In the words of the great Elon Musk about this SU-57 project.
Prototypes are easy, production is hard.
Prototypes are easy, production is hard.
Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning and F-22 'Raptor' : News & Discussion
- Thread starter Nick
- Start date
It's really laughable to put forward this performance because 1300 combat sorties for a squadron, which comprises about 20 aircraft, in six months, that's 65 sorties per aircraft for six months, i.e. 11 sorties per aircraft per month.... One sortie every three days, whereas the norm is three sorties per day and the Indians estimate that the Rafale is capable of five sorties per day.
And then you forget to mention this:
Deployed F-35s Raise Mission-Capable Rates, Help Form New Logistics System - Air Force Magazine
For your information:
The US Department of Defense has decided to replace the ALIS information system with the new ODIN system. However, its development has been delayed. Congress has cut its funding for this year by 42%.
So it is supersonic able? nice....
*****
Coming back from a 1 month ban. Thanks to the well known US F35 fan average citizen
Your plane is as fast as an F-18E and slightly faster (clean configuration) at mach 1.8 than F-35s mach 1.6 with a full internal AG combat load. Just stating the facts incase you didn't know. Btw and the sky is also blue.So it is supersonic able? nice....
*****
Coming back from a 1 month ban. Thanks to the well known US F35 fan average citizen
F35 at mach 1.6 ? No more allowed because it lose parts of the frame.Your plane is as fast as an F-18E and slightly faster (clean configuration) at mach 1.8 than F-35s mach 1.6 with a full internal AG combat load. Just stating the facts incase you didn't know. Btw and the sky is also blue.
Even without that problem, there is no evidence it can reach this speed with full load because of the higher drag in full load (higher AoA).
Yeah, they can. Their GDP is not reflective of their ability to fund their modernisation due to their other sources of revenue, like oil and even defence exports.
Although their defence spending seems small, at $42B, their actual modernisation budget is 70% of that. So about $30B of their money is spent on capital expenditure. Furthermore, due to the massive cost differential, their true modernisation budget is $60B, since $ is not reflective of their true buying power. For example, the MKI used to cost $40M per jet before sanctions hit them in 2014. But today it costs them less than $20M. And the Su-57 costs them $35M instead of $70M. Which means they can buy almost 3 Su-57s for the cost of 1 F-35.
So, while Russia's procurement budget is effectively worth $60B, open source official budget, not their actual budget, the American procurement budget was $147B in 2019. A mere difference of 2.5 times even though there's a 13 times difference in GDP.
You can imagine that they can easily increase that if necessary due to their insanely low public debt, 10% of GDP vs America's 130% of GDP.
Simply put the Russians can easily match American defence spending overnight if they want to. If they double their $30B to $60B, the effective procurement budget will climb to $120B due to the effect of their cheaper currency. Their current problem right now is food supply because they depend on imports. Due to the higher cost of food imports, they are working on import substitution of their entire food industry. Once that happens over the next few years, nothing's stopping them from increasing their defence budget to whatever number they want to.
Another advantage they have is the ability to get their export customers to bankroll their R&D. For example, India recently paid $1.3B for the full ToT of the T-90. That amount's pretty much what the Russian's have likely spent on the entire Armata program. They would have recouped most of their R&D investments in Su-57 through India's FGFA deal as well. They are currently selling stuff to India at profit margins of 100-200%, some smaller deals even go up to 400%. All of this basically pays for their expenses quite easily.
When it comes to defence spending, the Russians are fricking rich.
It's been flying on jets since 2017.
When it comes to defence, you can find flaws in everything when you go looking for it.
People in the West may find autoloaders flawed on tanks. But the operators of autoloaders find the human element flawed, since during the rigours of combat, the human loader is unlikely to sustain combat for as long as the autoloader can. I recently saw a video where a tank loader starts seeing stars after just one shot, it takes a few seconds for him to go back to normal, forget what he ends up going through when the tank's at the receiving end of enemy fire.
It's like the West have some weird say in what's right and what's wrong when it comes to combat. Recently there were hilarious comparisons of trigger discipline found in the IA versus what's used in the West, while forgetting that 100% of the kills made in combat by the IA were in close quarters battle, and while fighting a much more trained and disciplined force than what the West is used to, and without calling for indirect fire or air support.
Incorrect. There is an impression in the West that if it's Russian, it doesn't work. It's like how quickly the Western media jumped on fake reports of Su-57's criticisms in the Indian media. And this criticism ended up reaching even the top rungs of Western analysts. The West is simply anti-Russia to the tee. It doesn't matter how good or bad a Russian system is, since no discussion takes place based on the merits of their systems, it's only focused on the criticism of such systems. Find a flaw, exaggerate it, make the exploration of even ground impossible and then attack all those who give a contrarian view, that's how discussion in the West is, which is why it goes nowhere.
Like, where's the American answer to Russia's Zircon? Or Avangard? The Zircon makes all USN ships significantly vulnerable, but the USN can't admit that. And the Avangard makes the American BMD currently in use completely useless, another thing the Pentagon cannot admit openly.
The Indian air chief a few years ago said that the FGFA will be a generation ahead of the Rafale. Obivously a guy who knows what he's talking about since he has full access to the capabilities of the two jets. Here people are trying to compare the Rafale with the F-35, while forgeting that if the Rafale, in the Finnish tender, ends up being anywhere similar to the F-35, then the FGFA/Su-57 will still be a generation ahead of the Rafale/F-35. Wouldn't this be a very frightening prospect to the USAF?
That was my point about can they afford to keep up. They have a high military spend now. They aren't keeping up now, how much more would they need to spend?
Oil revenue would be included in their GDP, it includes everything. Russia isn't rich, as shown in the chart. The first rule in having a debt, is to find someone who will lend you money.
No, no, GDP is different from govt revenues. The defence budget comes out of govt revenues, not GDP.
What works in Russia's favour is the Russian people are not as dependent on the Russian govt as other economies are. So they need to spend less on welfare than the US has to even though the Russian population is only a little less than half that of the American one.
America's revenue was $3.4T versus Russia's $260B for last year. Obviously a huge difference. US defence budget was $778B versus $42B for Russia. So 23% of US revenue was spent on defence, the same figure for Russia is 16%. They have more room to increase their budget than the US does.
If Russia's defence budget increased to $84B, then that would be 32% of their revenue. This would help them match US defence spending. You think they cannot afford that? Okay, maybe not today without making some lifestyle changes, but what about 5 years down the line? An emerging market's revenue increases faster than a developed one's.
Russian government budget revenues rise, spending growth slows and budget deficit shrinks
The Bank of Finland Institute for Emerging Economies (BOFIT) is an internationally renowned research institute specialising in emerging economies and global economic developments.
www.bofit.fi
This is the reason why the Pentagon keeps saying their defence budget is not big enough. Even though people are surprised by the amount spent, the money that actually goes into buying new stuff is not big enough.
US Defense Budget Not That Much Bigger Than China, Russia: Gen. Milley - Breaking Defense
"I've seen comparative numbers of US defense budget versus China, US defense budget versus Russia," Gen. Milley said. "What is not often commented on is the cost of labor. We’re the best paid military in the world by a long shot. The cost of Russian soldiers or Chinese soldiers is a tiny fraction."
China's procurement spending crossed America's long ago.
They couldn't keep up when they were the soviet union. It safe to say the spending to try, led to the downfall. They have less money to play with now. Russia is $44.6b Australia in $44.6b also We will agree to disagree. They are having trouble keeping up with Australia's spending.
www.aspistrategist.org.au
That’s the consolidated number for the Department of Defence ($43,560.7 million) and the Australian Signals Directorate ($1,057.9 million). That’s an increase on 2020–21 of 6.1% in nominal terms and 4.1% in real terms.
Defence budget climbs to $44.6 billion | The Strategist
The 2021–22 budget was a ‘no surprises’ one for Defence. The government set out its plan in the 2016 white paper, reaffirmed it in last year’s defence strategic update and is now providing Defence with ...
Last edited:
US$32.42b Still a significant amount.
you want to talk about anything but the aircraft, and it shows. Posting click bait all over instead of actual analysis, you seem to be as guilty of politicized indoctrination as anyone else. You don't have any proof or opinion that is yours and when people point this out you change the subject and begin to lament that the board used to be nicer when no one called you out on omissionsThe Woke-Industrial Complex
Lockheed, the nation’s largest defense contractor, sends key executives on a mission to deconstruct their “white male privilege.”
Last year, Lockheed Martin Corporation, the nation’s largest defense contractor, sent white male executives to a three-day diversity-training program aimed at deconstructing their “white male culture” and encouraging them to atone for their “white male privilege,” according to documents I have obtained.
The program, hosted on Zoom for a cohort of 13 Lockheed employees, was led by the diversity-consulting firm White Men As Full Diversity Partners, which specializes in helping white males “awaken together.” The Lockheed employees, all senior leaders in the company, included Aaron Huckaby, director of global supply chain operations; retired Air Force lieutenant colonel David Starr, director of the Hercules C-130 military transport program; retired Air Force lieutenant general Bruce Litchfield, vice president of sustainment operations; and Glenn Woods, vice president of production for the Air Force’s $1.7 trillion F-35 fighter jet program. (Lockheed Martin did not return request for comment.)
At the beginning of the program, the diversity trainers led a “free association” exercise, asking the Lockheed employees to list connotations for the term “white men.” The trainers wrote down “old,” “racist,” “privileged,” “anti-women,” “angry,” “Aryan Nation,” “KKK,” “Founding fathers,” “guns,” “guilty,” and “can’t jump.” According to the participants, these perceptions have led to “assumptions about white men and diversity,” with many employees believing that white men “don’t care about diversity,” “have a classical perspective on history and colonialism,” and “don’t want to give away our power.”
The White Men As Full Diversity Partners team—Jim Morris, Mark Havens, and Michael Welp—framed the purpose of the training session as providing a benefit for white men who embrace the diversity and inclusion philosophy. In response to a prompt about “what’s in it for white men,” the participants listed benefits such as: “I won’t get replaced by someone who is a better full diversity partner,” “[I will] improve the brand, image, reputation of white men,” and “I [will] have less nagging sense of guilt that I am the problem.”
In a set of related resources, White Men As Full Diversity Partners lays out its theory of privilege. The firm’s founders, Welp and Bill Proudman, have argued that white males must “work hard to understand” their “white privilege,” “male privilege,” and “heterosexual privilege,” which affords them unearned benefits. The firm’s training programs are designed to assist white men in discovering the “roots of white male culture.” That culture, according to Welp and Proudman, consists of traits—such as “rugged individualism,” “a can-do attitude,” “hard work,” “operating from principles,” and “striving towards success”—which are superficially positive but are “devastating” to women and minorities.
At the Lockheed training, following the baseline exercises, the trainers proceeded with the “hearts and minds” portion of the session: deconstructing employees’ “white male privilege” through a series of “privilege statements,” then working to rebuild their identities as “agent of change.” The trainers provided the participants with a list of 156 “white privilege statements,” “male privilege statements,” and “heterosexual privilege statements” to read and discuss, including: “My culture teaches me to minimize the perspectives and powers of people of other races”; “I can commit acts of terrorism, violence or crime and not have it attributed to my race”; “My earning potential is 15-33% higher than a woman’s”; “My reproductive organs are not seen as the property of other men, the government, and/or even strangers because of my gender”; “I am not asked to think about why I am straight”; “I can have friendships with or work around children without being accused of recruiting or molesting them.”
Finally, in order to cement the idea that white male culture is “devastating” to racial minorities and women, the trainers had the Lockheed employees read a series of “I’m tired” statements from fictitious racial minorities and women. The statements included: “I’m tired of being Black”; “I’m tired of you making more money than me”; “I’m tired of people disparaging our campaigns (like Black Lives Matter)”; “I’m tired of Black boys/girls being murdered”; “I’m tired of people thinking they’re smarter and more qualified than me”; “I’m tired of hearing about how we need a wall at the southern borders but not on the northern borders”; “I’m tired of the desire or comment to remove race—the concept that we should be ‘colorblind.’”
This is not the first time White Men As Full Diversity Partners has been involved in a controversial training program. Last year, I reported on the company’s white male training program for employees at the Sandia National Laboratories, which began a series of reports leading to President Trump’s Executive Order 13950, banning racial stereotyping, scapegoating, and discrimination in federal diversity programs. The Trump ban, however, was temporary; President Biden rescinded the order on his first day in office.
Today, it’s back to business as usual. Consultants such as White Men As Full Diversity Partners peddle fashionable racial theories and attach themselves to bloated government contractors such as Lockheed Martin. Presidents change, but for now the woke-industrial complex has no term limit.
aw the French reinforcements have arrived with the same already debunked talking points. Thank goodness they are not in denial. repeating the same hive mind phrases while losing against F-35 in direct competition must be confusing. How do you cope? other than posting nonsense like the above.
to be fair, Australia has more 5th generation fighters than RussiaThey couldn't keep up when they were the soviet union. It safe to say the spending to try, led to the downfall. They have less money to play with now. Russia is $44.6b Australia in $44.6b also We will agree to disagree. They are having trouble keeping up with Australia's spending.
That’s the consolidated number for the Department of Defence ($43,560.7 million) and the Australian Signals Directorate ($1,057.9 million). That’s an increase on 2020–21 of 6.1% in nominal terms and 4.1% in real terms.Defence budget climbs to $44.6 billion | The Strategist
The 2021–22 budget was a ‘no surprises’ one for Defence. The government set out its plan in the 2016 white paper, reaffirmed it in last year’s defence strategic update and is now providing Defence with ...
Are you sure they are comparable?
Russia ordered 15 large frigates that have almost as much firepower as an AB class destroyer. They have multiple aerospace programs, along with space and nuclear. They have added over 400 fighter jets in just the last decade alone.
Yer Barracuda was expected to cost you $4 or $5B per sub, the Russians are building their Yasens for less that a billion. Are you sure you wanna compare your dollars to their rubles? Hell, for the same budget as your 12 subs, they can build 2 or 3 Australian armed forces from scratch. For US $40B, they can build over 1000 Su-57s.
Interesting, isn't it? But it's true.
After the collapse of the ruble, we had to regnegotiate the FGFA deal as well. It fell from $5.5B each to $3.7B each. However, when converted to rubles, $5.5B was 192B rubles, whereas the new price of $3.7B raised it to 240B rubles, so it was an effective increase in earnings for the Russians. Based on the old exchange rate, it would have cost us $6.8B instead.
Also, you need to remember that the $35M or so was the price of the LRIPs and initial orders, the price would actually fall further with large scale serial production in the post-Flanker era.
So many Western analysts were confused about the prices. Like, "How can the Flanker cost $40-50M while the Su-57 costs $35M? How?" They simply didn't realise that even the first Su-30SM contract was signed at a ridiculously low $17M apiece. The Su-57 coming in at twice the rate of the Su-30SM at $35M is obviously normal, but the Western media was simply lost to such simple analysis. The Chinese Su-35 contract also came in at a little over $80M per jet for the whole package. Even this had them confused.
Their new Checkmate, at $35M apiece, is actually quite expensive by their standards. The Russians likely plan on making a killing with this jet.
Their 700B ruble Yasen class would have come to $2B, but today it costs $950M. And their new Gorshkov class frigates cost only a mind-numbing $220M apiece when equivalent Western ships like the Horizon class today cost upwards of $2B apiece, effectively 10x the cost.
Introducing CAATSA is not surprising. This is just one of the simpler examples of how badly the Russians have been underestimated in the Western media. However the USG and Pentagon recognise stuff like this quite easily.
its almost like its too good to be true. And the Russian purchases are very limited despite the low price. They should be armed to the Teeth but after 11 years they have not even 20 production Su-57s, and of course India went with Rafale instead. they could buy about 4 Su-57 for every Rafale, replace multiple types in service with something even beyond a Flanker but here we are. just a quick glance at what India paid for Rafale, that is 197 Su-57 vs 36 Rafale (7.87 B Euro all told)? Of course Rafale included a lot of other stuff, and we are excluding the extras that make a real combat fleet, like spare parts training and other procurement costs. sorry this is very quick math and not exactly a fair and exact comparison, but I would buy the nearly 200 Su-57s and then figure out the support costs later. I mean it has to be less.
Why would Russia make a killing with an aircraft that does less but costs about the same as an Su-57 and is not even flying yet? The idea that Russia would be dominating the globe with its weapons sales does not match reality no matter how much "CAATSA" is shouted
You are getting me to your side though. why anyone would bother to purchase anything but Su-57 ever again is a real mystery, especially Rafale of all things. Can you imagine?
Last edited:
The Su-57 is still WIP. We moved out of FGFA because the Russians wouldn't give us documents, sovereign assurances of ToT and an evaluation flight of the existing prototypes. So we are gonna make our decision after Russia allows these things, so after 2024 or so. Politically too, they have gotten too close to China for our comfort. So any decision will be a GoI decision, not an IAF decision.
Anyway, we now want to make our own next gen jet and the Europeans are willing to help. That's also why the AMCA climbed all the way from a simple near 5th gen fighter with some stealth and no supercruise meant to merely replace the Jaguars to all-aspect next gen stealth, supercruise, unmanned capability etc that can perform any role.
As for Rafale, it has nothing to do with Su-57, it's an independent requirement that's happening in parallel. We need 300-400 jets altogether of both classes. One is a high end current gen jet that's proven in battle, the other is a high end jet for the future. It's the curse of an importer. We have to balance out the equation for strategic considerations.
AM Matheswaran: (the guy who began MMRCA on why MMRCA was limited to 30T)
And the question would have been raised, ‘Why can’t you buy more of the Su-30s’. Now you can’t put all your eggs in one basket – strategically, it’s unwise. That’s one of the primary reasons. And therefore you created this Medium Multi role Combat Aircraft (competition) which is 30 tons and below. Okay, so the Su-30 is 34 tons and above – 34 tons category.
The point of the Rafale is to limit the influence of the Russians within the IAF.
The Su-57 is cheap only if you directly import it from Russia. Any Su-57 that's made in India will climb up to a sky high price. Case in point, the $20M Su-30SM costs over $60M in India. The same with support costs, it's not gonna be cheap unless it's fully imported. So, with the exception of making a stopgap purchase of 2-3 squadrons directly imported from Russia, there's not gonna be a lot of focus on it from here on in India. And even this may not happen because the IAF has decided to bet big on AMCA.
IAF Chief strongly backs indigenous 5th generation jet, says no plan to import
Last year, the IAF issued the initial tender known as the Request for Information to global aircraft companies to produce the jets in India along with an Indian firm.
The Su-57's competition is AMCA, not the Rafale.
I will give you my explanation in the form of a fictitious dialogue between Mr Air Force (representing the IAF perspective) and Mr Defence (representing the Indian Ministry of Defence perspective). This dialogue took place in 2017 after the contract for 36 Rafales was signed between India and France.
Defence: I have a big news: our president and our strategic affairs advisor went to the US, met Trump and they agreed on a strategic military agreement between our two countries. This agreement is very advantageous for us as it allows:
- full engagement against a common enemy
- Access to all facilities in terms of weapons and weapon systems, access to technology at minimal cost with partially subsidised Foreign Military Sales.
- a gradual move to the F-35 from the F-16 before the enemy's 5th generation fighter is deployed on many borders
- Assets operating under joint command of both countries including a huge ISR (Intelligence, Surveillance, Reconnaissance) and underwater surveillance capability.
- The agreement will also include military support in the entire Indian Ocean area.
- Rapid reaction teams are part of the plan to destroy strategic installations in the west.
- Many other items will remain classified due to the nature of the agreement.
Defence: And of course in the short term we have to set up Make In India to produce F-16 Block 70s which is a win-win for the US and India.
Air Force: You are forgetting the security of the country: the F-16 is absolutely not suitable to meet the needs of the IAF to enable it to carry out its mission.
Defence: Mr Air force be reasonable, we don't want to invade China, we just want to have enough strength so that they don't attack us. From the point of view of the Chinese, if we have 1000 planes, whether it's Rafales or American planes, that's a deterrent. And if they attack us anyway, the US has to come and help us under the agreement.
Air Force: My mission is to ensure India's security alone, with Rafales I can do it and with F-16s I cannot.
Defence: That's not even true, China is starting to deploy stealth aircraft that will be superior to the Rafale. You will have to rely on the Pak FA to have superiority.
Air Force : The Pak Fa, let's talk about it! New and improved countermeasures make the Rafale F4.2 as good as the planned SU-57. The IAF therefore recommends buying more Rafales or upgrading the PAK-FA to make it better than Rafale F4.2. As the SU-57 is still superior to the Chinese 5th generation programmes the Rafale F4.2 is good enough for all these threats and we need the Rafale fleet as soon as possible.
Defence: But if the SU-57 and the Chinese aircraft are so disappointing, why shouldn't the F-16 be suitable?
Air Force: We have done an evaluation for the F-16 and the Gripen E. The Gripen E is marginally superior to the F-16 blk 70 but most of the following remarks about the F-16 are still valid for the Gripen:
- The airframe is unstable at low and high altitudes
- Handling is over-dependent on the auto-correction system and dissipates energy which increases the risk of stalling
- Electromagnetic compatibility and interference emission and generation problems, high sensitivity and negligible immunity although the opposite is presented on paper.
- Safety reports provide limited detection of problems in on-board systems
- The size of the proposed radar limits the detection area (as it stands 50-60% of what is offered by the Rafale's AESA RBE2 for both single engine aircraft)
- BVR capabilities are limited by radar range, power, and more importantly mid-course refresh for BVR missiles like the AIM120 and Meteor
- High vulnerability to hacking and no or very low quality protection suite
- Both air-to-air and air-to-ground missions limit the ability to take Gs due to energy dissipation, manoeuvrability issues, electromagnetic interference susceptibilities and thus survivability decreases severely in environments where threats emerge
- Operational success rates are compromised and there will be a rapid loss of ability to maintain a high operational tempo due to attrition which in turn will reduce the overall time spent fighting
- So your plan for F-16s is not correct and if a surge to counter China was needed it should be with Rafales. A fleet of 300 Rafales is a nightmare for China and with a planned upgrade to the Rafale. These 300 Rafales or 15-18 squadrons represent the most powerful deterrent.
Defence: But the Rafale is expensive!
Air Force: If we say that the Rafale is worth 100 in price and operational capability, we were promised a price of 66 for the single-engine aircraft and operational capabilities of 80+.
If we look at the offers, we realise that if we take into account all the necessary customisations we get a price of 85 to 90 and operational capabilities of 66. Moreover, there are things that cannot be done with single-engine aircraft, such as strategic missions.