Military Review

Why the Su-57 loses to the Raptor in stealth: British expert on the shortcomings of the Russian fighter

118

Ten years after the first flight of the Su-57, the situation with the Russian stealth fighter presents a host of unresolved problems. Its radar signature is at least 10 times that of the American F-22 Raptor. His radars might not work. And it is unclear whether Moscow can afford to buy all 76 aircraft that Russian President Vladimir Putin insisted on purchasing.


Glider from the Su-27


These "sobering conclusions" were drawn by Justin Bronk, an Air Force expert at the Royal Joint Institute for Defense Studies (London), writes the American edition of Forbes:

There are significant doubts about the scale of production of the Su-57 and the funding required to improve aircraft sensors, avionics and specialized weapons systems.


According to Bronk, thanks to a high degree of all-round stealth, hard-to-detect radar and altitude characteristics, the F-22 is capable of "completely surpassing all existing Russian combat aircraft."

Russia was well aware of the F-22 development program, and the Su-57 is the result of their efforts to create a largely comparable fighter.
- writes the British expert, believing that in the end the Su-57 arose as “a highly modified derivative of the Flanker [Su-27] airframe, the shape of which [the Su-57 airframe] minimizes the frontal X-range [radar cross section], while maintaining at the same time super-maneuverability ”.


Su-57. Photo source: https://news.yahoo.com/ (revised)


The limits of secrecy and finance


But the expert does not understand how successful the chosen design was. In particular, the author questions the secrecy of this machine:

Observed sources of radar reflections include unusual constantly moving LERXs, cockpit canopy design, air intakes at the base of inclined vertical stabilizers, an [infrared] sensor in front of the cockpit, and only partially enclosed exhaust parts of jet engine turbines.


The fact that the nozzles are practically not covered is caused by the specific shape of the wing: the fuselage borrowed from the Su-27 was, as it were, flattened, while placing two large central armory compartment between the air intake ducts. As a result, there was not enough space to cover the nozzle like the F-22.

These features are likely the result of Russia's comparative inexperience in stealth aircraft design and construction, coupled with budgetary constraints.
- the expert believes.

In his opinion, financial limits could affect the Su-57 sensors as well. The Felon [NATO aircraft designation] has a unique radar layout - an electronically scanned X-band radar on the nose plus smaller X-band grilles that extend the range.

But the Su-57's new X-band radar layout, combined with the low-frequency arrays that Sukhoi plans to add to the aircraft's wings, pose an integration risk. This is due to the fact that “the Russian industry has suffered from a shortage of high quality microelectronic components since the imposition of Western sanctions [...] which increases the difficulties associated with the development of such a complex complex of multi-matrix sensors, bringing it to a level of maturity where it can be considered ready for working on the front lines, ”warns Bronk.

According to him, problems with the Su-57 could cause an adjustment to the production program, which they are struggling to fulfill: it is planned to purchase 76 aircraft in addition to 10 prototypes that are already flying. The Kremlin reportedly set aside $ 2,6 billion for initial production, but Bronk says that is only $ 34 million for an aircraft - hardly enough to cover the cost of a glider with equipment and engines.

Even if all 76 aircraft that Putin announced are delivered, [Russian Aerospace Forces] will operate significantly fewer than 100 aircraft by the end of the 2020s, and the likelihood that sensors, avionics and engines will mature is questionable.
- concludes Bronk, believing that in his material he gave an exhaustive explanation of why the Su-57 loses to the Raptor.

118 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. Asad
    Asad 4 November 2020 06: 17
    27
    Oh, these English scientists, they know everything! Everyone knows, better than our designers, they just can't do it!
    1. Mytholog
      Mytholog 4 November 2020 07: 28
      +8
      Where the hell did this "British expert" come from if there is no aviation industry on the island, in fact? All from the States are purchasing.
      1. military_cat
        military_cat 4 November 2020 07: 59
        +4
        Quote: Mytholog
        if there is no aviation industry on the island, basically?

        BAE Systems is quite there.
        1. Mytholog
          Mytholog 4 November 2020 08: 26
          +1
          Quote: military_cat
          BAE Systems is quite there.
          Oh, yes. Eurofighter Typhoon. By the way, when was the last one released? And what does it have to do with the 5th generation? )
          1. military_cat
            military_cat 4 November 2020 08: 55
            +2
            BAE Systems is not only Typhoon, but also participation in the F-35 program.
            1. Mytholog
              Mytholog 4 November 2020 09: 31
              -2
              Quote: military_cat
              BAE Systems is not only a Typhoon, but also participation in the F-35 program

              Come on. Are you seriously? Do you really think that any critical unit is manufactured outside the USA?
              1. military_cat
                military_cat 4 November 2020 09: 54
                +8
                A senseless question, since everyone has their own ideas about the responsible "somewhat" and "not at all". The entire electronic warfare system (AN / ASQ-239), the on-board computer and the laser part of the guidance system are made by BAE Systems.
                1. hydrox
                  hydrox 4 November 2020 21: 07
                  -1
                  Quote: military_cat
                  The entire electronic warfare system (AN / ASQ-239), the on-board computer and the laser part of the guidance system are made by BAE Systems.

                  They themselves confirmed everything: this is not aviation, but avionics, that is, not a glider, not a weapon or engines. And avionics, yes, is produced by many, and the aviation industry consumes all this.
              2. Alex777
                Alex777 4 November 2020 09: 58
                -1
                Work on the Tempest started in 2018. The fighter should be ready in 2035. The development cost is estimated at £ 2,54 billion ($ XNUMX billion). The British company BAE Systems was appointed the lead developer of the aircraft. The fighter, which is to replace the fourth-generation Eurofighter Typhoon, will feature a high degree of automation and digitalization, and will also receive hypersonic weapons.

                https://www.aviaport.ru/digest/2020/07/27/647083.html
                https://www.aex.ru/news/2020/7/27/215091/
                After the British military tested American fifth-generation F-35 fighters, official London canceled the contract with Washington to supply the Royal Air Force with a batch of 68 F-35 fighters - the amount of the deal thwarted for the United States is about 15-18 billion dollars.
                “Plans for 138 planes were canceled, but the UK agreed to buy 48 by the end of 2025 as part of a £ 9,1 billion deal. The short takeoff and vertical landing aircraft will be deployed on the Royal Navy's Queen Elizabeth class aircraft carriers, The Times reported. Instead, military funding will go to a UK-developed jet. Tempest, the production of which is expected by 2035 ", - reports the British newspaper" Daily Mail ".

                https://avia.pro/news/velikobritaniya-razorvala-kontrakt-na-postavku-iz-ssha-68-istrebiteley-f-35
                1. fighter angel
                  fighter angel 4 November 2020 14: 17
                  10
                  avia.pro is a throw-in and provocative Internet channel operating in Khokhlostan. The fact that they refer to the "Times" and "Daily Mail" there - it is necessary to check what was really written in the original source. Do not believe it.
                  1. Alex777
                    Alex777 4 November 2020 14: 20
                    +2
                    Three in a row on the search resulted.
                    The meaning of the response to a colleague Mytholog understandable?
                    There is an aircraft industry in Britain.
                    And even avia.pro will not cancel it. hi
                    1. fighter angel
                      fighter angel 4 November 2020 14: 28
                      +3
                      The aviation industry, of course, is in the UK.
                      Not what it used to be, in 1940-1970, but still there.
                      The question is, at what level it is, what it produces, and what it can do.
                      For example, some countries consider the screwdriver assembly of "robinsons" and "supertukano" from car kits - the presence of their "aircraft industry" ...
                      1. Alex777
                        Alex777 4 November 2020 15: 17
                        0
                        Alexey!
                        Well, you understand the difference between Tempest and "supertukano"?
                      2. fighter angel
                        fighter angel 4 November 2020 16: 10
                        +2
                        Alexander!
                        I certainly understand the difference.
                        But Tempest will only be available in 2035 if everything goes according to plan.
                        So far, the small-shavens do not have Tempest.
                        That's when he will be, then "we'll see" ...
                        Let's see how "English" it turns out.
                        And then we will already draw conclusions about the capabilities of their aviation industry ...
                      3. Alex777
                        Alex777 4 November 2020 16: 42
                        -1
                        That's when he will be, then "we'll see" ...
                        Let's see how "English" it turns out.

                        Well, they are not going to do it alone. Yes, and costs need to be cut ...
                        Italy has decided to join the Tempest fighter program, which also includes the UK and Sweden. The goal of the project is to develop a next generation combat aircraft for the European continent. Why Tempest is not a competitor to the American F-35 and where it will be used, Mikhail Khodarenok, military observer of Gazeta.Ru, has figured out.

                        https://www.gazeta.ru/army/2019/09/13/12648505.shtml
                      4. fighter angel
                        fighter angel 4 November 2020 17: 35
                        +3
                        Well, it is still unknown how everything will turn out.
                        One fighter is already under development on the European continent.
                        Airbus jointly with Dassault presented the New Fighter project back in 2016.
                        5th generation, to replace the Eurofighter. Details about this in the Vzlet magazine 9/10 - 2018.
                        As for the aircraft industry in small Britain, it somehow shredded it ...
                        Having optimized, they probably degrade.
                        In the 1960s and 80s, I remember the Angles could afford three "strategists" to immediately take on arms: "Vulcan", "Victor" and "Valiant", plus their interceptor "Lightning", plus a joint fighter-bomber "Jaguar" , plus "Tornado", joint Italian-German, plus VTOL "Harrier" - purely its own revolutionary development, also combat training "Hawk", well, passenger cars also had their own - VC-10, VAS-111 ... And helicopters how many of theirs did they have?
                        And now the English only participate in joint projects, and there are very few of those ...
                    2. hydrox
                      hydrox 4 November 2020 17: 54
                      +2
                      It is clear that the expert is lying.
                      After all, this plane has never appeared on any screen of our sworn friends - how then could the "sworn" remove the signatures?
                      The next lie, again about signatures: is the expert talking about radar signatures captured in what radiation range? If in centimeter, then the F-22 and F-35 in some angles will be very unobtrusive, but after all, the Luneberg lenses are removed only from aircraft entering combat missions, while in the meter range the "invisible" will continue to sparkle like Christmas trees and any Russian ground surveillance radar will see them for 500-800 km.
                      Another expert nonsense: what does he say about the "hard-to-find radar"? If you turn off the radar, then you really have to look for the plane on the screen, but if the radar is working, then its radiation can be detected very far (the Su-57 has a very decent radar!).
                      And what kind of nonsense is the expert talking about some "altitude characteristics" that in some unknown way protect the F-22 from long-range Russian missiles. By the way, the F-22 must somehow sneak up to the launch distance in order to launch, but already at the moment the aiming radar is turned on, the pilot can consider himself a corpse. Or does the F-22 graze in "very close" space that the Su-57 cannot reach?
                      In general, stupidity, strung on stupidity and stupidly strapped, and in "Forbes" there are ignoramuses who spread all this rubbish around the world ...
                    3. military_cat
                      military_cat 4 November 2020 18: 16
                      0
                      Quote: hydrox
                      Another expert nonsense: what does he say about "hard-to-find radar"?
                      What are you talking about. Read about noise-like modulation and a matched filter (Wikipedia has it). If a radar emits a noise-like signal with a power spectral density below the background, then for an outside observer it is invisible in the background noise, and a receiver with a matched filter can take advantage of the property of increasing the signal-to-noise ratio and isolate a noise-like signal. For stealth, it is required that the enemy cannot guess the shape of the noise-like signal (and, accordingly, make the necessary matched filter for himself), which is achieved by using cryptographic pseudo-random number generators with proven stability to modulate the emitted signal.
                    4. hydrox
                      hydrox 4 November 2020 18: 38
                      +2
                      The more noise-like signal (also of decent power (for a decent range!)) You emit, the more powerful and slower filters you will need to apply to recognize the target signal against the background of noise. And it doesn't matter that this is PSEUDO noise - it is easily calculated by the Su-57 electronic warfare systems. So your pseudo-noise-like signal is the passport of your presence in the air! Get ready for a nasty takeover signal.
                      Sorry, but ANY HEADLIGHTS are not limitless on the spectrum.
                    5. military_cat
                      military_cat 4 November 2020 18: 44
                      0
                      Quote: hydrox
                      And it doesn't matter that this is PSEUDO noise - it is easily calculated by the Su-57 electronic warfare systems.

                      It is a pity that they are embarrassed to demonstrate such ease in solving PRNGs in civilian life - they would have taken away all the money from all banks in the world long ago.
                    6. hydrox
                      hydrox 4 November 2020 20: 02
                      +1
                      Sorry, but they are being taken away, and so taken away that we only have to lick our lips.
                      lol
                    7. military_cat
                      military_cat 4 November 2020 20: 21
                      +1
                      Let me doubt it. But I will be happy to reconsider my opinion when they have finally mastered the "Telegram" blocking.
              3. hydrox
                hydrox 4 November 2020 20: 35
                +2
                It's okay: you are fighting, and I am plus you - your opinion must be protected.
                Everything that you wrote is all true, except for one thing: do you know how noise-like differs from noise and because of this it becomes easily detectable by modern high-speed computers?
                Regularity!
                And where there is regularity, there is also its source - that's what the electronic warfare will do immediately, as soon as it suspects something, and be sure - if you do not have time to turn off and turn around on your heel, then your song will be sung on the F-22 - after all, this is an old plane, although it is good ... but for its time, and AIMs fly only 200 km, while ours - 300 km, and therefore it makes no sense to sneak up on radio communications "only for reception", even though hangs somewhere AWACS, which sets your course and echelon and you, headlong, break into the afterburner in order to be able to press Start earlier (you will have about 40 seconds extra time) than the Russian pilot will do (he may also have his own AWACS), but he can get out of your AIMka, but you cannot do this from his R-37M.
              4. Dart
                Dart 4 November 2020 21: 40
                +4
                How great it is to watch the comments, who know the topic and respect themselves and the opponent, members of the forum.
                ps. What becomes a rarity on this resource, when filled with trolls ...
              5. hydrox
                hydrox 4 November 2020 22: 21
                +3
                So join in!
            2. military_cat
              military_cat 5 November 2020 05: 59
              -1
              Quote: hydrox
              Do you know how noise-like differs from noise and because of this it becomes easily detectable by modern high-speed computers?
              Regularity!
              The sequence length is determined by the number of PRNG status bits. By choosing it, you can make a sequence that, when continuously broadcast on the air, will repeat, for example, once every 1000 years. And no, it's not difficult, the length of the sequence grows exponentially from the number of state bits.
            3. hydrox
              hydrox 5 November 2020 16: 44
              +1
              Can you explain to me why all this should be done when the aircraft operates as an element of the network-centric system? request
            4. military_cat
              military_cat 5 November 2020 19: 19
              -1
              Somehow I am alarmed by such a sudden change of topic without an explicit completion of the previous one. Regarding the radar with a low probability of detection, did you still agree that the expert is lying and talking nonsense?
            5. hydrox
              hydrox 5 November 2020 19: 27
              0
              Yes, I will stay until you point me to a real station using the effects you described :: I understand that I may have gaps in the modern competencies of using scientific advances in aircraft location, but after all "everything is learned by comparison," right? lol
            6. military_cat
              military_cat 5 November 2020 19: 48
              0
              Here it is written about the principles, and there is a list of radars that use them: https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/36696271.pdf

              And all this is called "low probability of intercept (LPI) radar", i.e. Low intercept radar is a technical term.
            7. hydrox
              hydrox 5 November 2020 20: 02
              0
              So this is theory!
              The radars are old, none of them with AFAR.
              I saw the 22 GHz number - and immediately lost all interest.
              But thanks anyway for trying to estimate the results of experiments with iron - over time, maybe that will work out ...
            8. military_cat
              military_cat 5 November 2020 20: 42
              -1
              Quote: hydrox
              The radars are old, none of them with AFAR.

              It's strange that you didn't notice AN / APG-77.
            9. hydrox
              hydrox 6 November 2020 06: 48
              0
              And why notice it if it has a target detection range with APR 1m.kv. is 240 km, and for H036 - 400 km?
            10. military_cat
              military_cat 6 November 2020 08: 11
              -1
              Something I have not seen anywhere data that H036 is LPI. A radar without LPI presents itself as a target and without additional help.
            11. hydrox
              hydrox 6 November 2020 17: 16
              0
              At least, we had experience and best practices in order to understand how the 77th radar works, which made it possible to create an advanced device, but whether it has LPI or not, it is violet to me: the main thing is that it is network-centric more with the participation of Containers, there is NO confrontation among the 57th enemies among American cars.
    2. Hexenmeister
      Hexenmeister 6 November 2020 09: 14
      0
      it is a technical term.
      This is an advertising slogan! There is a technical characteristic of the signal called "Signal Base", so it characterizes the "noise-like", but it does not insure against "interception" (low or high probability), the problem "find something without knowing what" has long had a solution, great mathematics Science has already been discussed here, even at the level of patents.
    3. military_cat
      military_cat 6 November 2020 11: 07
      -1
      Quote: Hexenmeister
      the problem "find something without knowing what" has a solution for a long time, mathematics is a great Science
      Mathematics works in both directions, and in the direction of "find" and in the direction of "hide". And modern cryptography shows that in the direction of "hide" it works much more efficiently, huge billions of money are protected solely by the fact that any information about them is mathematically made indistinguishable from completely random noise. And although anyone capable of isolating the slightest information (for example, that at some moments the same message was transmitted, or that an empty message was transmitted, etc.) gets the opportunity to incredibly enrich himself - and still cannot, if other vulnerabilities not related to encryption , no.
    4. Hexenmeister
      Hexenmeister 6 November 2020 12: 30
      0
      You have a complete confusion in your head. What does cryptography have to do with radar, RTR and EW problems ??? No problem in detecting radiation without even knowing what signal is being emitted! And what this signal carries for RTR and EW is indifferent! The noise will overwhelm everything!
    5. military_cat
      military_cat 6 November 2020 12: 43
      -1
      Have you ever read what I wrote above? A noise-like signal for an outside observer can be masked against the background of natural noise, and he will not be able to distinguish it in any way if he does not know its shape in advance. And on the receiver side, a matched filter can be used, which, based on the previously known shape of the emitted signal, increases the signal-to-noise ratio and separates the reflected signal. And cryptography is here, despite the fact that it solves the problem of how to generate a deterministic noise-like signal, indistinguishable from random noise for someone who does not know the secret key, and thereby make it impossible for him to use a consistent filter.
    6. Hexenmeister
      Hexenmeister 6 November 2020 12: 58
      0
      and he cannot distinguish it in any way if he does not know its shape in advance.
      You didn't read my answer! There was a discussion on this topic, and even a patent was cited, mathematics allows you to detect the fact of the presence of a signal, even without knowing its shape!
    7. military_cat
      military_cat 6 November 2020 13: 00
      -1
      Can you please provide a link? Or can you explain in your own words, on the basis of what, what characteristic is the separation of the signal from the noise?
    8. Hexenmeister
      Hexenmeister 6 November 2020 13: 28
      0
      Unfortunately, I can't find it ... as usual, we had an article, but not about that, the discovery of LPI surfaced in the discussion, there were reports that like "Khibiny" could already do this, and a certain patent surfaced there.
  2. Rzzz
    Rzzz 7 November 2020 15: 53
    +1
    In the case of a real batch, avaks and refuelers will be the first to shoot down. After that, lightnings and raptors will become useless irons and themselves fall into the sea in an hour.
  3. Rzzz
    Rzzz 7 November 2020 15: 44
    +1
    Quote: hydrox
    After all, this plane has never appeared on any screen of our sworn friends - how then could the "sworn" remove the signatures?

    He flew to Syria for tests, they could take pictures of him on the way, and there on the spot.
  • The comment was deleted.
  • Bar1
    Bar1 4 November 2020 07: 35
    15
    the main drawback of su57 is that they do not exist, so there is nothing to discuss.
    1. the Saint
      the Saint 4 November 2020 19: 51
      -1
      Quote: Bar1
      the main drawback of su57 is that they do not exist, so there is nothing to discuss.

      As if they are not there, but at the same time, it seems like one is still available.
      The first serial Su-57 from an initial batch of 76 vehicles crashed just before being handed over to the troops. Immediately after the incident at the KnAAZ plant, they promised to assemble a new car by October 2020, and they completed the task of the party and government on time. True, this only serial Su-57, which is undergoing verification tests before being transferred to the troops, is equipped with the so-called AL-41F1 first stage engine, which is also installed on the Su-35S.
    2. evgenii67
      evgenii67 5 November 2020 18: 11
      0
      That's it. ours promise 76 units. by the year 27, the first serial had disappeared at the end of that year, for the whole of 2020 they had lifted as many as 1, ONE, Karl, an airplane. On the nose 21 years., It is necessary to be a mega-optimist to believe that by the year 27 they will build and hand over 75 units. (I hope they will pass it by the end of the year). I think a maximum of 20-25 units. by 27 years old.
  • Turanov
    Turanov 4 November 2020 09: 10
    -2
    Quote: ASAD
    Oh, these English scientists, they know everything! Everyone knows, better than our designers, they just can't do it!

    It's just that our weapons are checked in real combat, and not scratched with tongues .. There are problems, like all others .. The work is underway, that's what is most important!
  • deniso
    deniso 4 November 2020 17: 58
    +1
    All Western experts have finally turned on their stealth ... are they going to fly on it, or shoot from it? The aircraft has no other characteristics.
  • hydrox
    hydrox 4 November 2020 19: 59
    +2
    Let's understand the terminology.
    An expert is not a scientist, but a person who feeds on a description of what he has never even seen in his eyes, but even more often does not understand what it is, why it is, how it works and why it is born. If, in spite of these questions, he undertakes to apply his pen and considerations to what is outlined above - he becomes a real British Xperd. Period :: this is where his function ends and it looks from afar, HOW we are here chopping over the nonsense that he fiddled with us.
    Scientists are those people who, with disgust, push aside the magazines into which the iksperd sprinkle their ideas, because for this they can fall out of the category of "scientists" and become "untouchable" toilets, ie. xperds.
    Knowing, understanding and being able to do is not for them: they graze on the asphalt and from here take off their tithes by trying to explain what they do not know in such a way that it is impossible to understand, and then in order to look at us from the height of utter highness.
    All.
  • RealPilot
    RealPilot 5 November 2020 13: 37
    0
    Well, about our capabilities, I would not advise them to think so categorically ... bully
    Our fathers and grandfathers, after a devastating war, had nuclear weapons 6 years later, and 10 years after this breakthrough, the first man was launched into space!
    And this is just the tip of the iceberg ...

    Our military doctrine is defensive now, for this our country has everything, albeit not the most perfect. And work for the future continues, there is no need to have a lot of expensive and "damp" equipment - just more correct a little later, but better!

    Well, let these gentlemen calm themselves. The dog barks and the caravan goes wink
  • Jacket in stock
    Jacket in stock 4 November 2020 06: 24
    14
    If the retelling is correct, then all the statements of the "expert" are based on "maybe" "the probability is doubtful" and other highlikes.
    But at the same time, the expert concludes that he gave an exhaustive explanation.
    And yes, where did he get the exact data on the radar signature?
    1. Sergey_G_M
      Sergey_G_M 4 November 2020 06: 27
      12
      Yes, he has all the explanations - "we are rich, and they are poor and therefore cannot." Well, the argumentation is so-so, dubious.
      1. Cosm22
        Cosm22 4 November 2020 10: 14
        +3
        Are our arguments one hundred percent?
        Maybe for a start, at least ONE copy of the aircraft should be delivered to the troops? And only after that to talk about argumentation?
    2. Kuroneko
      Kuroneko 4 November 2020 06: 46
      +4
      Quote: Jacket in stock
      And yes, where did he get the exact data on the radar signature?

      I crawled with a ruler.
    3. Sidor Amenpodestovich
      Sidor Amenpodestovich 4 November 2020 08: 34
      +2
      Quote: Jacket in stock
      And yes, where did he get the exact data on the radar signature?

      He blew medical marijuana, purely for medicinal purposes, of course, and it dawned on him.
    4. hydrox
      hydrox 4 November 2020 18: 44
      +4
      You just didn't notice that this liar has neither the parameters of the radar signature, nor the corresponding digits for the infrared signature.
      It's just that the suckers who sit in Forbes are so stupid that they don't care what to put on their pages - the expert received his 30 pieces of silver ...
  • Sergey_G_M
    Sergey_G_M 4 November 2020 06: 24
    +6
    Well, the Americans are funny in coming up with the names "Felon" - "Criminal", it's funny and in my opinion they began to guess about something wink
    1. vVvAD
      vVvAD 4 November 2020 12: 26
      +1
      No - they constantly come up with repulsive names for our technology in order to arouse disgust and disregard for it, etc. conquer fear.
      The moral stability of the pampered warriors there requires ...
      1. Horon
        Horon 5 November 2020 14: 23
        0
        This is one of the tools of propaganda and psychological preparation. It was not the plane that was shot down, but the attacker.
    2. Horon
      Horon 5 November 2020 14: 19
      0
      It's just that we don't have a tradition of giving our own names to the technique of a potential enemy, but it would be informative to give names to their technique and this is the only way to voice it! winked For example: call all fighters with dirty words starting with the letter "y": "yrod" - f22, "y6fucker" - f35, etc. Particularly unlucky is the model that will be called "duck"! good
  • svp67
    svp67 4 November 2020 06: 33
    +9
    A country that has lost the ability to produce modern combat aircraft teaches others how to make aircraft ... already ridiculous
    1. Turanov
      Turanov 4 November 2020 09: 13
      0
      Quote: svp67
      A country that has lost the ability to produce modern combat aircraft teaches others how to make aircraft ... already ridiculous

      It's funny and sad .. Their hatred is already off scale, along with envy, how Russia could create such a thing .. After all, we have been predicted since the 90s the role of a raw materials appendage of the West.
  • midivan
    midivan 4 November 2020 06: 36
    +7
    recourse Yes, the English bulldog grabbed a stranglehold on the Su-57, but his jaw turned out to be from the Pikinesis, perhaps he should get acquainted with Damantsev, then he will find out what a bunch of parsley is today ... laughing
    1. Dart
      Dart 4 November 2020 21: 48
      +1
      Our Damantsev will chew it up with his high calmness and will not even choke ...
  • ANDREY MIKHAILOV_2
    ANDREY MIKHAILOV_2 4 November 2020 06: 41
    +1
    Wow, what was it? Justin Bronk what were you under? When they wrote another masterpiece of British scientists.
  • rotmistr60
    rotmistr60 4 November 2020 06: 50
    +5
    ... the likelihood that sensors, avionics and engines will mature is questionable
    It is understandable, since in their opinion, there can be nothing better in Russia than in the British kingdom. It would be fine if they themselves produced 5th generation aircraft, were advanced in other types of weapons, and this looks like another attempt to somehow humiliate Russia.
  • Eug
    Eug 4 November 2020 06: 58
    +3
    Design is always, to a certain extent, a choice of priorities. ... And what the "expert" thinks is unacceptable, Hiley Likely is a choice (between the desired and the real) of the customer, which is inevitable when creating advanced technology. And whose priorities will be "more correct" - time and operation will show. Nobody canceled the national features of the aircraft industry.
  • aszzz888
    aszzz888 4 November 2020 07: 04
    0
    These "sobering conclusions" were drawn by Justin Bronk, an Air Force expert at the Royal Joint Institute for Defense Studies (London), writes the American edition of Forbes:
    It is clear who is shielded by this excPerth! impudent and merikatos - two boots of one pair.
  • Thrifty
    Thrifty 4 November 2020 07: 05
    0
    Here's where these come from? He decided to promote f22? If so, then the decision is unfortunate, because the raptor is no longer made! He decided to just "throw the clever man" - I do not see any other conclusion about his verbal fical mass!
  • NEXUS
    NEXUS 4 November 2020 07: 41
    0
    According to Bronk, thanks to a high degree of all-round stealth, hard-to-detect radar and altitude characteristics, the F-22 is capable of "completely surpassing all existing Russian combat aircraft."

    This Bronk is still that specialist. The F-22 is outdated and is being promoted like a super-duper aircraft, which does not have and will not have any analogues in the world in the near future.
    Especially amused about the all-round secrecy.
    I wonder how Bronk tested this secrecy to make such a claim?
    These features are likely the result of Russia's comparative inexperience in stealth aircraft design and construction, coupled with budgetary constraints.

    And nothing, that stealth technology was invented in the USSR?
  • Klingon
    Klingon 4 November 2020 07: 45
    +1
    ExPerd is empty, it is better to calculate how many Stealth fighters of the 5th generation were designed and produced by the United Kingdom - otherwise, for some reason, they still fly on archaic Harriers wassat
  • Ross xnumx
    Ross xnumx 4 November 2020 07: 49
    +4
    Based on the famous children's song from the movie "The Adventures of Buratino":

    This London scholar
    To those who have eaten up "crushed"
    Thinking about stealth
    Scratched his galangal ...

    - Tired of it! They teach, they teach!
    Tired of it! They teach, they teach!
    - We teach, we teach ...
    Teach better than your English!

    Ay, stupid as traffic jams, these
    That everything is always responsible
    In whose helpless advice
    The layman is looking for the truth.

    - Tired of it! They teach, they teach!
    Tired of it! They teach, they teach!
    - We teach, we teach ...
    Teach better than your English!

    Shouldn't send all of you in swoop
    Straight .. Yes, just….
    On a known route
    So that you do not sow confusion
    Among our members of the forum?

    - Tired of it! They teach, they teach!
    Tired of it! They teach, they teach!
    - We teach, we teach ...
    - Teach better than your English!
    drinks
  • Antonio_Mariarti
    Antonio_Mariarti 4 November 2020 07: 56
    -2
    Sushka 57 will not go into service soon, as it is expensive and needs to be decent, but the Russian army decided to save money, so for now there will be a 4 ++ generation for 10 years.
  • Reserve buildbat
    Reserve buildbat 4 November 2020 08: 04
    +2
    The next iksperd, based on the results of examining the pictures and the contents of his own nose, gave birth to an opinion that he did not even imagine.
    By the way, the passage about "the new layout of the X-band Su-57 radar in combination with the low-frequency arrays that Sukhoi plans to add to the wings of the aircraft poses an integration risk. This is due to the fact that" the Russian industry has been suffering from a shortage of high-quality microelectronic components since introduction of Western sanctions "I really liked it. This way it turns out that equipping the aircraft with a more efficient radar complex is a drawback caused by the lack of what we have not purchased anyway.
  • strelokmira
    strelokmira 4 November 2020 08: 11
    -6
    Surprisingly adequate analysis, there is nothing to argue with
  • Operator
    Operator 4 November 2020 08: 16
    -2
    EPR F-22 ~ 0,2 m35, F-0,3 ~ 57 m0,4, Su-XNUMX ~ XNUMX mXNUMX

    For all other indicators (speed, range, maneuverability, number and capacity of weapons bays, situational awareness, etc.), the Su-57 is ahead of the F-22 and covers the F-35 like a bull.

    And this despite the fact that the US aviation industry exploded on the F-22 (eliminated its super-costly production) and switched to the production of a surrogate F-35 laughing
    1. the Saint
      the Saint 4 November 2020 18: 10
      -3
      Quote: Operator
      capacity of weapons bays


      Russia, while developing its fifth generation Su-57 fighter, unsuccessfully copied the most important combat unit from the American F-22, which has a special mechanism that pushes the missile out of the compartment under the wing. It was he, according to the media, copied by the Russians. The video and airshow never shows the Su-57 opening its internal compartments, while the F-22 does so regularly. It looks like there are problems with this mechanism.
      1. Operator
        Operator 4 November 2020 19: 23
        -1
        The Su-57 is the first and so far the only aircraft that has an armament compartment under the wing; there was no one to copy this compartment from.
        1. the Saint
          the Saint 4 November 2020 19: 42
          -4
          Quote: Operator
          The Su-57 is the first and so far the only aircraft that has an armament compartment under the wing; there was no one to copy this compartment from.

          Yes? Again, unparalleled in the world?
          In fact, I have written about copying a mechanism located in a compartment, and not about a compartment, that is, a simple cavity that there is no need to copy.
          1. Operator
            Operator 4 November 2020 22: 56
            -2
            The mechanism is called a catapult installation, in Russian aviation it is used from Tsar Pea.
            1. the Saint
              the Saint 5 November 2020 09: 15
              -1
              Quote: Operator
              The mechanism is called a catapult installation, in Russian aviation it is used from Tsar Pea.

              Intra-body catapults of the rotary-drum type of bombers are not related to the complex mechanism of a fighter, which for the first time uses a method of rapid ejection of a rocket.
              1. Operator
                Operator 5 November 2020 12: 21
                -1
                And what has it to do with rotary-drum (which is also more complicated than just catapult)? laughing
    2. eklmn
      eklmn 4 November 2020 22: 59
      -1
      Not knowing English does not exempt you from writing nonsense.
      "How good is the invisibility of the F-22 and F-35?"
      Sep, 2019
      https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/how-good-stealth-f-22-and-f-35-anyway-82791
      “Stealth aircraft are optimized to be difficult to observe on the precise X-band radars used on modern fighters: although some radars have better resolution than others, most will only be able to track an invisible fighter over shorter distances. The F-22 (and F-35) are said to have a radar cross-section of 0,0001 square meters in a specific aspect - the same as the jammer.
      Low frequency, low bandwidth radars are more effective at detecting stealth aircraft. They are commonly used by ground installations and ships, but are also found on specialized aerial platforms such as the E-2D. However, they have a serious limitation: they can only show the general location of a stealth fighter and are too inaccurate to be used for targeting missiles, although they can point to X-band radar where to look.
      Infrared Search and Tracking Systems (IRST) offer another way of detecting stealth aircraft, but their range is usually limited. The latest IRST system on the SU-35 has increased the range to 50 km, and its radar has a detection range of up to 200 km. Like low frequency radar, IRST does not provide accurate tracking and cannot be used to lock onto a target. ”
      F-22 / F-35 - 0,0001 sq. meter. Su-57 - 0.4 sq. meters. See the difference ???
      1. Horon
        Horon 5 November 2020 14: 33
        0
        Why not 0, 0000000001? So you want to say that its ESR is lower than that of a pigeon? Which universe is it in?
  • Maki maki
    Maki maki 4 November 2020 08: 21
    19
    Its radar signature is at least 10 times that of the American F-22 Raptor.

    How did the "expert" measure this? I'm sure he was not allowed to approach the F-22 either. laughing
    1. eklmn
      eklmn 4 November 2020 23: 07
      -1
      The F-22 / F-35 is said to be 0,0001 kv. meter, Su-57 - 0.4 sq. meters. The F-22 / F-35 have a special coating, the Su-57 does not, so its EDA parameters can be easily calculated.
      1. Operator
        Operator 4 November 2020 23: 20
        0
        The F-117 had all the stealth gadgets - a honeycomb skin ~ 20 cm thick, a faceted airframe, a radar-absorbing coating, S-shaped air ducts, adhesive tape-sealed hatch joints, but its RCS was only 0,1 square meters (measured by the results of detection and testing at the stand after the downing of F-117 in Yugoslavia).

        How can the F-22 (not to mention the F-35), which has only radio-absorbing coating and scotch tape from this set, have an RCS lower than the F-117?

        PS The radio-absorbing coating is a gummy plastic filled with ferromagnetic particles, invented by the Germans 75 years ago.
        1. eklmn
          eklmn 5 November 2020 00: 04
          -1
          “The F-117 had all the stealth gadgets - a honeycomb skin ~ 20 cm thick, a faceted airframe, a radio-absorbing coating, S-shaped air ducts, the manhole joints sealed with tape, but its RCS was only 0,1 sq. M (measured by the test bench after the downing of F-117 in Yugoslavia). "
          Re-read in the Military Review a couple of days ago how the F-117 was shot down - due to the disturbance of the low-frequency spectrum of the radar at a distance, it seems, 10-12 km. They shot at random. F-22/35 at this distance will glow like fireflies at night.
          "Invisibles" are good at a distance of no closer than 50-60 km, they look like a hindrance.
          "How can the F-22 (not to mention the F-35), which has only radio-absorbing coating and tape from this set, can have an RCS below the F-117?"
          I have no idea! For us_with_you there is always the word "affirmed".
          Buyers already EXACTLY know the characteristics ...
  • bar
    bar 4 November 2020 08: 49
    +1
    it is not clear to the expert how successful the chosen design was. In particular, the author questions the secrecy of this machine.

    What kind of expert is he if he doesn't understand? And again we ran into this "secrecy". Is the stealth gained at the expense of flight performance so good? This is a big question that only a real war can answer. NATO's approach to it is clear - long-range air battles with long-range missiles without direct contact. And the fighter is just a means of covertly delivering these missiles to the launch site. Will it work in real life? And if it doesn't work out, what will they do with their hulking coffins in the "dog dump"? And you shouldn't forget about radar. Science does not stand still, what is "invisible" today may very soon turn out to be quite visible, and, moreover, with very mediocre flight data.
  • grandfather_Kostya
    grandfather_Kostya 4 November 2020 09: 44
    +5
    The F-22, unlike the Su-57, has already fought a lot with aliens in Hollywood films, so the plane is licked to perfection. Ours has not shot down a single flying saucer in the cinema.
    1. the Saint
      the Saint 4 November 2020 18: 12
      -5
      Quote: grandfather_Kostya
      Ours has not shot down a single flying saucer in the cinema.

      Ours, so far, only crashed himself. The first serial, and whether there is a serial second is still unknown.
      1. Horon
        Horon 5 November 2020 14: 43
        0
        They, too, have already hit quite a few, and even with the pilots together. In addition, half the world is working on the production of ph35, and only Russia is working on su57, no matter how comparable economic opportunities and production opportunities are. It is like comparing handicraft and factory production.
  • Whirlwind
    Whirlwind 4 November 2020 10: 17
    +2
    Yeah. The Su-57 is a heavily, heavily, heavily modified version of the Wright brothers' biplane.
    And the Bronkovsky Raptor is, of course, who would doubt it, the chariot of the gods ...
  • orionvitt
    orionvitt 4 November 2020 10: 25
    +2
    Its radar signature is at least 10 times that of the American F-22 Raptor.
    This is in the British "experts", 10 times less mind, as in the British "scientists". First, make your own, then you will scold someone else's. The Chinese are constantly criticizing the SU-57, to put it mildly. So they have their own. No matter what, but his own. True, and "their own" with a stretch, the guys work, unlike Britain.
    1. pereselenec
      pereselenec 4 November 2020 11: 46
      0
      Quote: orionvitt
      First, make your own, then you will scold someone else's.


      But here they constantly criticize various American equipment and developments such as convertiplanes, lasers, and unmanned aerial vehicles, which Russia cannot or does not see the need to build.
      1. Horon
        Horon 5 November 2020 14: 49
        0
        Do experts scold or members of the forum? On the forums of the West, Russians have even forgotten how to make moonshine, for oil they buy alcohol from Georgians and Turks to get drunk and sit at a computer to choose a president in the United States! This is their right, as well as the right of Russian members of the forum to find flaws in the technique of a potential enemy.
  • HMR333
    HMR333 4 November 2020 10: 33
    +2
    More such mediocre scientists for them! Another vyser of an incompetent order. And the funniest thing to read is from a country that is not able to create its own aircraft of that generation 5.
  • Senka naughty
    Senka naughty 4 November 2020 10: 35
    0
    Yes, yes, we don't give a damn about radars, but you don't ..
  • Zaurbek
    Zaurbek 4 November 2020 10: 55
    +4
    Without discussing the Su57 itself, the main "cons"
    - We no longer make cheap equipment. Su57 is quite comparable with F35 in terms of price and price of weapons
    - we can't do much of it either
    - F35 during the production of our 76pcs Su57 will multiply in thousands of pieces and will undergo more than one modernization
    Bottom line: Will we financially pull such a program and in production? And we can face F35 quite realistically (not with American ones, but with allied ones like Poland) with their full information support (refuellers, intelligence data, interference, AWACS)
  • iouris
    iouris 4 November 2020 11: 24
    -2
    There are only two Patamushta. And those two jokes are at the factory.
  • pereselenec
    pereselenec 4 November 2020 11: 37
    +5
    Why the Su-57 loses to the Raptor in stealth

    Exactly for one reason - the blades of the turbine sparkling in full view of the radars, which are not hidden in the S-shaped channels like on American cars. Unfortunately, without a radical rework of the airframe, this cannot be done in any way.


  • Object.F7
    Object.F7 4 November 2020 12: 20
    +2
    Low visibility could have been a trump card ten years ago, and today, in laboratory conditions, the theory of the operation of radio-photon radar has already been confirmed in practice, which absolutely completely negates low-signature technologies. Having a small RCS is good against third and fourth generation fighters, and in this regard, the Su-57 has an advantage. And against other so-called "stealths" there will be ROFAR, and neither s-channels of air intakes, nor engine nozzles recessed in the housing, nor any cunning coating will be saved there ... The F-22 will be guaranteed to glow on the radar with its beautiful 3D model, and at distances where even the R-37m will not reach (and this is oh-so how far), unless on a collision course. This British expert, 4 years ago, argued that the F-35 had no chance against the Su-35, so it should not be recorded in the British newcomer witness sect. It is strange that in November 2020 he is not aware of ROFAR. And the Raptor was once really an excellent advanced machine, the penguins did not walk around, though there is no OLS, and the internal compartments are small, and the saddest thing for them is that there is no future, since they no longer produce
    1. Eugene-Eugene
      4 November 2020 16: 42
      +2
      Still, ROFAR is a prospect and not that close.
      1. Object.F7
        Object.F7 4 November 2020 19: 09
        0
        Well, it is clear that not today. So does the 57x series ... by 2027. ROFAR has time to catch up.
    2. Alexey from Perm
      Alexey from Perm 4 November 2020 20: 19
      0
      that's when your uberwaflya radar goes into arming, then your post will be in place .. That is, you have to wait another 20 years
    3. eklmn
      eklmn 5 November 2020 04: 33
      0
      “... and today, in laboratory conditions, the theory of the operation of radio-photonic radar has already been confirmed in practice, which absolutely completely negates low-signature technologies. "
      Quite right! You're right! But you didn't say / specify when the quantum radar will leave the lab. I give a tip - it's not soon!
      “Technical problems of quantum radar
      If this all sounds like it still needs to be limited to science fiction, don't worry, there are still real engineering challenges in both types of quantum radars. The main challenges faced by quantum radar are miniaturization, electronic noise in detectors, and rangefinder / imaging algorithms in both systems. Miniaturization is the combination of sensitive optical and electronic components into smaller systems. This requires more work with powerful radar emitters and the integration of photon detectors into smaller enclosures.
      In terms of measuring the intensity of the return signal, the signal strength barely exceeds the shot noise limit unless a large number of photons are emitted in one burst. The high sensitivity and imaging capability expected from an entangled quantum radar is only possible when the total loss is less than about 6 dB. Overcoming this disadvantage requires using a larger radar or finding ways to reduce shot noise in detectors. ”
      So there are still many problems.
      Interesting article for 2017.
      (my opinion is that these problems also apply to Russian systems)
      “Don't buy into the hype surrounding China's quantum radar
      There are more practical and existing ways to counter stealth. "
      https://medium.com/war-is-boring/dont-buy-into-china-s-stealth-defeating-quantum-radar-hype-7b96c5f54ffb
      (lane google)
      “The Chinese defense industry has announced a breakthrough in the adoption of quantum radar technology, but Western defense industry officials have said that such a system is unlikely to exist outside the laboratory. Even then, quantum radars will be difficult to build and reliably test, even in a laboratory setting. ”
  • Knell wardenheart
    Knell wardenheart 4 November 2020 13: 24
    0
    I do not think that we need such a perfect and expensive stealth as in the USA. We compensate for the shortcomings of our technologies in this area with the defensive nature of the doctrine and a powerful echeloned ground-based air defense complex. For defense it will go in general. It is they there who are confused on "secret penetration" - they have an offensive doctrine and an incomparable military budget. We just need to maintain the ability of the industry to quickly roll out a series of medium efficiency, based on our complex advantages.
  • Kettle13
    Kettle13 4 November 2020 14: 25
    +3
    Why "Raptor" loses Su-57 in agility and speed: Russian expert on the shortcomings of the American fighter
    1. eklmn
      eklmn 5 November 2020 04: 41
      -2
      "Why" Raptor "loses Su-57 in maneuverability and speed:"
      Because the Su-57 was created for dog-fighting, i.e. fight with "muscles".
      “Raptor” is created as “quiet_chick_ineligent”, fights with the mind - “before_ saw - before_ shot. And I forgot "
  • Fantazer911
    Fantazer911 4 November 2020 14: 51
    +1
    The British expert knows our engineers better, about avionics, about the radar, the glider, and the fact that the raptor is in the ass, and he is better than the SU - 57, this is generally nonsense, especially when you start reading the article, British scientists, there is no point in reading further, period!
  • Alexey from Perm
    Alexey from Perm 4 November 2020 20: 16
    -1
    This is not news for a long time, everyone who in tme has long known about the problems of the Su 57, only the stoned jingoistic patriots are hysterical from torn shabolns. Foaming at the mouth, proving otherwise. Poor things ..
    1. Kettle13
      Kettle13 5 November 2020 22: 17
      -1
      This is not news for a long time, everyone who is in the subject has long known about the problems of the raptor, only the stubbornness of the know-it-all in hysterics prove that the raptors have no problems and only know about the shortcomings of the Su 57. Poor fellows ...
  • Lexus
    Lexus 4 November 2020 23: 13
    +5
    While in the videoconferencing 0 pcs. combatant Su-57, and the US has F-22 under two hundred, it is ridiculous to compare their performance characteristics.
  • Operator
    Operator 5 November 2020 01: 22
    -3
    Quote: eklmn
    I have no idea

    Then you can believe in 0,00000000000000000000001 square meters of Penguin laughing
  • Bat039
    Bat039 5 November 2020 21: 32
    +3
    Another "cry of Yaroslavna" from another British "scientist" If the Su-57 loses a little to the Yankees in visibility, it is only in the rear hemisphere, but the Yankees loses to the Su-57 in the horizontal maneuver. The new US radars have not yet shown their reliability, and the stealth coating of the F-22 and F-35 is vulnerable not only to rain, but even to clouds with high humidity.
    1. Alexey from Perm
      Alexey from Perm 10 November 2020 06: 23
      0
      You will still live up to a horizontal maneuver)))) when you are blown from out of sight by a rocket
  • Shaska
    Shaska 15 November 2020 18: 23
    -1
    Who is this Justin? Sofa EXPERT-DEMAGOG?
    How did he know the performance characteristics of the SU-57?
    Did he pilot it himself?
    Did he observe him on radar?
    How can he be an expert if all the characteristics of this product are NOT PUBLISHED?
    Damn it ...