car, do whatever you want to improve it.
        1. 0
          1 February 2019 12: 59
          On a production machine, something can’t change seriously


          Niet :)) The main changes in the software of the machine. And they change him constantly. Iron in itself does not really matter how much control system. And when they bring up a new avionics or radar or something new, they will immediately put them on the run-in gliders. See the history of F 16 from the first samples to today's Block 70 / 72. The same thing will happen with F 35 ...
          1. 0
            1 February 2019 18: 28
            if I understand correctly, the F-16 does not suffer from the presence of the generation of internal volumes necessary for 5 for armament, and can do it by hanging the outboard, you can shove electronics easily. The development of the 5 generation requires running-in and testing the airframe volumes to conceal the maximum armament in the aircraft carcass, which requires time and money.
      2. -1
        1 February 2019 13: 24
        Quote: Keyser Soze
        So when there is a finished version of Drying, then others will already begin the next generation.

        Pot calls the kettle black...
        What are the valiant Bulgarian flyers flying on?
        Or is there an aircraft building school in the former Ottoman Empire? Bulgartabac?
  5. 0
    1 February 2019 12: 29
    We must believe, said a member of the presidium of the All-Russian organization "Officers of Russia", Major General Aviation Mikhail Makaruk
  6. +3
    1 February 2019 12: 31
    The article is generally about nothing, some speculations and assumptions. You can write on this topic only after the adoption of the Su-57, when its combat capabilities will become better known.
  7. 0
    1 February 2019 12: 54
    Possessing an innovative aerodynamic design and the ability to control the thrust vector, Sukhoi attaches great importance to supersonic cruising capabilities and super maneuverability.
    Wang Yongqing notes that the invisibility for the Su-57, which in China is often called the weak point of Russian fighters,

    Our aircraft designers attach great importance to speed and maneuverability. For this, engines with UVT and aerodynamics are needed. In fact, a melee fighter in full contact.
    Us aircraft designers are promoting a different concept - stealthily approach the distance of launching missiles, make a launch and tear. This requires stealth, a powerful radar and long-range missiles. Those. aircraft - a platform for launching missiles from afar.
    But how to combine high speed, maneuverability and stealth?
    The requirements for the same glider are mutually exclusive.
    To achieve stealth, a certain configuration of the wings, the angle of the tail, etc. is needed. But, to achieve super-maneuverability, a different configuration of the airframe is needed. So how to combine?
    About the engine - another story.
    In my opinion, the new fighter of the Russian Federation should have stealth technologies, so that it is not detected from afar, but not to make them key. But at medium and near distances already use the maneuverability of the aircraft. The main thing is to quietly approach such distances.
    1. +8
      1 February 2019 13: 37
      We have already written about ROFAR. If he really sees stealth, then the entire American super-expensive aviation will lose all its advantages at once and turn into a shaving boy. Therefore, stealth, not stealth, but an airplane must be first of all an airplane, and then "invisible".
      1. 0
        1 February 2019 15: 42
        Quote: puzoter
        There has already been written about ROFAR. If he really sees stealth,

        The key question is if ROFAR really will be. And not in the form of articles.
        1. 0
          1 February 2019 16: 27
          He, ROFAR, as it were; the question is how much and when will it be in commodity quantities.
    2. 0
      1 February 2019 17: 19
      Quote: Every
      quietly approach the distance of launching missiles, launch and tear. For this we need:


      Quote: Every
      stealth,

      Yes (take F-22)

      Quote: Every
      powerful radar

      Only partially - the same Su-57 radar is almost 2 times more effective

      Quote: Every
      and long-range missiles


      And this is not at all, even partially. Our missile hits> 300 km, the Americans have the longest air-to-air range - only 120 km.

      F-22 has no chances
      1. 0
        1 February 2019 18: 29
        Quote: Aretov.S.
        Quote: Every
        quietly approach the distance of launching missiles, launch and tear. For this we need:


        Quote: Every
        stealth,

        Yes (take F-22)

        Quote: Every
        powerful radar

        Only partially - the same Su-57 radar is almost 2 times more effective

        Quote: Every
        and long-range missiles


        And this is not at all, even partially. Our missile hits> 300 km, the Americans have the longest air-to-air range - only 120 km.

        F-22 has no chances

        Our medium-range missile hits 200 km ed. 180 or 250 km ed. 180-pd, and their AMRAAM 120D per 180 km
        1. 0
          1 February 2019 23: 16
          Quote: maximum 8
          Our medium-range missile hits 200 km ed. 180 or 250 km ed. 180-pd, and their AMRAAM 120D per 180 km

          Shooting from a maximum distance is a waste of ammunition.
          1. 0
            1 February 2019 23: 33
            Quote: KaPToC
            Quote: maximum 8
            Our medium-range missile hits 200 km ed. 180 or 250 km ed. 180-pd, and their AMRAAM 120D per 180 km

            Shooting from a maximum distance is a waste of ammunition.

            Well, why does even American intelligence recognize the effectiveness of the newest R-37M at long distances of 350-400 km, where it shot down ballistic targets in tests. That means they found a technical solution. Everything changes qualitatively over time.
            1. 0
              1 February 2019 23: 35
              Quote: maximum 8
              shot down ballistic targets in trials

              A ballistic target is not a plane.
              1. 0
                1 February 2019 23: 44
                Quote: KaPToC
                Quote: maximum 8
                shot down ballistic targets in trials

                A ballistic target is not a plane.

                It’s easier to bring down an airplane.
                1. 0
                  1 February 2019 23: 46
                  Quote: maximum 8
                  It’s easier to bring down an airplane.

                  A moot point. the ballistic target does not maneuver, does not shoot at you, does almost nothing - it simply falls.
      2. -2
        1 February 2019 22: 50
        Quote: Aretov.S.
        F-22 has no chances

        Just the f-22 has chances and can be, since 120 of such aircraft were produced. and they are in the troops. But the SU-57 chances to win only on paper. How many of them are in the troops?
        You can argue as much as you like about the technical characteristics of aircraft, provide technical data, etc.
        But in fact what?
        Fights on paper or in comments are not won. And we do not only have the SU-57 itself. (Refers to flight units).
        There are no pilots for them. And without them, even a plane made in metal will remain metal.
  8. +6
    1 February 2019 13: 19
    China bypassed Russia in terms of creating the latest combat fighters

    He laughed. The country - the copier exceeded, well, it is necessary. laughing
    1. 0
      1 February 2019 14: 38
      I think you should not dissuade them from this.
    2. +4
      1 February 2019 14: 50
      No need to laugh either. The Chinese are growing fast, and this is obvious.
    3. +2
      1 February 2019 15: 39
      Quote: K-50
      He laughed. The country - the copier exceeded, well, it is necessary. laughing

      No matter how crying. The Chinese stick forward like a herd of mammoths. And they sharpen a tooth in Siberia.
      They support us not because the Allies, but because it is beneficial to them. It will be hard for them to compete with us alone.
      The enemy of my enemy is my friend.
      For the time being.
      1. -1
        1 February 2019 23: 17
        Quote: Every
        The enemy of my enemy is my friend.

        If a crocodile ate your enemy - this does not mean that he is your friend.
    4. 0
      2 February 2019 17: 04
      Hitler also laughed at the Stalinist aviation "Potemkin villages" when he was informed about the high level of the Soviet aviation industry ...
  9. +1
    1 February 2019 13: 20
    This is just a stand. He won’t go into the series, they’ll start the hunter soon.
  10. 0
    1 February 2019 13: 29
    Apparently there their frictions go, according to the concept of a promising aircraft, so he gives examples of what and how. Now, before the real test of the battle of all machines, all the talk is a spherical horse in a vacuum.
    Each country secretes these directions as much as possible.
    I think the five-year dynamics of changes in the use of aviation before and during the Second World War showed this clearly.
  11. exo
    +2
    1 February 2019 13: 35
    The F-35 pilot must be very lucky to meet one of the "numerous" Su-57s in the air. The fate of this aircraft is not encouraging. At least, based on the release numbers that appear in the official press.
  12. -6
    1 February 2019 13: 36
    Quote: Kurare
    with the creation of ROFAR, the qualities of stealth can generally recede and not even into the background

    ROFAR is a golimy radar based on optoelectronic amplifiers, its only plus (except for efficiency) is the ability to work not in one but in two radio bands - centimeter and millimeter, which allows you to identify the appearance of an object at a distance of 20 or less than km. ROFAR technology actually does not relate to the detection of stealth.
    1. 0
      1 February 2019 14: 53
      You specifically are not in the topic. ROFAR is a revolution in radar.
  13. -2
    1 February 2019 13: 40
    Quote: Keyser Soze
    F35 will be stamped with thousands

    And decommissioned as unnecessary - to launch guided aviation weapons (missiles and gliding bombs) outside the air defense zone, combat training aircraft with a lower price are quite enough.
  14. +1
    1 February 2019 13: 53
    The question is different. The Chinese press, and therefore most readers, under the influence of the press, do not see Russia as a strategic partner. And this makes you think.
    1. +1
      1 February 2019 14: 52
      The Chinese would consider Russia as a junior partner, and Russia's elites see Russia as a junior partner of the United States (although this is not mentioned to us on TV). Controversy however.
  15. The comment was deleted.
  16. 0
    1 February 2019 14: 35
    How much this topic of "stealth" can be procrastinated .. All this is nonsense. Yesterday infa slipped through about the meeting of amerovsky fi-22 with a group of attack aircraft dryers in Syria Amer began to bend his fingers, shoot heat traps, trying to prevent the dryers from completing the task. su -34 covered them up. And he discovered this when the su-34 took him in sight. And what did his stealth help him a lot? The KGB spread amers with stealth for billions and they began to sculpt planes to the detriment of even common sense and aerodynamics.
    1. -1
      1 February 2019 14: 55
      Stealth will greatly help the Americans when they have hundreds of stealth strike fighters against a dozen Russian, in the event of a local conflict, for example, in the same Syria. Even if they exchange them they will be 1: 1. Or even 10: 1.
    2. +1
      1 February 2019 17: 23
      Only not Su-34, but Su-35. Although the 34th, most likely, would also have won the battle
  17. 0
    1 February 2019 14: 46
    In order to defeat the SU-27 in battle, the Chinese need to be Russian.
  18. 0
    1 February 2019 15: 03
    Quote: maximum 8
    You are specifically not in the topic. ROFAR

    laughing
  19. 0
    1 February 2019 15: 17
    According to the Chinese logic of Yongqing, it turns out that it is better for a Russian plane to see an American rocket on a radar to turn on the afterburner immediately and quickly fall down?
  20. 0
    1 February 2019 15: 54
    The Su-57's radar is almost 2 times more effective - it detects Fushka-35 earlier, ~ 400 km away, and knocks it down. I am already silent that the most long-range air-to-air missile for the Americans is only 120 km, while we have> 300. About melee, I think, it's even less worthwhile to paint
  21. 0
    1 February 2019 15: 55
    "Despite the fact that China has bypassed Russia in terms of creating the latest combat fighters

    How is this?))) Even the Su-35 is absolutely better any Chinese fighter, about the Su-57, I generally keep quiet
    1. -2
      2 February 2019 20: 39
      Yes, you better keep quiet.
  22. -1
    1 February 2019 16: 13
    they always bring our developments together, and from other countries, too, they will name in their own way and rejoice.
  23. 0
    1 February 2019 17: 52
    here is someone who is not the current Chinese judge the quality of the assembly
  24. +2
    1 February 2019 18: 45
    Quote: Vanguard2090
    The SU-57 is in the army in the amount of 15 aircraft, but there is no one to fight with yet, it was created to destroy what the Americans still have in the projects on paper, by American standards, the SU-57 is a 7th generation aircraft !! Target detection range from cr missiles to UAVs and aircraft = 1500 km, hypersonic missiles range air air 800 km! and for the American trash f-22 and f-35, the SU-27SM with a missile range of 400 km is enough, even the Su-35s does not take seriously the f-22 and f-35, light targets, it will shoot them effortlessly like a dash !! But the Su-57 in general does not consider the American mockery to be opponents, not that class!

    Plus for patriotic optimism, and the truth, as always in the middle, but I think, all the same in our favor, all the same, the SU-57 is at least newer and created against already well-studied opponents ...
  25. +1
    1 February 2019 19: 13
    1. "Only 10-12 of these aircraft are purchased in Russia. They are being tested. And according to some sources, Sukhoi aircraft manufacturers create each Su-57 fighter almost by hand, which leads to rough build quality."
    It’s ridiculous. ALL planes are assembled manually, individually, and this does not affect the build quality if the assemblers have their hands from the right place laughing

    2. "Wang Yongqing notes that invisibility for the Su-57, which in China is often called the weak point of Russian fighters, is not particularly needed in such conditions."
    The Chinese - experts in the latest Russian aircraft is another joke.
  26. +2
    1 February 2019 19: 21
    People, what the hell are you talking about? Who has a steeper car ... See the main US doctrine - a massive hit with a network-centric armada. They don't give a shit about the maneuverability of our 50 cool fighters. Looking at our economy, Moscow Region understands everything and spends money on air defense and horror stories like Sarmat, Dagger and Poseidon. And f35 will fly on a mission with such a bunch of escorts that he’ll break his leg where f35 and where is the snag, bait, reb, etc. But this colossus is going to fist for a long time, and therefore the US prefers, well, manages to save - to destroy the enemy without the cost of air battles.
  27. 0
    1 February 2019 20: 30
    "We must believe in the combat potential and combat capabilities of Russian pilots."
    And here to believe, it is necessary to achieve these skills and capabilities by everyday training and flying. When each lieutenant will have the ability and skills to use these capabilities in combat use (I apologize for the tautology) then we can talk about any superiority of our pilots
  28. -1
    1 February 2019 23: 16
    Quote: Aretov.S.
    FAQ?) Zircons - this is generally a sea-based missile - for ships and submarines (possibly new generation coastal complexes in the future)

    And the Daggers are just an aviation complex. A full-fledged large rocket will be carried by the MiG-31K (already being carried), Tu22M3 and Su-57. A mini-dagger of the air-to-air type (the large dagger is an air-to-surface missile) is intended / at the moment / only for the Su-57. And Zircon, once again, is a sea-based complex)

    What would you know Zircon is a versatile compact hypersonic missile, both air and sea-based. Look on the Internet for a statement by Zelin, the former commander of the then Russian Air Force, where he talks about creating a GZUR about 6 meters long, weighing 1500 kg and a speed of 6 max, with a range of 1500 km. TGUR must be carried by tactical aviation because its mass is similar to that of the KAB-1500 (1525kg). The GZUR works both on the ground and on ships. This is Zircon which reached 8 max on the march and, consequently, the range increased by increasing speed a quarter to 8 max to 2000 km, i.e. also a quarter increased range.
  29. 0
    2 February 2019 12: 58
    Yes, we do not need stealth, because our radars see American invisibility earlier than they do us, and even more so when they launch rockets. And a very successful aircraft on the SU-57, which will give the opportunity and improvements and its modernization, the installation of a new engine. On its base will create new aircraft. And over-maneuverability is all for our plane now.
  30. 0
    3 February 2019 02: 55
    Quote: Albert1988
    Quote: Herrr
    Tell me, please, why aren’t stupid Americans stubbornly putting the most ordinary air guns on their super-duper stealth if, as I understand from your story, these aircraft were not designed for close combat?

    Because there is still a high probability of being in this very close fight, but without a gun it is death ...

    Work on the earth, no? Moreover, F-22 and F-35 are multifunctional.
    1. 0
      15 February 2019 03: 09
      Work on the earth - not. The plane is not a helicopter, and on the ground it is not capable of working adequately with a gun. it was already clear in WWII when all plans to shoot tanks from an air cannon failed, including a failure from the Il-2, which could sweep out only columns of any trucks on the road from machine guns and cannons, and knock out tanks only with PTABs. Do not fantasize about working the I-B air gun on the ground.
  31. +1
    3 February 2019 13: 19
    I have said and will continue to say that the F-35, unlike the F-22, is a low-quality misunderstanding intended for export and comparing it with the Su-57 is simply humiliating for the Sukhoi, it does not even surpass the Su-57 in stealth. And of course it is necessary to modernize the production line of the Su-57, but perhaps this will be done later when establishing large-scale production, if, of course, it takes place, which we hope for.
  32. 0
    6 February 2019 06: 18
    opinion of the chief designer of the Shenyang Aircraft Research Institute Wang Yongqing. Specialist in the field of aviation

    Thanks to Comrade Vanyushin for his authoritative opinion.