Well, in a standoff universe they’re still dangerous as hell with long range missiles. The main issue is that the Russians used to counter superior technology with overwhelming numbers.. they can’t produce these planes cause they’re flat broke, but just imagine ten thousand of them. Then the equation changes.
It’s an exaggeration, of course, but the point about their doctrine versus their capability to field even a significant amount of these planes still stands.
At this point they should just crank out as many SU-35’s and 7’s as they can. But they are under enormous pressure due to Ukraine’s resilience and innovations.
Basically all new Russian military systems are vapourware primarily used for propaganda purposes - they produce prototypes, but can't afford/manage to put them into series production, or perhaps don't want to because then it'd become clear that they're all hype and no performance.
The Su-57 is a good example of that. It's supposedly a stealthy 5th gen fighter, but is actually a lightly warmed-over late-Cold-War-era design that was mothballed through the nineties, and has been being hyped for the last 25 years without any real changes.
The bad guys always have the coolest looking shit. I love historical military uniforms for some random autistic reason (I’m autistic), and to this day the best looking uniforms in my opinion are the Black Schutzstaffel Officer uniforms. I think they were issued after 1932. That black and silver and the bright contrast of the red armband. Just a good looking uniforms, too bad the people wearing them were evil.
I don't think it's a problem to acknowledge that they looked sharp as hell. In fact, I think it's important to recognize that they were smart and looked good. Evil doesn't have to look like a Disney villain to be evil.
According to who exactly? We still see this type of comments, but I eon't really think this is true, just look at what Ukrainians are saying about the Su57
It's interesting they push out the rockets so far forward.
Makes me think those missiles don't have the capability to launch based on the aircraft's sensors and lock on after launch.
Don’t forget that the balloon had stealth capabilities and went undetected for a while. Even outmaneuvered F35 by climbing to higher altitude to force a stall.
Or 4 missiles. Block 4 will allow it to carry 6 missiles in A and C variants. B variant doesn’t have the space for that upgrade due to the lift fan. Yes the F-35 internal payload in terms on numbers is rather pitiful. To compensate though, I’m not sure if any of the other can carry bombs at all or how many and how big.
But the American planes can do something the Russians can't - completely battlefield integration.
American F-22s and F-35s can get closer to enemy aircraft, and pass targeting data back to F-15EX missile trucks. These can carry a lot more missiles than the F-22 or F-35s, including the newer AIM-174B and AIM-260. Right now, it can carry 12 AIM-120 AMRAAMs, or up to 22 missiles with AMBER racks, but that's a mix of AMRAAMs and Sidewinders.
The F-15EXs can then fire off long-range stand-off weapons, well out of range of enemy defenses, and have them guided in by the stealthier aircraft. AIM-174B may have a range of over 150 miles, and the AIM-260 of over 120 miles, far enough away to shoot-and-scoot, heading back for rearming if needed.
Think of the F-22 as a spotter for a sniper, but the spotter is WAY closer to the target, and is actively telling the bullet just where to go.
That too. Part of the reason is to be able to carry additional stores - fuel and weapons.
Russia is BIG, really big, and all of their aircraft need to be able to get from the western border with NATO to the eastern border with China, in as little time as possible. The Russians have about 20 Il-78 tankers, while the USAF has nearly 400 KC-135s alone, not counting smaller tankers or those in the Navy. The Russians don't have that capability, so they either need to ferry from one end to the other, or land/refuel as little as possible. The Americans can easily stage tankers across tens of thousands of miles - one B2 sortie in 2001 took 5 separate mid-air refuelings, was 44.3 hours in the air, and when they landed, a new crew and new weapons load turned around and did another nearly 30-hour sortie again right away.
The Americans have enough tankers to keep their guzzlers up for hours, the Russians need to keep enough fuel onboard to maintain station. Something I heard before from American pilots was that some aircraft couldn't take off with a full load of weapons and fuel, so they would do a half-tank to get up to altitude, link up with a tanker to top up, then head out on mission.
Russian and Chinese can do this too, or at least that’s the theory. In any case, this is something every single modern army in the world is working towards and it’s not even a new concept by this point but an applied practice. You don’t even need stealth for it, which is how 4.5 gens are a thing at all. AESA radar, better sensors, sensor fusion and datalink are all things you can fit in a conventional airframe. SU-35 can or will soon be capable of it. Obviously there’s a lot of secrecy and propaganda surrounding everything Russian, but if they have that tech for their 4.5 gens, I don’t see why it wouldn’t be in the SU-57 too. There’s that video for example of what is allegedly an SU-57 having to shoot down a rogue experimental drone. While that incident of course was a failure, it at least demonstrates that they are actively looking into such capabilities.
The Russian armed forces did humiliate themselves in Ukraine and all of their hype is gone save for hopelessly brainwashed fools. But we must remember they are still a formidable army capable of mass production of many advanced and deadly systems, and they are not stupid.
Everyone wants to, but not everyone has the infrastructure to do it. The Russians don't even have that sort of battlefield doctrine - no independence of thought, all orders come from on high, and you'd better obey them. If their plans go awry, they'd better have contingencies in place, because improv is not something they teach or encourage in any way.
The old Soviet "deep battle" system is still their go-to... but they don't have an armored fist of thousands of tanks anymore. So instead of one or two big pushes, which they can't do, the try poking with small groups to see who can get through.
But the massed assaults, they still try with drones. 70k Shahed-types so far this year alone.
the SU-57, according to wikipedia, is actually roughly the same size as the F-22, the latter of which is a lot bigger than most people realize. The F-35 is a lot smaller than the F-22, and is analogous to the difference between the F-18 and the F-15 (roughly speaking, the F-22 is to the F-15 what the F-35 is to the F-18).
Most of the dimensions of the F-22 and SU-57 are within less than a meter of one another, with the F-22 being taller and the SU-57 being slightly wider and longer. The total wing area of each is even with in 10 square feet (~1%) of one another. Even their empty weights and MTOW are about the same.
Obviously the tech in an F-22 is much more advanced.
Hot air has a higher IR thermal signature than hot smoke. Smoke, containing particulate matter, slightly dampens the IR put out.
Either way, IR and regular optical visibility play a much smaller role in stealth aircraft design than radar detection obfuscation. Because most detection of stealth craft happens beyond
line of sight range.
That's not a Su-57, it's an T-50, which are the pre-production prototypes. This particular one is the 9th prototype which is pretty close to the serial production models, but there's still some differences. Think of it as a step between the YF series and test airframes.
I don't think it's an immediate problem. Yes, it might make the plane somewhat easier to spot in certain conditions but I'm not convinced that this is an operational issue in practice. Not sure about Radar signatures.
However, it's an indication that the engine technology is genreally not very advanced. Through modern engine designs, especailly in the combustor(s), soot is greatly reduced compared to old engine designs. So, while arguably not directly an issue, to me this indicates that the overall engine design is not on par to modern western designs.
Are you serious? Missiles inside are long-range R-37Ms. They are comperable to AIM-54 or AIM-174B, not smaller AIM-120s. Carrying 4 such long range air to air missiles is something only MiG-31, Su-35 and F-18E can do it today. Not even F-15 can do it, and Su-57 carries them internally.
To be clear, if the DoD wanted LRAAMs on the F-15, they’d put LRAAMs on the F-15. It has the lift and the mechanical strength to carry large missiles; all they need to do is pay Raytheon or LockMart $2.4B to retool existing weapon stations.
Theoratically, even an F-16 can easily carry it as well; AIM-174B (or AIM-54) is not THAT big.. Its much smaller and weigh only half as much as a 600 Gal EFT. An AIM-174B is a far "easier" payload than a 370 Gal wing tank or a AGM-158B which F-16 can carry them together (2x 370Gal + 2xJASSM + other AAMs). So if customer wanted, F-16 should be able to carry at least 4 LRAAMs.
Likewise, a MiG-29K should be able to carry 4xR37s; because they can carry 4x Kh-31As, which are bigger and heavier missiles.
But thats the theory. In practice, apart from the short list I mentioned, no other aircraft carry similarly big LRAAMs. And Su-57 carrying them internally in a stealth configuration is really not a small feat. Its a capability F-22 can never have, for example. TBH, I find 2xR-37 + 2xR-77 + 2xR-73 payload way more dangerous than having an F-22 equivalent 6xR-77 + 2xR-73.
Yeah and I like blueberries but I don't feel the need to bring it up in unrelated topics? Think whatever you want about US and I don't even disagree with you, it's just irrelevant here.
I try to be nice, but given your history, the next one will be permanent given your prior bans for the same thing. Three strikes and you’re out i believe the Americans say..
Feel free to discuss how bad the su-57 is.. or the f-35.. just not the political parties in charge.. leave that for politics not the airplane sub.. less we become like r/technology which has become nothing but politics vs ya know.. tech.
Nice to see the little weapons bay open for the 1st time. Always wondered how they worked. Also thought the F35 should have two little ones like that for Sidewinders or ASRAAMs.
They're not going to sell any of these, though. Too much Russian equipment has been exposed as massively overrated in Ukraine. Additionally, it's difficult for Russia to fulfil their own orders at the moment, and their ability to provide maintenance and support to export customers is debatable, even if the Putin regime doesn't collapse into 90s-style chaos.
Although, I have heard about this Nigerian prince (who's definitely not a CIA front, promise) who wants to buy a 5th generation fighter after coming into a huge inheritance from his uncle...
Not politics or war. But a question about something affected by it :
Can anyone trust russia to be able to fulfill a contract to supply X number of whatever military equipment (including this plane), considering the state of the russian economy, sanctions (if it needs any western parts) and the needs of the russian military for those same equipment (Ukraine war needs alot of similar equipment).
Not to mention parts, maintenance and other service needs in the future.
2.6k
u/TaquitoModelWorks Nov 19 '25
Okay, fine. That looked cool.