Hands-down you make THE best military aviation videos on the internet. No robot voice over. Massively in-depth coverage of the planes, their variants, and what distinguishes one variant from the next. Upgrades. Capabilities. No hyperbole. I don't recall how I ran across your channel a couple months ago, but I've binged your entire catalogue, now. Seriously, this is the highest quality coverage of military aviation outside of classified PowerPoint presentations.
A mature and wholesome analysis series. Unique among so many robotic, minimal effort content creators. Thank you and keep up the great work, do not change, you will succeed with this format. Wish you the best.
Well this one made me subscribe, and not because it's about the su-57. This deep dive in to jet fighters is what I'm really interested in and this one was engaging and interesting from start to finish! Really such a nice place for modern day military aviation geeks!
@@mingouczjcz3800 And.....You're in the wrong reply buddy. He only stated his opinion about the looks of the aircraft, not the performance of the aircraft. Basically, you're the dumbass.
The SU57 is an amazing great looking aircraft. I've been building US Fighters for 30 years and iknow better than to underestimate my enemy and proud enough of our own to give them credit where credit is due.
Yes, I know my enemies! They're the teachers who taught me to fight me! Compromise! Conformity! Assimilation! Submission! Ignorance! Hypocrisy! Brutality! The elite! All of which are American dreams! All of which are American dreams! (Rage Against The Machine - Know Your Enemy) Nationalism is so lame. We all have the same enemy regardless of descent or allegiance to country and flag. It's the Big Business that wants war, and wants world's governments and peoples to see each other as enemies in order to advance that goal.
Ok but hold up a second ? I’m yank and I love F-22’s and Su-57’s. But look we’re not really enemies. This current administration went back to business as usual but the fact of the matter is Russia isn’t our enemy. The Cold War doesn’t need to continue the way it was. In fact the 10,000 lb gorilla in the room isn’t our rivalry from Soviet era. Why can’t we move past it? As soon as Biden took office he started blindly blaming Russia for shit that was ludicrous. Not all Americans even believe Russia is an enemy. I love Russian firearms. I literally own multiple AK’s, tokarev’s and Makarov’s. Russia is not the problem! Isn’t it interesting the second this blabbering idiot became President Russia suddenly became the enemy again ? For no apparent reason or any evidence ? God man, the Soviet Union is the past. I was hoping US and Russian relations would improve unfortunately this dementia induced moron was “ elected” and the table instantly flipped on Russia. I don’t buy it. Many of us with brains in the states don’t. Also you have every right to protect your access to the Mediterranean in Syria. Anyone with brains here knows the truth about Assad and why our idiot moron President “accidentally” left the Taliban with all of this high equipment. It’s a lie, it wasn’t an intelligence mistake. It’s another bulllshit isis move but on a larger scale. Russia will destroy the Taliban anyways …it seems so wrong and deceitful and I would be pissed if I was Russian. A lot of Americans know that we have zero business sticking our nose in Syria and what happened in Afghanistan is another disgusting attempt to do the obvious. We are sorry that this even happened and we are so beyond disgusted that the Taliban scored American weapons like this. If the Taliban comes to fuck with Russia in Syria then send em quickly to hell. God be with you and fuck the new world order.
@@timkc1638 its an enemy in terms of competition. it's those sweet export sales, Hulu and Netflix aren't at war but they do compete. the us will never go to war with Russia or any neer peer country, but will an export f35 ever meet an export su-57? maybe, that's a lot more likely. old guy flipped the table on the russians bc the 2016 election meddling has left a bad taste in the mouth of the dems(remember that), they know the union is dead but that won't help us-russia relations. the outgoing bigT was very chummy with the russians bc they helped in his election and the new bigT hotel in Moscow. the recent good relations are fueled by these personal connections without the interests of the country in mind. there are good reasons why the relations should not be good. 1. it's ruled by a president for life political despot limiting freedoms 2. and also the Russians support the other qazi dictatorships that sprung up around the dissolution of the union exa. Lukashenko. 3. the annexation of land from a us ally, the annexation of Crimea 2014. 4. the aforementioned election meddling. did you just forget all of this, or willfully disregarding it?
@@TheHallucinati Any Big Business that is focussed on civil goods has a natural interest in foreign markets and its shares, so it make no sense to blame mindlessly Big Business as the evil. Its rather the defense sectors who live off fear mongering and mindless campains. And of course the US has by far the largest and most powerfull defense sector in the world which eats up about 15% of the annual budget of this country. The reason why its so powerfull is that many different interest groups depend on it so it has a very strong lobby. The american supremacy doctrine was originally inventet to ensure free trade, multilateralism in as many regions in the world as possible, backed by a strong military. But this system is highly corrupted and has lost its original goal out of sight.
@@TheHallucinati you're close. You are following the money at least. Maybe some day you'll follow it all the way to the source, and get past the flunkies competing for the money.
The Russian TV program "Combat Approved" did an episode on the Su-57, including showing destructive testing of an airframe in a clamp. This might give you the images you are looking for on the internal structure.
In a clamp? What does that test? Durability against structural integrity/rigidity? Thanks. EDIT: I found the episode…thanks brother! Great series. Great info AND media! 🙏
@@pixsilvb9638 yes, but 2 things. First, all nations produce heavy loads of propaganda. Second, they still show military equipment and factories, etc. Find me a documentary that's unbiased on any military hardware... "best fighter in the world" "bla, bla. Yeah, it's all propaganda. But, dosent change that they don't get good footage now and again.
@@stephensanford5273 "Good footage" of staged propaganda demos? Okay, but that's a strange definition of "good footage" by most standards. At least wait until the plane exists before you start making imaginary claims about what it can do.
@@Biden_is_demented They do have a few (best estimates are 3-15) prototypes of various types and completely unverified capabilities, but no ongoing production or deployment. Even the 3 claimed to be "operational" do not have the new engines that the Su-57 is supposed to use, among other fundamental shortcomings. They are basically just doing airframe test flights, though two (or more likely one plane on two occasions) of them purportedly did drop long-range missiles successfully from inside Russia. The missiles were old Soviet Kh59's, not the updated Kh-59MK2's that are supposedly being built for the Felon. These two incidents have not been confirmed, though it seems unlikely the Russians would lie about only having 40-year-old missiles to use on their "super plane." It is telling that the maker of the Kh-59MK2 does not list the Su-57 on their website among the aircraft that would carry the new missile (oops). If that is your standard, then the USA has a Mach 10 bomber. We don't, but we do have something that looks like one and seems capable of going that fast. It has flown, as have the testbed 57's, but you don't see us claiming it's part of our current forces. Also, just to be accurate, the alleged Su-57 has only flown near to Ukraine (50 miles or so inside Russia), and only a couple of times. So, they were never "over" Ukraine and certainly not "daily" by any stretch of the imagination. Also, they were not "seen" by anyone other than long-range radars (so much for "stealthy") that suggested that their flight profile did not match other known Russian aircraft. The prototypes may or may not be similar to the final version, which may or may not ever actually be built. That was my point. I hope this more detailed statement clears up any confusion for you. It is ironic that, given your chosen name, you would accept uncritically the unverified and objectively highly improbable claims by the Russian media, which does not even claim to be honest or objective. To clarify what I mean by that, there are very strict laws requiring all Russian media to produce only programming approved by the Kremlin. You may doubt the reliability or independence of Western media, but at least Congress didn't pass a law making it punishable by 15 years in prison to disagree with the President on TV. I'm curious how you think Fox "News" and other MAGA wingnut outlets are able to evade this supposed control by the "deep state" or whoever your personal boogeyman happens to be. It's funny to see Carlson and Hannity rant about how the press is censored while they are literally saying it on television. I guess MAGA does not reward self-reflection, or even logic.
@@NiclasHorn Correct. And since the Native Americans were never actually Indian, in the US calling them that is associated with ignorance and bigotry. Despite this, they're still often referred to as 'Indians', especially by our textbooks. There's also a lot of cultural appropriation (dressing up like a chief) stereotypes (geronimo!) and fake history (thanksgiving). Because of all this, I've never actually heard the actual Indians referred to as 'the Indians', only Native Americans. But all this has changed in recent years. Most mainstream media now refers to them as 'Native Americans'. So it's been a very long time since I've actually heard the phrase 'the Indians'. So hearing it from this guy just awakened some kind of long buried fight or flight response.
You made an excellent point. The Russians NEVER export equipment of the same technology and quality as what they use internally. Sometimes they even have separate factories for export and internal models. A senior Soviet defector identified over 30 major "simplifications" between a captured BMP and the ones his unit had.
I don't think there's any question that the SU-57 is a masterpiece of aerodynamics. I imagine it will be the most maneuverable fighter in the world, for what that's worth on today's modern battlefield.
@@Gunni1972 Oh, no doubt. If the F-35 gets in a turning dogfight with this beast, it won't last long. That's why F-35 will employ hit and run tactics and shoot these planes down before they even know they've been tracked and locked. Or they'll just direct F-15EX to fire a mountain of AIM-260 missiles at it.
What are you talking about, speckle? The F 35 can’t even lift up without the Russians knowledge. Yeah, hit and run, famous by the Americans. How about destroy Hospitals,Schools, civilian life’s than run? The Us education system tried not to teach history, in the last 100 yrs. So, they don’t know what happened with The Roman Empire. Bases all over the world = defeat and run, of course. The Russians have the best radar system, very mobile and can be one day here and the other day there, without our knowledge. Of course satellites can see everything from space, but just as long, they are able to see. Don’t forget, a few months ago, over Russian territory a US spy satellite got blinded, and silenced, so now it’s just space junk! So my friend, hit and run was working in mid evil times. And I’m not saying that Russians are invisible, no way. But todays electronic warfare is a way more successful than hit and run and dropping bombs. So Before the call comes “ gentleman’s start your engine “ every F 35 will be unable to do that, and no matter which part of the world they are stored!!!!
28:00 I belive there is a point to both your theories. Even the Russians understand that there is a minimal risk for the Su-57 ever to face the F-22 or any of the US top notch fighters. Or any other 4.5-5 Gen fighter. They'll most likely face ground to air threats and older Sukhoi and MiG products.
Well even at 33,000lbs thrust, that's still 66,000lbs thrust. That's really good and VERY high. F15: 58,320 lbs F22: 70,000 lbs F35: 43,000 lbs Su-57: 66,000 lbs However, they look to soon have close to 40,000 lbs - that single engine will be in the su-75. So that's going to be 80,000lbs thrust - and that's what you call REALLY amazing!
Yeah...(but) Sure, Russian engineers managed to create & stick huge engines with even more power than rest of world since Cold War, YET they were known to have & have huge reliability and power limitations compared to NATO industries ones. Short lifespan and limitations = low readiness. I've seen & even disassembled latest Tumansky for Mig-21 & 29.
@@MM-zd6wf Well, even as it stands now, the 57 does not lack power. And they don't even need to get 40k out of one engine. Even 35k per engine will result in a REALLY good power output of 70k lbs thurst.
More than power, reliability is another huge concern. You'd be lucky to milk 2,000 hours out of those Russian engines. The MTBO (Meantime between outages) is 1,000 hours vs. 6,000 hours for F-35/22. With hotter temps comes less reliability. So the reliability of SU-57 and the long-term costs associated are concerning as well.
Great analysis, thanks alot. I rarely see that depth even in Russian blog sphere, despite easier acces to data due to same language. About 10 to 15y behind US, yeah, sure, 1991-2000s were absolutely miserable here, most MIC factories were barely alive or plundered for scrap metal and occupied by traiding companies. So while US was developing further, modern Russia was have to scrape leftovers from USSR legacy and build its engine and many other industries from scratch.
But even with that, how you explain by today Russia have hyper-sonic missiles that even plane, the most stealthy submarines, the best armor in tanks, the best vectorial engine, and the best IA anti-missile complex like TOR series, best electronic warfare equipment, you need to add these variables to the equation when you compare the nations, and I'm really sure, Russia is most powerful today than all NATO countries together, they prove it, they are better in all (sky, ocean, ground and space), but, this is the most perfect content for you, right?, because at the end, always finalize in what you want to hear, but believe me, that is not the reality. Sorry, but to pin your bubble, Russia by today is by far the most advanced country in the world besides China, and you will see soon, when Russia crush a NATO country and UK and USA run away betraying them by scar. It is incredibly how a TV shows or analysis by non-professional people convince you my friend. REPEAT WITH ME "A country who creates technology impossible to create by other nations is SUPERIOR to those nations in scientific knowledge", again "A country who creates technology impossible to create by other nations is SUPERIOR to those nations in scientific knowledge", as a kid go to make a plane and put this phrase 50 times
Thrust vectoring is a big contributor to short takeoff performance. Also with computer optimized flight controls thrust vectoring can be used for aerodynamic trim.
Thrust vectoring is great for air shows, but in REAL combat it’s useless. 99% of air combat takes place beyond visual range (BVR), in which trust vectoring will NOT save the SU-57…..
It is a beautiful aircraft which is not very Russia in general, but air combat isn’t a beauty contest. It’s also a dirty airframe when it comes to radar cross section (RCS). The one thing IMO it has over the F-22 is multi-role capability, but that’s why we built the F-35. The F-22 was purpose built as an air superiority fighter only, it’s job is simply to kill other fighters and deny enemy aircraft the ability to fly. “If it flys, it dies.”
The SU-57 is a real viable combat aircraft, the F-22 is a lemon that was intended to be a viable combat aircraft. Only try to have a discussion about military Aircraft with any American, and you'll be shocked how unaware they really are. They all talk endless rubbish, and so much so, they even start to believe their own rubbish. It makes no difference if you show them, or explain to them, or even go through it in detail with them?. You can conclusively prove things to these people, and they'll ignore it, and carry on saying the same thing. Even when they've just been shown, and had something proven to them, something that they were completely wrong about, makes no difference at all. Nope, they'll just deny it, or ignore it, seriously, you can talk to them about any military hardware at all, and you'll always come to find, they actually know nothing about any of it. And when you point things out to them, things that they've so obviously just dreamt up in their own head, all you'll then get back, is a few lines of remedial illegible rubbish. But you'll then see them somewhere else, repeating what they already know to be complete rubbish. Honestly, you could not make it up. If people could think for themselves today, they'd all be questioning why the USA made a point of announcing they've made it illegal to sell the F-22. The USA seemingly want it believed it's because it's so good, they don't want anyone else to have it. But, that makes no sense at all, because the reality is, they've no idea what's around the corner in technology terms, and with the speed we're seeing new military tactical hardware being created today, It could well of made great sense to sell the F-22 at some stage. (If it actually works). There's another reason the USA would make a point of announcing they've made it illegal to sell the F-22, that people seem to neglect today. And that's, If it doesn't work, If it is as I suspect it is, a lemon, and if the USA have then used the F-22 as a propaganda aircraft, then what better way of preventing anyone else from finding out that it actually doesn't work, and is really a lemon, a failure, than making it illegal to sell? The only possible way to explain that stunt, of the USA announcing they've now made it illegal to sell the F-22, can only be because it's a propaganda aircraft, a failure! They've even trashed all the infrastructure they had in place to build more of them. If it worked, they'd have been able to recoup much of the resources spent on the aircraft, in its entirety. You can think about it as much as you like, that is the only real possible reason the USA would do that. Absolutely no doubt about it, I guarantee we'll never see the F-22 involved in any sort of war scenario or any major sortie, as it's basically junk. Typical US propaganda, usually consists of silly falsehoods and fake misinformation claims, like the F-15, is said to be unbeaten in A2A combat? It's true, only when we look at every aircraft shot down by an F-15?, we find that none had any capabilities to offer anything offensive, and most had little if anything defensive, many without even a basic radar? Meaning, you'd be absolutely stunned, if the F-15 didn't shoot every one of them down. So it really is a very silly, meaningless propaganda claim? Now we do have another aircraft, that is also unbeaten in A2A combat, and has faced off against aircraft as capable as itself. The British Sea Harrier is the only aircraft unbeaten in A2A combat, that has faced off against worthy, viable opposition. And that really is a huge factor, that's worth knowing, unlike the F-15 propaganda claim, that you'd be shocked if it hadn't managed.
Seemingly these Americans have no idea that both the F-22 and F-35 can't see, track, or target any other stealth aircraft from BVR (beyond visual range)?. Stealth alone defeats high-frequency (short wave) radar by absorption and deflection, it does not defeat low-frequency (long wave) radar. Therefore, to see, track, and target stealth aircraft you must have long-wave radar, but it must also be enhanced to remove all background clutter for targeting purposes. Neither the AN/APG 77 radar used in the F-22, nor the AN/APG-81 radar used in the F-35, can see any other stealth aircraft from BVR (without enhanced long wave radar) - This fact the US Air force obviously know! Only it seems the reality is, that when the F-35 radars were being designed 13 years ago, there were no other stealth aircraft to think about as a potential threat? So how can these US aircraft be seen as any sort of threat to either China or Russia, who both have these aircraft technically beaten? They can see and target US jets from BVR, yet the US jets can't even see them from BVR? Russia's new 5th generation Byelka (2band) radar, used in SU-57, does have enhanced long-wave radar, they've designed and developed the first L-Band fighter radar we've ever seen. They've cleverly embedded L-band AESA radars in the leading edges of the wings. The new L-band AESA radar data gets processed in real time through extremely powerful Russian Elbrus computers being significantly enhanced removing all clutter, meaning it can see, track, target, and engage enemy stealth aircraft from BVR. They can also interact in ''real-time'' with each other, and take control of ground to air missile defence systems (that alone is lethal), and they can see enemy stealth fighter aircraft entering Russian airspace if not long before Russian airspace from much greater distances with real-time data from massive Russian ground long wave stations (that are all protected today with the networked S-400 defensive system). Therefore, as they'll always know where the enemy aircraft are, they'll always be able to approach any enemy aircraft head on, and therefore stealthily, (Russia wisely sacrificed rear end stealth for much better manoeuvrability) meaning today, the US fighter jets would not even be able to see them coming!! Russia's Byelka (2band) radar covers all aspects of frequencies across all channels, that are used for tracking, targetting, and also jamming. It's part of Sh121 multifunctional integrated radio electronic system (MIRES) on board the SU-57. Russia tested much of this new radar suit on the SU-35, so they also have the option of fitting this radar into SU-35's permanently, meaning Russia's SU-35S flanker will be at no disadvantage with F-22/35. As although the SU-35 can be seen and targeted from BVR, the SU-35 with the new 5th gen radar is as able to see and target the US jets from BVR, seeing the all-important Russian advantage in BVR missile distance, plus the excellent manoeuvring, neither the F-22/35 have, as more than critical, if you're going to avoid simply being blown out of the sky. And you don't have to take my word on it, either? Dr Carlo Kopp of Air Power Australia explored low band AESAs embedded in fighter wing leading edges in 2009, and concluded that this concept is operationally and technically viable. Study results were not published by APA, due to the potentially adverse impact - APA has a long-standing policy of not publishing concepts that might provide potential adversaries with a competitive combat advantage. However, unbeknownst to APA, Tikhomirov NIIP were already working on this concept for two or more years, and they revealed the technology at the Russian MAKS Airshow in 2011. Dr Kopp explains - the appearance of the first L-Band Fighter Radar is an excellent example of focused and intelligent lateral thinking which targets opponents' weaknesses. This is sound technological strategy and practice on the part of Russian industry. The new Tikhomirov NIIP L-band AESA is the first example of a technology which negates the intended X-band stealth advantage, well before the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter achieves even limited operational capability. Dr Kopp has produced a detailed forensic engineering study of the new NIIP L-band AESA and he explores the growth potential in the design. While the NIIP L-Band AESA disclosed at MAKS 2011 might be considered a prototype, where the specific performance of this prototype might confer only a small combat advantage, the inevitable development of this technology confers long-term and accelerating air combat advantages, both as a counter to specialized X-Band Low Observability and for the detection and disruption of sensors and digital communications systems that operate in the heavily used L-Band. No great originality is required to deploy and further evolve this design - the back-end hardware and software from existing X-band radars can be used with modifications, and publicly disclosed US roadmap documents for X-band AESAs can be emulated. The size of the Flanker and its power generation reserves make integration and cooling a low risk, easily solved standard of engineering problems. And this was back in 2011. We've seen where it went, It resulted in the N036 Byelka radar system that's far superior and more advanced than any western radar, who have no equivalent. Dr Kopp explains - This paper analyses the operational potential of this design, and performs a range of performance estimates based on manufacturer disclosures and known design features. The design has clear potential to provide a genuine shared multifunction aperture with applications including: Search, track and destroy missile mid-course guidance against low signature aircraft. Identification of Friend, Foe/Secondary Surveillance Radar. Passive angle tracking and geolocation of JTIDS-MIDS-Link-16 emitters at long ranges. Passive angle tracking and geolocation of L-band AEWC-AWACS and surface based search radars at long ranges. Passive angle tracking and geolocation of hostile (i.e. Western) IFF and SSR transponders at long ranges. High-powered active jamming of JTIDS-MIDS-Link-16 emitters. High-powered active jamming of satellite navigation receivers over large areas. High-powered active jamming of L-band AEWC-AWACS and surface based search radars at long ranges. High-powered active jamming of guided munition command data links over large areas. Performance modelling for a range of the feasible configurations indicates the radar will deliver tactically credible search range performance. The Tikhomirov NIIP L-band AESA is a very important strategic development, and a technology which once fully matured and deployed in useful numbers, will render narrowband stealth designs like the F-22 & F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, and some if not many UAVs, as highly vulnerable to all Flanker variants equipped with such radars.
We see the USA still unable to produce a VTOL fighter aircraft?. The F-35B was claimed by the USA to be able to do what the Harrier could do, while also being supersonic, stealthy with modern avionics systems etc? This is what we were told? Only one of the biggest technical headaches the British always had to build the Harrier, was the VTOL - transferring from ''lift'' (downward nozzles) to forward flight (rear-facing nozzles) and flying away. Apparently to achieve it took the British a hell of a lot of technical work, three - four months at a time over 3 years. (Look up all the variants they made) but they never gave up, and they finally figured it out. I said long before we ever saw the F-35B, it wouldn't be VTOL capable, even with the Rolls-Royce lift engines, because the USA has tried many times before, and failed, only managing to produce the British Harrier able to do so. Any US airframe (and there have been many), have all failed. At 7 mins 50 seconds, you'll watch a Harrier perform a proper VTOL. Copy and paste “2013 MCAS Yuma Air Show - AV8B Harrier Demo” into TH-cam search. Watch it from lift off, (to more importantly, flying away from the lift off), and you'll see the transfer of nozzles take place. You'll not find a single piece of footage of the F-35B doing this? I've had (Americans) tell me all sorts of rubbish, like it can do it, and even saying they've seen it lol, only when they can't show it? They quickly change, and instead we'll read them claim it was never intended to be VTOL capable? LOL. Sure, when Lockheed Martin's very own page on TH-cam clearly shows them trying to suggest it is VTOL capable, when it so clearly is not? Copy and Paste “First F-35B Vertical Takeoff Test” into TH-cam search. Watch this, you'll see it lift off, only you'll see it take off go straight up & hover then return straight back down? You'll never see it fly away from the lift off? Believe me, if it could, we'd see it doing so in every piece of footage we have on the F-35B - like we still see on all the footage of the Harrier doing so. But you'll never find any footage anywhere of the F-35B doing that. It shows you that Lockheed are not unknown to produce propaganda aircraft. As I claim, the F-22 is exactly that. A lemon, that became a propaganda aircraft, that was intended to be a viable military aircraft, that failed. 18 years the US have had F-22, and they've been in wars the entire time, only they've never used it, and they removed every F-22 from the Middle East, Jordan, Iraq, Turkey, and Saudi just after Russia arrived in Syria in 2015. Americans will then go on to say it's not necessary? LOL. While forgetting, they're to be carrier-based aircraft, meaning even slight damage to the deck or ramp, they can't get any jets airborne. Defeating the entire purpose of having the aircraft in the first place? You can't ever lose an entire carrier in battle for only minor damage. And why do we see the USA doing that? It's obviously because the USA is still the only country that's never managed to produce & build a VTOL fighter aircraft?. Britain did so in the late 50s, Russia did so in the late 60s the USA has tried and failed numerous times, so it seems this time they're going to try to lie about it LOL? That country is a travesty, man!
@@wilsonsantiago3095 How far can the US jets see all other 4+ Generation aircraft (non-stealth)? They can see, track, and target them all from BVR. How far can the US jets see other 5th Generation (Stealth) aircraft? They can't see, track, or target any other stealth aircraft from BVR, as they lack the radar needed to perform that task. What I've already explained above. It's not rocket science, it only takes an understanding of abilities and what each ability means. Something that seems to be forgotten today, because we read so many without any idea at all about military hardware today, and nearly all they want to think and believe is propaganda and outright, in your face, lies.
Thrust vectoring also increases the survivability of the aircraft. If control surfaces and one of the engines are damaged, the remaining one might just give enough controllability to keep the plane in the air. Also, while TVC does decrease the thrust-to-mass ratio of an individual engine it matters little for an assembled plane. I think what engineers and designers are going for with the thrust vectoring is the synergy of small gains here and there. As for additional complexity, it seems to be no longer an issue considering the track record.
TV Nozzles are useful, the account of IAF pilots dodging AIM120Ds is the case. Its air-battle proven. So BVR engagements, TW is used. A recent encounter of SU30MKI in exercise pitch black with Aussies F18s clearly show that in WVR range fights, TV nozzle can gain upperhand with Sharp alpha maneuver enough to either lock on to the F18 in rate fight or fire its cannon to damage the F18.
I would never underestimate russian plane designers,but the f22 can do all that with 2d vectoring,I think the us hypothisized that 3d vectoring on a twin engine fighter was overkill,but the idea on a single engine fighter like we did with f16 vista back in the 90s would be unbeatable. I never understood why we did not pursue that idea or on the f18 or f35 . I know the f18 is a twin engined fighter but it had much smaller engines than the f15 so the thrust vectoring they did use on the f18 back in the late eighties was 3d but only to proof of concept for f22.
RCS can vary a lot with small changes in relative angular orientation to a radar can't it? Perhaps a big benefit to the thrust vectoring and levcon arrangement is really locking in that angle to minimize RCS. They could even theoretically build the plane with an ideal angle in mind that's a little tighter than the americans are able to
Automated flying could be useful for high G maneuvers. Imagine like those flight game automated barrel roll buttons but for aero braking maneuvers that may cause black out. If you can push a button and let the plane do the maneuver, you may be able to dodge a missile without hitting the ground by the time the pilot regains focus.
Thanks for making a video that isn’t biased about the plane. Stuff like this is hard to come by because it’s a foreign plane from another global superpower.
Russia uses spectacular arms demos to attract export biz. So, thrust vectoring may’ve been included partly for this reason (and one must admit it’s amazing to watch it fly). And another reason because it does provide amazing maneuverability, which will always be useful (even if not useful enough to justify its inclusion).
Thank goodness, finally a discussion of the topic that unambiguously acknowledges that higher turbine inlet temperature is a _good_ thing (provided the engine meets its TBO and maintenance objectives). I've long since lost track of how much time I've spent trying to explain the second law of thermodynamics to folks who insist that cooler is better. With that said, one wonders about the Izdeliye 30's TBO and overall life. The Russians had absolutely world-class metallurgy back in the day (if their computing and microelectronics had been similarly strong they never would have fallen behind overall), but it seems that they've lost a step or three since. Also probably worth noting that F119 went 13 years from first run to F-22 IOC, and the F135 (which is a derivative) took another decade beyond that to reach IOC. Even if the Russians execute as well as P&W they're looking at more like 2029 for Izdeliye 30. IMO the fundamental problem with thrust-vectoring for ACM is that it's really inefficient compared to using aerodynamic surfaces to generate lift. A fighter's wing can convert 1 N of thrust to O(10) N of lift, whereas thrust vectoring converts that same 1 N of thrust to 1 N of lift. So long as the wings aren't stalled aerodynamic lift will always win. IMO that leaves two opportunities for thrust-vectoring: 1. Post-stall maneuvering. As the Indian source you cited points out, that's very much a last-ditch, one-chance-only scenario. If you fail to kill the opponent (or if they have a wingman) then you're left in a no-energy (stalled!) state. 2. To assist maneuvering in regimes where control surfaces have very limited authority, most notably at very high altitude. I've seen credible reports that the F-22 does this, and I could buy that the Russians are taking a similar approach. Might vectoring also offset the impact of those small horizontal stabilizers in such regime?
By the Russians, I assume you mean post Cold War Russian metallurgy. Because the Soviets didn’t really do that very well… at least during and shortly post ww2. Can’t really say about nowadays. Also dogfighting is pretty much a non-option against an F-22 in a realistic modern day engagement. There is that weird paradox where two stealth fighters may resort to a dogfight since they couldn’t see each other in time, but I have my doubts on the SU-57’s RCS figures
@@christopherchartier3017 Soviet metallurgy in the mid-to-late cold war (say, the 60s onward) was world class. That's what enabled them to do oxygen-rich staged cycle rocket engines for example.
The main reason Russia has fallen behind in both development and building of the machines is that they lost all of their client states that were building them in the first place.
The SU-57 has been testing a new engine for more than a year. It is reported that all aircraft from the beginning of 2024 will be equipped with it. Cruising speed without afterburner Mach 1.5
So the basic plan is long range missiles to force back AWACS and then use their own stealth mounted L band radars to understand the battlefield better than the enemy. An L band radar coupled to good IRST also seems to play to the strengths of both systems well. Sensor fusion makes that radar a far scarier feature than it would have been until recently. Effectiveness depends on implementation, but I don't see any glaring weaknesses in the plan. May have stolen a jump with that one, but I'm sure there are people on other sides that have their own ideas to deal with it (might not have the ideal equipment yet though). Still don't really understand the thrust vectoring. They maybe just found a dozen little advantages rather than one overwhelming one. My guess is that the biggest is that not having to worry about regions of the envelope being unrecoverable with just control surfaces may have considerably streamlined the design process, and avoided compromises elsewhere. Instead of worrying about complicated aerodynamics solutions, they just let the engines fix it. Counterintuitively, if the engines are prone to problems then this could be a very big deal, as the Tomcat showed. Dangerous areas of the envelope are extremely hard to avoid in single engine flight, which is very bad if you have dodgy engines.
Very good! 😃✌This are exactly the ideas I was considering since Su-35, Russian data link & S-400 were fielded together, abroad- Syria 2014! Except France, until F35, NATO'S & allies' navies didn't had a dedicated onboard IRST, maybe that's why the F35 B& C push, also new F-18 E/F especially against Chinese stealth & Su-57 with their new long range A-A, antiship, IRSTs, data links & long wave band radars & sensors fusions.
Regarding Thrust vectoring: again, very good points, I and my friends thought about same. BUT: 1. It can be shutdown by pilot and reactivated when needed! 2. Reasons are secret, apparently, THOUGH keep in mind Su-30, 57, 35 are big, heavy airframes with huge inertia & probably sacrificing some stealth & weight helps for defeating missiles & in dogfights, also upset recoveries(as said, very well by Millennium 7*)! Russian thinking is somewhat different and they also need rugged airframes for harsh environments...
Also consider that 1. You need huge range assets to discriminate an AWACS & E3 from enemy airfleet, which have very long ranges- I've heard unofficially around 450- 500+ Kms with good discrimination and are being assisted by other systems on the sea or ground, also satellites. 2. Also there are data links with F-15, 16, 18, 35, 22 so lots of sensors at very long ranges. 3. For a Chinese or Russian asset to get inside the effective missile hit range should get close to about 150- 250 Kms for a 300- 400 kms range weapon, which is going to be hugely difficult. 4. Even if it managed to launch will only send a few, while becoming a target itself, that from those ranges can be detected & defeated against. So... while there is a threat from China & Russia, it's not such a devastating one.
@@bogdana.m.2416 i guess MiG31 will be used for this purpose. It has long distance A-A missile and it's max Mach-3 speed will increase missile's range.
@@bogdana.m.2416 High altitude launch hypersonic munitions. HEL systems (terrestrial and space). "Range" is starting to mean less and less to countries with advanced militaries.
I think one thing that should be considered is the fact that the su57 L band elements are made of gallium nitride and are capable of very large peak power output in the 1 to 4 ghz range. This could potentially allow the su57 to have early warning capabilities against stealth aircraft and allow the main x band array to pulse in a very powerful narrow band to detect stealth fighters and lock onto them from greater ranges.
No, it won't, even if the Su-57 does someday exist and even if it lives up to the (very unlikely) claims of its makers. Keep in mind that everything we know about this ghost is literally from marketing materials produced by the designer. Do you think they might have an incentive to exaggerate the future capabilities of their design they are desperately trying to sell?
Very enjoyable. As to the VT. Engine trimming could be a stealth feature. The deflection of control surfaces will have an effect on RCS and engine trimming may mitigate it. The Aircraft RCS has been optimised at the front. It could also provide a button the pilot presses (or even an automated system) that performs a manoeuvre that is 1 beyond the pilots agility or reactions to perform 2 beyond pilot accuracy to perform 3 the pilot would become unconscious before the manoeuvre was completed.
Really interesting video Brought up some points i would not have seen anywhere else Like the fact that it isn’t just a russian f22 and that is has a different niche than the planes it is usually compared to Also just filled with information Keep up the good work! Also Can you talk about the j 20 or f22 in a multi video Series just like this so we Can learn about the differences in these 3 planes?
I respect and salute the huge effort of so many persons that has created and will produce and would deploy and operate the Su-57 system in the future; however, I expect the up-time to down-time ratio will be very dismal. Software anomalies in present and future software, hardware failures, replacement part shortages, training inadequacies, and production issues will be continuing and hurtful to the deployment and successful operation of the aircraft.
data was pretty objective , really like the content , looking forward for more detailed stuff on gas turbines , need not necessarily be a Russian , American or nationality specific aircraft. Its just that I admire the work that goes into the engine …. for a sample say MIG-25 or MIG-31 I'm assuming they are similar in performance … really looking forward for more content.
I really enjoy the channel and find your content is generally very well researched and presented. This SU-57 series is no exception and the details presented are quite fascinating. However, in this video, you said that the US Intel services have historically underestimated the capabilities and tech of the Soviet/Russian military industry and its products. You indicated that this was a "legacy of the Cold War". Unfortunately, this is almost the complete opposite of the truth and, after the fall of the Iron Curtain, it was discovered that the USSR had been quite a bit further behind in nearly all areas of tech. Both the numbers and effectiveness of Soviet/Russian military hardware had been wildly exaggerated during the Cold War. It was also determined that to some degree the NRO, DIA, and CIA had oversold the Russian threat for purposes of lobbying the civilian government of the USA to increase defense funding. Unsurprisingly, the Soviet/Russian military intel agencies had done the same thing, but their estimates of US capabilities were closer to the truth. They also distributed disinfo and propaganda to encourage the US intel service's overestimation, in order to enhance deterrence. Now the US intel establishment is making the same "mistake" of overestimating threats with the Chinese, for the same reasons. ;)
Of course they'd consider the F-22 when building a new fighter jet. But this sentence is as meaningfull as saying "i'd consider Mercedes Benz when crossing the street".
L-band radar. Makes me remember P Sprey's comments on the F-35. He said something like this: 'the first thing you need to know about stealth is that it is a scam. It simply doesn't work. Radars that were built in the 40s like the battle of Britain radars could detect any modern stealth aircraft because they operated at long wavelengths. Unfortunately, the Russians picked up on this and have been building exactly those radars, low frequency, low wavelength radars and they've modernized them to an extraordinary extent. They've built some really amazing mobile versions.....and they sell them to anybody who's got cash'. So I guess stealth is not much more than an advertising fad. A "Wunderwaffe" easily overcome by low wavelength, low frequency radars such as the L-band radars installed on the Su-57.
Well, Sprey is right from a purely technical point, but it's not that simple. The problem with low frequency radar is that it gives you low resolution returns. So yes, you will see stealth airplanes as a blip, but it's questionable if the accuracy is high enough to create a lock. Also L-band antennas are quite large by necessasity. In the SU-57 only the antennas in the wing root are capable of creating L-band signals, but not the main radar dish. So it's probably more to simply detect stealth aircraft than to attack them from a distance. Also active radar and stealth is a problem anyway. You can have the best stealth features, the moment a stealth aircraft switches it's own radar on everything with a modern radar warning receiver will have immediatly a pretty good idea where the signal is coming from.
@@jerryjencik3879 anything can detect something is out there , it would be nice to know exactly where, what good is a missile system if it can not lock onto what it is detecting . . . . pretty much worthless
@@shi01 Seemingly these Americans have no idea that both the F-22 and F-35 can't see, track, or target any other stealth aircraft from BVR (beyond visual range)?. Stealth alone defeats high-frequency (short wave) radar by absorption and deflection, it does not defeat low-frequency (long wave) radar. Therefore, to see, track, and target stealth aircraft you must have long-wave radar, but it must also be enhanced to remove all background clutter for targeting purposes. Neither the AN/APG 77 radar used in the F-22, nor the AN/APG-81 radar used in the F-35, can see any other stealth aircraft from BVR (without enhanced long wave radar) - This fact the US Air force obviously know! Only it seems the reality is, that when the F-35 radars were being designed 13 years ago, there were no other stealth aircraft to think about as a potential threat? So how can these US aircraft be seen as any sort of threat to either China or Russia, who both have these aircraft technically beaten? They can see and target US jets from BVR, yet the US jets can't even see them from BVR? Russia's new 5th generation Byelka (2band) radar, used in SU-57, does have enhanced long-wave radar, they've designed and developed the first L-Band fighter radar we've ever seen. They've cleverly embedded L-band AESA radars in the leading edges of the wings. The new L-band AESA radar data gets processed in real time through extremely powerful Russian Elbrus computers being significantly enhanced removing all clutter, meaning it can see, track, target, and engage enemy stealth aircraft from BVR. They can also interact in ''real-time'' with each other member of the squadron, auto selecting the best placed BVR missile, that can be fired by anyone of them that has a target on radar, they can also take control of ground to air missile defence systems (that alone is lethal), and they can see enemy stealth fighter aircraft long before Russian airspace and from much greater distances, with "real-time" data from massive Russian ground long wave stations (that are all protected today with the networked S-400 defensive system). Therefore, as they'll always know where the enemy aircraft are, they'll always be able to approach any enemy aircraft head on, and therefore stealthily, (Russia wisely sacrificed rear end stealth for much better manoeuvrability) meaning today, the US fighter jets would not even be able to see them coming!! Russia's Byelka (2band) radar covers all aspects of frequencies across all channels, that are used for tracking, targetting, and also jamming. It's part of Sh121 multifunctional integrated radio electronic system (MIRES) on board the SU-57. Russia tested much of this new radar suit on the SU-35, so they also have the option of fitting this radar into SU-35's permanently, meaning Russia's SU-35S flanker will be at no disadvantage with F-22/35. As although the SU-35 can be seen and targeted from BVR, the SU-35 with the new 5th gen radar is as able to see and target the US jets from BVR, seeing the all-important Russian advantage in BVR missile distance, plus the excellent manoeuvring, neither the F-22/35 have, as more than critical, if you're going to avoid simply being blown out of the sky. Dr Carlo Kopp of Air Power Australia explored low band AESAs embedded in fighter wing leading edges in 2009, and concluded that this concept is operationally and technically viable. Study results were not published by APA, due to the potentially adverse impact - APA has a long-standing policy of not publishing concepts that might provide potential adversaries with a competitive combat advantage. However, unbeknownst to APA, Tikhomirov NIIP were already working on this concept for two or more years, and they revealed the technology at the Russian MAKS Airshow in 2011. Dr Kopp explains - the appearance of the first L-Band Fighter Radar is an excellent example of focused and intelligent lateral thinking which targets opponents' weaknesses. This is sound technological strategy and practice on the part of Russian industry. The new Tikhomirov NIIP L-band AESA is the first example of a technology which negates the intended X-band stealth advantage, well before the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter achieves even limited operational capability. Dr Kopp has produced a detailed forensic engineering study of the new NIIP L-band AESA and he explores the growth potential in the design. While the NIIP L-Band AESA disclosed at MAKS 2011 might be considered a prototype, where the specific performance of this prototype might confer only a small combat advantage, the inevitable development of this technology confers long-term and accelerating air combat advantages, both as a counter to specialized X-Band Low Observability and for the detection and disruption of sensors and digital communications systems that operate in the heavily used L-Band. No great originality is required to deploy and further evolve this design - the back-end hardware and software from existing X-band radars can be used with modifications, and publicly disclosed US roadmap documents for X-band AESAs can be emulated. The size of the Flanker and its power generation reserves make integration and cooling a low risk, easily solved standard of engineering problems. And this was back in 2011. We've seen where it went, It resulted in the N036 Byelka radar system that's far superior and more advanced than any western radar, who have no equivalent. Dr Kopp explains - This paper analyses the operational potential of this design, and performs a range of performance estimates based on manufacturer disclosures and known design features. The design has clear potential to provide a genuine shared multifunction aperture with applications including: Search, track and destroy missile mid-course guidance against low signature aircraft. Identification of Friend, Foe/Secondary Surveillance Radar. Passive angle tracking and geolocation of JTIDS-MIDS-Link-16 emitters at long ranges. Passive angle tracking and geolocation of L-band AEWC-AWACS and surface based search radars at long ranges. Passive angle tracking and geolocation of hostile (i.e. Western) IFF and SSR transponders at long ranges. High-powered active jamming of JTIDS-MIDS-Link-16 emitters. High-powered active jamming of satellite navigation receivers over large areas. High-powered active jamming of L-band AEWC-AWACS and surface based search radars at long ranges. High-powered active jamming of guided munition command data links over large areas. Performance modelling for a range of the feasible configurations indicates the radar will deliver tactically credible search range performance. The Tikhomirov NIIP L-band AESA is a very important strategic development, and a technology which once fully matured and deployed in useful numbers, will render narrowband stealth designs like the F-22 & F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, and some if not many UAVs, as highly vulnerable to all Flanker variants equipped with such radars.
When listening I recognized everything but flatspin without loss of altitude and internal weapons bays from Gripen E, which have 7 antennas. The pod for low band EW add more antennas and have L-band AESA and UHF. No escape zone is the most interesting parameter of a missile. The range in which it miss the target is not.
I think that thrust vectoring and super maneuverability could prove extremely useful when used with future microwave and laser missile defense devices. I'm not sure how exactly but I have the feeling that could be the case. Consider that If these devices are as effective as APS systems have proven in ground combat then they could change the nature of air to air combat. For example if those new missile defense devices are paired with the super maneuverability and thrust vectoring method that you described to fool a missiles target prediction algorithms, together they could reduce the chance of a hit on the SU-57 by a very significant margin.
@36:51 in case of a generalized and prolonged conflict you won't have fancy tech anymore: it will have been destroyed in the first days / weeks of the war. It will be basically WW2 tech at this point.
the specs on this craft are damn impressive, and not just in one or two categories... and to think they will only be better with the upgraded engine in 2025 (not that far away...) considering the Australians won't even have their nuke powered subs until way past then...
You do realize that Saturn won the contract for the Izdelye 30 in 2006, so it’s taken 11 years for the first engine to fly? And then another 8 years before it goes into production … how is that impressive!??
@@JimCOsd55 high performance aircraft engines are , probably, most technically and scientifically complex machines to develop and build. So ability to build one, no matter how long it takes is a magnificent feat than only handful of counties can achieve, and even less counties can do this on their own without internal cooperation. 10+ years is what it takes to develop engine. It was same for US aircrafts
@@tsorevitch2409 … and I agree, China still struggles producing engines that match those they’ve copied from Russian engines! While the Idelyze 30 engine promises greater power, fuel efficiency and less maintenance. It has proven far more difficult to perfect as Russia keeps pushing back the date when they will begin installing them in SU-57’s! Much of these problems can be traced back to sanctions from invading the Crimea!?? To mitigate the impact of the sanctions, Moscow pursued a policy of import substitution to offset losing access to vital components for its civilian and military manufacturing sectors. For instance, Russia was reliant on Ukrainian manufacturers like Motor Sich and Zorya-Mashproekt for marine and aircraft engines. These companies not only provided key inputs for Russia's own military capabilities, but also for those systems that Russia exported to other nations. Russia's attempts to substitute domestic production for previously imported technologies have been delayed and in many cases have fallen short. The main problem with Russia's import substitution program is its inability to acquire high-tech machine tools from Western suppliers for industrial production. Putin can order the building of their own high tech manufacturing but it isn’t that easy without access to the high tech machinery and parts needed to make them run!!!
@@JimCOsd55 issues are not related no sanctions as fighter engine tech is 100% domestic and west wasnt sharing any technology with Russia in this field. Sanctions impacted civilian aviation development as it was using some foreign parts and materials.
I'm glad somebody tackled this "sensitive" topic (i.e. building a better plane than the Americans...) cause I think the Russians definitely have a better body design than the f-35 (gag) not withstanding the electronics, and, Ok, obviously some of the 'stealth' characteristics... None-the-less, I think you, Mr. Millennium, are the best man to do this job, it's about time... I salute you! ': D
Better is relative in this discussion. Generally Americans build better engines and avionics whereas the Russians build better airframes with better operational costs and ruggedness (American airframes are what I consider sensitive delicate airframes).
Su-57 doesn't require vertical stabilizers because of the dihedral stability created from all aspect thrust vectoring. F-22/35 can't remove their vertical stabilizers. And without the Su-57 AMVT installed, it's probably gonna have a RCS similar to that if the B-2 bomber, which also lacks a vertical stabilizer. I'm very curious to see the stealth configuration of the Su-57! AMVT removed, ECM pods installed, extra IRST radar/sensors added, RAM paint, etc.
And before they become completely operational, the U.S.Airforce will be coming online with its new 6 gen acft. and then the Russon airforce will be 10 to 20 years behind the power curve again.
@M7*, will you do that video on how well the Su-57 fits Russian doctrine? In other words, are the Russian aerocosmic forces getting the aircraft they want? to meet Russian needs not what the USA thinks is a good fighter.
For Russia to produce a truly high-end Multi role capable fighter, the only answer you will ever get is: "Very much so".Ofc, they build something, that fits their Doctrine, it is not a cheap toy to make after all. They will not waste them, but it truly modernizes the Suchoi-Lineup
I am guessing it's primarily for sale to the third countries, to be pitted against other weaponry bought by their enemies? So, basically - versatility and marketing image?
Love the video. Been wanting fair assessment of SU 57. I think that this type plane Canada needs with its range and speed and some degree of stealth. This of course will never happen due the two countries relationship. Nonetheless I think it is amazing machine especially when it has new engine.
Nice commentary on stealth. Yes, few realise that low frequency radars can see 'stealth' aircraft, but they're not things that are generally installed on fighter aircraft. You need an elaborate datalink and air defence system of AWACS and ground based radars to get that information to the fighter aircraft. As for how good these radars are in terms of detection and even targeting I would imagine the Russians, Chinese and others will be very tight lipped.
Excellent research and analysis of SU-57. I wonder, why the Russian could not use the composite materials in radars and radar housings, AtoA and AtoG weapons, inside structures, and other mechanical systems. I am sure they have the technology to cut down a lot of weight on their machines, such as SU-57 that can improve their fuel efficiency, range, wear and tear on the parts etc. Any ides?
You forgot the 3rd option about the thrust vectoring, it's propaganda to strip confidence in the technology. Remember when in closed trials they were saying that the f22 was completely invisible and then it wasn't.
Heavily advanced aircraft, to help put their industry back on the map. But I fear Russia lacks the political will to build a lot of these for it to matter that much, globally.
I don’t think political will has anything with it, Russia’s biggest problem is lack of money! Especially when you consider they want to also build the T-14, the Borei submarine, Avangard, Khinzal, Burevestnik, Belgorod ‘Doomsday’ Submarine, Sarmat, S-500 while waging a war in Syria and the Ukraine! Even the US with 10 times the military budget of Russia would struggle to bring all these weapons systems online!??
The Su - 57 is a sleek sexy beauty of an aircraft. Love all the Russians jets that have been made . They're just look so beautiful and elegant with a hidden lethality to take care of opponents .
Hands-down you make THE best military aviation videos on the internet. No robot voice over. Massively in-depth coverage of the planes, their variants, and what distinguishes one variant from the next. Upgrades. Capabilities. No hyperbole. I don't recall how I ran across your channel a couple months ago, but I've binged your entire catalogue, now.
Seriously, this is the highest quality coverage of military aviation outside of classified PowerPoint presentations.
Finally no propaganda
Yeah, he does use a robot voice for parts.
Nice to have a deep and unbiased analysis on the SU-57 from an adult.
why he is looking so angry? did he invest in su 57
More like poorly informed...
Something unbiased about a foreign plane? Finally.
We must reach D6 Artyom
He’s Russian. How could he be unbiased? Lols. Jk. Kinda.
The su-57 looks amazing, and I really like the two-tone paint scheme
This paint scheme calls 'pixel paint' and is dedicated to cause visual distortion of the hull to obstruct recognition and distance estimation.
The darker grey center painted section looks like a Su27 outline. Sneaky!
@@lx5896
The darker grey center painted section looks like a Su27 outline. Sneaky!
@@keirfarnum6811 I was thinking the same thing
If looks were all that mattered it would be the ultimate fighter plane
A mature and wholesome analysis series. Unique among so many robotic, minimal effort content creators. Thank you and keep up the great work, do not change, you will succeed with this format. Wish you the best.
Haven‘t seen so far - but was proposed by YT this morning. Perfect for the weekend - looking forward to see it this evening! Thank you - again!
Your videos are getting better and better! Kudos for your artistry merged with your accuracy and rigor.
The SU-57 like ALL Sukhoi jets are very sexy looking.
Nah, 57 wing looks oversized, it just doesn't feel right unlike the other Su
Well this one made me subscribe, and not because it's about the su-57. This deep dive in to jet fighters is what I'm really interested in and this one was engaging and interesting from start to finish! Really such a nice place for modern day military aviation geeks!
Your show keeps getting better and better with each episode. Thank you for your words of wisdom!
When he says that Russia is ahead in many technologies did he mean getting shot down technology?
Su 57 is one of the most beautiful jets out there…
@@mingouczjcz3800 And.....You're in the wrong reply buddy. He only stated his opinion about the looks of the aircraft, not the performance of the aircraft. Basically, you're the dumbass.
Mingoucz jcz:
lol
The SU57 is an amazing great looking aircraft. I've been building US Fighters for 30 years and iknow better than to underestimate my enemy and proud enough of our own to give them credit where credit is due.
Yes, I know my enemies!
They're the teachers who taught me to fight me!
Compromise! Conformity! Assimilation! Submission!
Ignorance! Hypocrisy! Brutality! The elite!
All of which are American dreams!
All of which are American dreams!
(Rage Against The Machine - Know Your Enemy)
Nationalism is so lame. We all have the same enemy regardless of descent or allegiance to country and flag. It's the Big Business that wants war, and wants world's governments and peoples to see each other as enemies in order to advance that goal.
Ok but hold up a second ? I’m yank and I love F-22’s and Su-57’s. But look we’re not really enemies. This current administration went back to business as usual but the fact of the matter is Russia isn’t our enemy. The Cold War doesn’t need to continue the way it was. In fact the 10,000 lb gorilla in the room isn’t our rivalry from Soviet era. Why can’t we move past it? As soon as Biden took office he started blindly blaming Russia for shit that was ludicrous. Not all Americans even believe Russia is an enemy.
I love Russian firearms. I literally own multiple AK’s, tokarev’s and Makarov’s. Russia is not the problem! Isn’t it interesting the second this blabbering idiot became President Russia suddenly became the enemy again ? For no apparent reason or any evidence ?
God man, the Soviet Union is the past. I was hoping US and Russian relations would improve unfortunately this dementia induced moron was “ elected” and the table instantly flipped on Russia. I don’t buy it. Many of us with brains in the states don’t.
Also you have every right to protect your access to the Mediterranean in Syria. Anyone with brains here knows the truth about Assad and why our idiot moron President “accidentally” left the Taliban with all of this high equipment. It’s a lie, it wasn’t an intelligence mistake. It’s another bulllshit isis move but on a larger scale. Russia will destroy the Taliban anyways …it seems so wrong and deceitful and I would be pissed if I was Russian. A lot of Americans know that we have zero business sticking our nose in Syria and what happened in Afghanistan is another disgusting attempt to do the obvious. We are sorry that this even happened and we are so beyond disgusted that the Taliban scored American weapons like this. If the Taliban comes to fuck with Russia in Syria then send em quickly to hell. God be with you and fuck the new world order.
@@timkc1638 its an enemy in terms of competition. it's those sweet export sales, Hulu and Netflix aren't at war but they do compete.
the us will never go to war with Russia or any neer peer country, but will an export f35 ever meet an export su-57? maybe, that's a lot more likely.
old guy flipped the table on the russians bc the 2016 election meddling has left a bad taste in the mouth of the dems(remember that), they know the union is dead but that won't help us-russia relations. the outgoing bigT was very chummy with the russians bc they helped in his election and the new bigT hotel in Moscow. the recent good relations are fueled by these personal connections without the interests of the country in mind.
there are good reasons why the relations should not be good. 1. it's ruled by a president for life political despot limiting freedoms 2. and also the Russians support the other qazi dictatorships that sprung up around the dissolution of the union exa. Lukashenko. 3. the annexation of land from a us ally, the annexation of Crimea 2014. 4. the aforementioned election meddling. did you just forget all of this, or willfully disregarding it?
@@TheHallucinati Any Big Business that is focussed on civil goods has a natural interest in foreign markets and its shares, so it make no sense to blame mindlessly Big Business as the evil.
Its rather the defense sectors who live off fear mongering and mindless campains. And of course the US has by far the largest and most powerfull defense sector in the world which eats up about 15% of the annual budget of this country. The reason why its so powerfull is that many different interest groups depend on it so it has a very strong lobby.
The american supremacy doctrine was originally inventet to ensure free trade, multilateralism in as many regions in the world as possible, backed by a strong military. But this system is highly corrupted and has lost its original goal out of sight.
@@TheHallucinati you're close. You are following the money at least. Maybe some day you'll follow it all the way to the source, and get past the flunkies competing for the money.
The Russian TV program "Combat Approved" did an episode on the Su-57, including showing destructive testing of an airframe in a clamp. This might give you the images you are looking for on the internal structure.
In a clamp? What does that test? Durability against structural integrity/rigidity? Thanks.
EDIT: I found the episode…thanks brother! Great series. Great info AND media! 🙏
Well, 'Combat Approved' is an ultra biased program to say the least. Is like the RT of the Russian weapons media outlet. 🤔🙄
@@pixsilvb9638 yes, but 2 things. First, all nations produce heavy loads of propaganda. Second, they still show military equipment and factories, etc. Find me a documentary that's unbiased on any military hardware... "best fighter in the world" "bla, bla. Yeah, it's all propaganda. But, dosent change that they don't get good footage now and again.
@@stephensanford5273 "Good footage" of staged propaganda demos? Okay, but that's a strange definition of "good footage" by most standards. At least wait until the plane exists before you start making imaginary claims about what it can do.
@@Biden_is_demented They do have a few (best estimates are 3-15) prototypes of various types and completely unverified capabilities, but no ongoing production or deployment. Even the 3 claimed to be "operational" do not have the new engines that the Su-57 is supposed to use, among other fundamental shortcomings. They are basically just doing airframe test flights, though two (or more likely one plane on two occasions) of them purportedly did drop long-range missiles successfully from inside Russia. The missiles were old Soviet Kh59's, not the updated Kh-59MK2's that are supposedly being built for the Felon. These two incidents have not been confirmed, though it seems unlikely the Russians would lie about only having 40-year-old missiles to use on their "super plane." It is telling that the maker of the Kh-59MK2 does not list the Su-57 on their website among the aircraft that would carry the new missile (oops). If that is your standard, then the USA has a Mach 10 bomber. We don't, but we do have something that looks like one and seems capable of going that fast. It has flown, as have the testbed 57's, but you don't see us claiming it's part of our current forces. Also, just to be accurate, the alleged Su-57 has only flown near to Ukraine (50 miles or so inside Russia), and only a couple of times. So, they were never "over" Ukraine and certainly not "daily" by any stretch of the imagination. Also, they were not "seen" by anyone other than long-range radars (so much for "stealthy") that suggested that their flight profile did not match other known Russian aircraft. The prototypes may or may not be similar to the final version, which may or may not ever actually be built. That was my point. I hope this more detailed statement clears up any confusion for you. It is ironic that, given your chosen name, you would accept uncritically the unverified and objectively highly improbable claims by the Russian media, which does not even claim to be honest or objective. To clarify what I mean by that, there are very strict laws requiring all Russian media to produce only programming approved by the Kremlin. You may doubt the reliability or independence of Western media, but at least Congress didn't pass a law making it punishable by 15 years in prison to disagree with the President on TV. I'm curious how you think Fox "News" and other MAGA wingnut outlets are able to evade this supposed control by the "deep state" or whoever your personal boogeyman happens to be. It's funny to see Carlson and Hannity rant about how the press is censored while they are literally saying it on television. I guess MAGA does not reward self-reflection, or even logic.
As an American, I had a minor seizure when you referred to India as 'The Indians'
but they are the Indians, the American native ppl got called Indians cuz a spanish due sailed the wrong way and found NA :P
@@NiclasHorn Correct. And since the Native Americans were never actually Indian, in the US calling them that is associated with ignorance and bigotry. Despite this, they're still often referred to as 'Indians', especially by our textbooks. There's also a lot of cultural appropriation (dressing up like a chief) stereotypes (geronimo!) and fake history (thanksgiving).
Because of all this, I've never actually heard the actual Indians referred to as 'the Indians', only Native Americans.
But all this has changed in recent years. Most mainstream media now refers to them as 'Native Americans'. So it's been a very long time since I've actually heard the phrase 'the Indians'. So hearing it from this guy just awakened some kind of long buried fight or flight response.
Yes that would be the correct term.
@@Jay2JayGaming I call them indians
@@NiclasHorn wasent it Columbus? He was trying to sail to India and found the Careebian Islands thats why they are called the West Indies.
You made an excellent point. The Russians NEVER export equipment of the same technology and quality as what they use internally. Sometimes they even have separate factories for export and internal models. A senior Soviet defector identified over 30 major "simplifications" between a captured BMP and the ones his unit had.
Really enjoyed seeing this all together as a single video. There's so much information here about a really captivating aircraft - thanks!!
I don't think there's any question that the SU-57 is a masterpiece of aerodynamics. I imagine it will be the most maneuverable fighter in the world, for what that's worth on today's modern battlefield.
It is still big, but performance figures do match, and Aerodynamically, it is way better than an F-35
@@Gunni1972 Oh, no doubt. If the F-35 gets in a turning dogfight with this beast, it won't last long. That's why F-35 will employ hit and run tactics and shoot these planes down before they even know they've been tracked and locked. Or they'll just direct F-15EX to fire a mountain of AIM-260 missiles at it.
What are you talking about, speckle? The F 35 can’t even lift up without the Russians knowledge. Yeah, hit and run, famous by the Americans. How about destroy Hospitals,Schools, civilian life’s than run? The Us education system tried not to teach history, in the last 100 yrs. So, they don’t know what happened with The Roman Empire. Bases all over the world = defeat and run, of course. The Russians have the best radar system, very mobile and can be one day here and the other day there, without our knowledge. Of course satellites can see everything from space, but just as long, they are able to see. Don’t forget, a few months ago, over Russian territory a US spy satellite got blinded, and silenced, so now it’s just space junk! So my friend, hit and run was working in mid evil times. And I’m not saying that Russians are invisible, no way. But todays electronic warfare is a way more successful than hit and run and dropping bombs. So Before the call comes “ gentleman’s start your engine “ every F 35 will be unable to do that, and no matter which part of the world they are stored!!!!
YIKES! LOLOLOL!!!!!
@@Gunni1972 Today the first fighter that see's its opponent wins! That were F-35 excels in it's situational awareness is yrs ahead of Su-57.
Good idea to compile all episodes together.
Agreed... makes for a more enjoyable experience to avid military aviation buffs (maybe not so much for mere mortals though).
Yes
28:00 I belive there is a point to both your theories. Even the Russians understand that there is a minimal risk for the Su-57 ever to face the F-22 or any of the US top notch fighters. Or any other 4.5-5 Gen fighter. They'll most likely face ground to air threats and older Sukhoi and MiG products.
Excellent point. Western fighters are largely neutered by the opposition's threat of the use of strategic nuclear weapons.
Well even at 33,000lbs thrust, that's still 66,000lbs thrust. That's really good and VERY high.
F15: 58,320 lbs
F22: 70,000 lbs
F35: 43,000 lbs
Su-57: 66,000 lbs
However, they look to soon have close to 40,000 lbs - that single engine will be in the su-75.
So that's going to be 80,000lbs thrust - and that's what you call REALLY amazing!
Yeah...(but) Sure, Russian engineers managed to create & stick huge engines with even more power than rest of world since Cold War, YET they were known to have & have huge reliability and power limitations compared to NATO industries ones. Short lifespan and limitations = low readiness. I've seen & even disassembled latest Tumansky for Mig-21 & 29.
"soon" 😂
@@MM-zd6wf
Well, even as it stands now, the 57 does not lack power. And they don't even need to get 40k out of one engine. Even 35k per engine will result in a REALLY good power output of 70k lbs thurst.
More than power, reliability is another huge concern. You'd be lucky to milk 2,000 hours out of those Russian engines. The MTBO (Meantime between outages) is 1,000 hours vs. 6,000 hours for F-35/22.
With hotter temps comes less reliability. So the reliability of SU-57 and the long-term costs associated are concerning as well.
ME-262 -- 2000 lbs x 2
A-4 -- 8000 lbs
Thank you for the compilation. I can't stop watching it even though I watched the individual parts of it before.
PS: Nice house.
Great analysis, thanks alot. I rarely see that depth even in Russian blog sphere, despite easier acces to data due to same language. About 10 to 15y behind US, yeah, sure, 1991-2000s were absolutely miserable here, most MIC factories were barely alive or plundered for scrap metal and occupied by traiding companies. So while US was developing further, modern Russia was have to scrape leftovers from USSR legacy and build its engine and many other industries from scratch.
But even with that, how you explain by today Russia have hyper-sonic missiles that even plane, the most stealthy submarines, the best armor in tanks, the best vectorial engine, and the best IA anti-missile complex like TOR series, best electronic warfare equipment, you need to add these variables to the equation when you compare the nations, and I'm really sure, Russia is most powerful today than all NATO countries together, they prove it, they are better in all (sky, ocean, ground and space), but, this is the most perfect content for you, right?, because at the end, always finalize in what you want to hear, but believe me, that is not the reality. Sorry, but to pin your bubble, Russia by today is by far the most advanced country in the world besides China, and you will see soon, when Russia crush a NATO country and UK and USA run away betraying them by scar.
It is incredibly how a TV shows or analysis by non-professional people convince you my friend. REPEAT WITH ME "A country who creates technology impossible to create by other nations is SUPERIOR to those nations in scientific knowledge", again "A country who creates technology impossible to create by other nations is SUPERIOR to those nations in scientific knowledge", as a kid go to make a plane and put this phrase 50 times
Thrust vectoring is a big contributor to short takeoff performance. Also with computer optimized flight controls thrust vectoring can be used for aerodynamic trim.
You forgot to mention the cloaking device
Thrust vectoring is great for air shows, but in REAL combat it’s useless. 99% of air combat takes place beyond visual range (BVR), in which trust vectoring will NOT save the SU-57…..
@@nimrodquimbus912 😂
It is a beautiful aircraft which is not very Russia in general, but air combat isn’t a beauty contest. It’s also a dirty airframe when it comes to radar cross section (RCS). The one thing IMO it has over the F-22 is multi-role capability, but that’s why we built the F-35. The F-22 was purpose built as an air superiority fighter only, it’s job is simply to kill other fighters and deny enemy aircraft the ability to fly. “If it flys, it dies.”
@@sgt_loeram1933
In my humble opinion the SU-27 is one of the best looking aircraft of all time.
You sir, have by far the most informative channel regarding military tech on TH-cam! Kudos!
Aesthetically superb, and it flies as beautifully as it looks. You 'did the Felon proud'. Great job. Thank you so much. Stay safe, take care.
Great video. Thank you for putting all of this info together. There aren’t a lot of people who can approach this level of tech detail
The SU-57 and the F-22 are both amazing aircraft. I would never knock any of them.
The SU-57 is a real viable combat aircraft, the F-22 is a lemon that was intended to be a viable combat aircraft. Only try to have a discussion about military Aircraft with any American, and you'll be shocked how unaware they really are. They all talk endless rubbish, and so much so, they even start to believe their own rubbish. It makes no difference if you show them, or explain to them, or even go through it in detail with them?. You can conclusively prove things to these people, and they'll ignore it, and carry on saying the same thing. Even when they've just been shown, and had something proven to them, something that they were completely wrong about, makes no difference at all. Nope, they'll just deny it, or ignore it, seriously, you can talk to them about any military hardware at all, and you'll always come to find, they actually know nothing about any of it.
And when you point things out to them, things that they've so obviously just dreamt up in their own head, all you'll then get back, is a few lines of remedial illegible rubbish. But you'll then see them somewhere else, repeating what they already know to be complete rubbish. Honestly, you could not make it up.
If people could think for themselves today, they'd all be questioning why the USA made a point of announcing they've made it illegal to sell the F-22. The USA seemingly want it believed it's because it's so good, they don't want anyone else to have it. But, that makes no sense at all, because the reality is, they've no idea what's around the corner in technology terms, and with the speed we're seeing new military tactical hardware being created today, It could well of made great sense to sell the F-22 at some stage. (If it actually works).
There's another reason the USA would make a point of announcing they've made it illegal to sell the F-22, that people seem to neglect today. And that's, If it doesn't work, If it is as I suspect it is, a lemon, and if the USA have then used the F-22 as a propaganda aircraft, then what better way of preventing anyone else from finding out that it actually doesn't work, and is really a lemon, a failure, than making it illegal to sell? The only possible way to explain that stunt, of the USA announcing they've now made it illegal to sell the F-22, can only be because it's a propaganda aircraft, a failure! They've even trashed all the infrastructure they had in place to build more of them. If it worked, they'd have been able to recoup much of the resources spent on the aircraft, in its entirety.
You can think about it as much as you like, that is the only real possible reason the USA would do that. Absolutely no doubt about it, I guarantee we'll never see the F-22 involved in any sort of war scenario or any major sortie, as it's basically junk. Typical US propaganda, usually consists of silly falsehoods and fake misinformation claims, like the F-15, is said to be unbeaten in A2A combat? It's true, only when we look at every aircraft shot down by an F-15?, we find that none had any capabilities to offer anything offensive, and most had little if anything defensive, many without even a basic radar? Meaning, you'd be absolutely stunned, if the F-15 didn't shoot every one of them down. So it really is a very silly, meaningless propaganda claim?
Now we do have another aircraft, that is also unbeaten in A2A combat, and has faced off against aircraft as capable as itself. The British Sea Harrier is the only aircraft unbeaten in A2A combat, that has faced off against worthy, viable opposition.
And that really is a huge factor, that's worth knowing, unlike the F-15 propaganda claim, that you'd be shocked if it hadn't managed.
Seemingly these Americans have no idea that both the F-22 and F-35 can't see, track, or target any other stealth aircraft from BVR (beyond visual range)?.
Stealth alone defeats high-frequency (short wave) radar by absorption and deflection, it does not defeat low-frequency (long wave) radar. Therefore, to see, track, and target stealth aircraft you must have long-wave radar, but it must also be enhanced to remove all background clutter for targeting purposes.
Neither the AN/APG 77 radar used in the F-22, nor the AN/APG-81 radar used in the F-35, can see any other stealth aircraft from BVR (without enhanced long wave radar) - This fact the US Air force obviously know!
Only it seems the reality is, that when the F-35 radars were being designed 13 years ago, there were no other stealth aircraft to think about as a potential threat?
So how can these US aircraft be seen as any sort of threat to either China or Russia, who both have these aircraft technically beaten? They can see and target US jets from BVR, yet the US jets can't even see them from BVR?
Russia's new 5th generation Byelka (2band) radar, used in SU-57, does have enhanced long-wave radar, they've designed and developed the first L-Band fighter radar we've ever seen. They've cleverly embedded L-band AESA radars in the leading edges of the wings.
The new L-band AESA radar data gets processed in real time through extremely powerful Russian Elbrus computers being significantly enhanced removing all clutter, meaning it can see, track, target, and engage enemy stealth aircraft from BVR.
They can also interact in ''real-time'' with each other, and take control of ground to air missile defence systems (that alone is lethal), and they can see enemy stealth fighter aircraft entering Russian airspace if not long before Russian airspace from much greater distances with real-time data from massive Russian ground long wave stations (that are all protected today with the networked S-400 defensive system).
Therefore, as they'll always know where the enemy aircraft are, they'll always be able to approach any enemy aircraft head on, and therefore stealthily, (Russia wisely sacrificed rear end stealth for much better manoeuvrability) meaning today, the US fighter jets would not even be able to see them coming!!
Russia's Byelka (2band) radar covers all aspects of frequencies across all channels, that are used for tracking, targetting, and also jamming. It's part of Sh121 multifunctional integrated radio electronic system (MIRES) on board the SU-57.
Russia tested much of this new radar suit on the SU-35, so they also have the option of fitting this radar into SU-35's permanently, meaning Russia's SU-35S flanker will be at no disadvantage with F-22/35.
As although the SU-35 can be seen and targeted from BVR, the SU-35 with the new 5th gen radar is as able to see and target the US jets from BVR, seeing the all-important Russian advantage in BVR missile distance, plus the excellent manoeuvring, neither the F-22/35 have, as more than critical, if you're going to avoid simply being blown out of the sky. And you don't have to take my word on it, either?
Dr Carlo Kopp of Air Power Australia explored low band AESAs embedded in fighter wing leading edges in 2009, and concluded that this concept is operationally and technically viable.
Study results were not published by APA, due to the potentially adverse impact - APA has a long-standing policy of not publishing concepts that might provide potential adversaries with a competitive combat advantage. However, unbeknownst to APA, Tikhomirov NIIP were already working on this concept for two or more years, and they revealed the technology at the Russian MAKS Airshow in 2011.
Dr Kopp explains - the appearance of the first L-Band Fighter Radar is an excellent example of focused and intelligent lateral thinking which targets opponents' weaknesses.
This is sound technological strategy and practice on the part of Russian industry. The new Tikhomirov NIIP L-band AESA is the first example of a technology which negates the intended X-band stealth advantage, well before the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter achieves even limited operational capability.
Dr Kopp has produced a detailed forensic engineering study of the new NIIP L-band AESA and he explores the growth potential in the design.
While the NIIP L-Band AESA disclosed at MAKS 2011 might be considered a prototype, where the specific performance of this prototype might confer only a small combat advantage, the inevitable development of this technology confers long-term and accelerating air combat advantages, both as a counter to specialized X-Band Low Observability and for the detection and disruption of sensors and digital communications systems that operate in the heavily used L-Band.
No great originality is required to deploy and further evolve this design - the back-end hardware and software from existing X-band radars can be used with modifications, and publicly disclosed US roadmap documents for X-band AESAs can be emulated. The size of the Flanker and its power generation reserves make integration and cooling a low risk, easily solved standard of engineering problems.
And this was back in 2011. We've seen where it went, It resulted in the N036 Byelka radar system that's far superior and more advanced than any western radar, who have no equivalent.
Dr Kopp explains - This paper analyses the operational potential of this design, and performs a range of performance estimates based on manufacturer disclosures and known design features.
The design has clear potential to provide a genuine shared multifunction aperture with applications including: Search, track and destroy missile mid-course guidance against low signature aircraft. Identification of Friend, Foe/Secondary Surveillance Radar.
Passive angle tracking and geolocation of JTIDS-MIDS-Link-16 emitters at long ranges.
Passive angle tracking and geolocation of L-band AEWC-AWACS and surface based search radars at long ranges.
Passive angle tracking and geolocation of hostile (i.e. Western) IFF and SSR transponders at long ranges.
High-powered active jamming of JTIDS-MIDS-Link-16 emitters.
High-powered active jamming of satellite navigation receivers over large areas.
High-powered active jamming of L-band AEWC-AWACS and surface based search radars at long ranges.
High-powered active jamming of guided munition command data links over large areas.
Performance modelling for a range of the feasible configurations indicates the radar will deliver tactically credible search range performance.
The Tikhomirov NIIP L-band AESA is a very important strategic development, and a technology which once fully matured and deployed in useful numbers, will render narrowband stealth designs like the F-22 & F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, and some if not many UAVs, as highly vulnerable to all Flanker variants equipped with such radars.
We see the USA still unable to produce a VTOL fighter aircraft?. The F-35B was claimed by the USA to be able to do what the Harrier could do, while also being supersonic, stealthy with modern avionics systems etc? This is what we were told?
Only one of the biggest technical headaches the British always had to build the Harrier, was the VTOL - transferring from ''lift'' (downward nozzles) to forward flight (rear-facing nozzles) and flying away.
Apparently to achieve it took the British a hell of a lot of technical work, three - four months at a time over 3 years. (Look up all the variants they made) but they never gave up, and they finally figured it out.
I said long before we ever saw the F-35B, it wouldn't be VTOL capable, even with the Rolls-Royce lift engines, because the USA has tried many times before, and failed, only managing to produce the British Harrier able to do so.
Any US airframe (and there have been many), have all failed. At 7 mins 50 seconds, you'll watch a Harrier perform a proper VTOL. Copy and paste “2013 MCAS Yuma Air Show - AV8B Harrier Demo” into TH-cam search.
Watch it from lift off, (to more importantly, flying away from the lift off), and you'll see the transfer of nozzles take place.
You'll not find a single piece of footage of the F-35B doing this? I've had (Americans) tell me all sorts of rubbish, like it can do it, and even saying they've seen it lol, only when they can't show it? They quickly change, and instead we'll read them claim it was never intended to be VTOL capable? LOL.
Sure, when Lockheed Martin's very own page on TH-cam clearly shows them trying to suggest it is VTOL capable, when it so clearly is not? Copy and Paste “First F-35B Vertical Takeoff Test” into TH-cam search.
Watch this, you'll see it lift off, only you'll see it take off go straight up & hover then return straight back down? You'll never see it fly away from the lift off?
Believe me, if it could, we'd see it doing so in every piece of footage we have on the F-35B - like we still see on all the footage of the Harrier doing so. But you'll never find any footage anywhere of the F-35B doing that.
It shows you that Lockheed are not unknown to produce propaganda aircraft. As I claim, the F-22 is exactly that. A lemon, that became a propaganda aircraft, that was intended to be a viable military aircraft, that failed. 18 years the US have had F-22, and they've been in wars the entire time, only they've never used it, and they removed every F-22 from the Middle East, Jordan, Iraq, Turkey, and Saudi just after Russia arrived in Syria in 2015.
Americans will then go on to say it's not necessary? LOL. While forgetting, they're to be carrier-based aircraft, meaning even slight damage to the deck or ramp, they can't get any jets airborne. Defeating the entire purpose of having the aircraft in the first place? You can't ever lose an entire carrier in battle for only minor damage.
And why do we see the USA doing that? It's obviously because the USA is still the only country that's never managed to produce & build a VTOL fighter aircraft?. Britain did so in the late 50s, Russia did so in the late 60s the USA has tried and failed numerous times, so it seems this time they're going to try to lie about it LOL?
That country is a travesty, man!
@@hotstepper887 how far can the f22 track..... because from I read the f22 have (bvr) capabilities.
@@wilsonsantiago3095 How far can the US jets see all other 4+ Generation aircraft (non-stealth)? They can see, track, and target them all from BVR. How far can the US jets see other 5th Generation (Stealth) aircraft?
They can't see, track, or target any other stealth aircraft from BVR, as they lack the radar needed to perform that task. What I've already explained above. It's not rocket science, it only takes an understanding of abilities and what each ability means. Something that seems to be forgotten today, because we read so many without any idea at all about military hardware today, and nearly all they want to think and believe is propaganda and outright, in your face, lies.
Aesthetically it looks fantastic!
Thrust vectoring also increases the survivability of the aircraft. If control surfaces and one of the engines are damaged, the remaining one might just give enough controllability to keep the plane in the air. Also, while TVC does decrease the thrust-to-mass ratio of an individual engine it matters little for an assembled plane. I think what engineers and designers are going for with the thrust vectoring is the synergy of small gains here and there. As for additional complexity, it seems to be no longer an issue considering the track record.
An aircraft with such a thrust to weight ratio has no problem recovering with 1 engine regardless of thrust vectoring.
TV Nozzles are useful, the account of IAF pilots dodging AIM120Ds is the case. Its air-battle proven. So BVR engagements, TW is used. A recent encounter of SU30MKI in exercise pitch black with Aussies F18s clearly show that in WVR range fights, TV nozzle can gain upperhand with Sharp alpha maneuver enough to either lock on to the F18 in rate fight or fire its cannon to damage the F18.
Too many acronyms. I work in technology and anything can become unrecognizable because of the overuse of acronyms. DYGWIM?
Thank you sir :brilliant, funny, and very detailed explanation!
I like how the grey painted center section looks like the outline of a Su27. Sneaky!
Some kids like movie--stars some sports figures I like Millennium7
that F18 pilot also said he lost as much as he won
he was candid
Excellent stuff as always!!! Love your channel!!!
I would never underestimate russian plane designers,but the f22 can do all that with 2d vectoring,I think the us hypothisized that 3d vectoring on a twin engine fighter was overkill,but the idea on a single engine fighter like we did with f16 vista back in the 90s would be unbeatable. I never understood why we did not pursue that idea or on the f18 or f35 . I know the f18 is a twin engined fighter but it had much smaller engines than the f15 so the thrust vectoring they did use on the f18 back in the late eighties was 3d but only to proof of concept for f22.
A beautiful aircraft. ❤ The analysis given.
RCS can vary a lot with small changes in relative angular orientation to a radar can't it? Perhaps a big benefit to the thrust vectoring and levcon arrangement is really locking in that angle to minimize RCS. They could even theoretically build the plane with an ideal angle in mind that's a little tighter than the americans are able to
Im an American and I appreciate this video!
Automated flying could be useful for high G maneuvers. Imagine like those flight game automated barrel roll buttons but for aero braking maneuvers that may cause black out. If you can push a button and let the plane do the maneuver, you may be able to dodge a missile without hitting the ground by the time the pilot regains focus.
Assuming the pilot isn't going to be augmented.
Your program is great and very informative and interesting,
Keep up the great work!
Thanks for making a video that isn’t biased about the plane. Stuff like this is hard to come by because it’s a foreign plane from another global superpower.
Russia uses spectacular arms demos to attract export biz. So, thrust vectoring may’ve been included partly for this reason (and one must admit it’s amazing to watch it fly). And another reason because it does provide amazing maneuverability, which will always be useful (even if not useful enough to justify its inclusion).
This channel is genuinely unique!! Best analysis going!
Thank goodness, finally a discussion of the topic that unambiguously acknowledges that higher turbine inlet temperature is a _good_ thing (provided the engine meets its TBO and maintenance objectives). I've long since lost track of how much time I've spent trying to explain the second law of thermodynamics to folks who insist that cooler is better.
With that said, one wonders about the Izdeliye 30's TBO and overall life. The Russians had absolutely world-class metallurgy back in the day (if their computing and microelectronics had been similarly strong they never would have fallen behind overall), but it seems that they've lost a step or three since. Also probably worth noting that F119 went 13 years from first run to F-22 IOC, and the F135 (which is a derivative) took another decade beyond that to reach IOC. Even if the Russians execute as well as P&W they're looking at more like 2029 for Izdeliye 30.
IMO the fundamental problem with thrust-vectoring for ACM is that it's really inefficient compared to using aerodynamic surfaces to generate lift. A fighter's wing can convert 1 N of thrust to O(10) N of lift, whereas thrust vectoring converts that same 1 N of thrust to 1 N of lift. So long as the wings aren't stalled aerodynamic lift will always win. IMO that leaves two opportunities for thrust-vectoring:
1. Post-stall maneuvering. As the Indian source you cited points out, that's very much a last-ditch, one-chance-only scenario. If you fail to kill the opponent (or if they have a wingman) then you're left in a no-energy (stalled!) state.
2. To assist maneuvering in regimes where control surfaces have very limited authority, most notably at very high altitude. I've seen credible reports that the F-22 does this, and I could buy that the Russians are taking a similar approach. Might vectoring also offset the impact of those small horizontal stabilizers in such regime?
By the Russians, I assume you mean post Cold War Russian metallurgy. Because the Soviets didn’t really do that very well… at least during and shortly post ww2. Can’t really say about nowadays.
Also dogfighting is pretty much a non-option against an F-22 in a realistic modern day engagement. There is that weird paradox where two stealth fighters may resort to a dogfight since they couldn’t see each other in time, but I have my doubts on the SU-57’s RCS figures
@@christopherchartier3017 Soviet metallurgy in the mid-to-late cold war (say, the 60s onward) was world class. That's what enabled them to do oxygen-rich staged cycle rocket engines for example.
The main reason Russia has fallen behind in both development and building of the machines is that they lost all of their client states that were building them in the first place.
@@bucky5869 . . . Like Ukraine…
@christopherchartier3017 that is a prime example. I know shipbuilding was done in Ukraine. I'm not sure about the planes, though.
Su 57 is beautiful
The SU-57 has been testing a new engine for more than a year. It is reported that all aircraft from the beginning of 2024 will be equipped with it. Cruising speed without afterburner Mach 1.5
Just came across your channel
Really enjoying the technical detail
Thanks for the upload! Looking forward to binge watching your content this evening
IT FEELS TIME WELL SPENT, 🤗 THANK YOU SIR.
Serious topics dicussed with intelligence and humour. Great viewing!
Hands down, sexiest aircraft ever built. Ever. Period.
Su 57 can do 360 flat spin maneuver that's insane 👌
And you believe that?
@@HenryFWagons you never seen that video yet go watch
@@Rudraiya At an air show right? How many rusty old Ukrainian planes have they shot down?
@@HenryFWagons su 57 had it's first kill in Ukraine didn't you watcher the news 🤷♂ I think it's better then popping 🎈 like the f22 did
Awesome content, thanks👍🏼
So the basic plan is long range missiles to force back AWACS and then use their own stealth mounted L band radars to understand the battlefield better than the enemy. An L band radar coupled to good IRST also seems to play to the strengths of both systems well. Sensor fusion makes that radar a far scarier feature than it would have been until recently.
Effectiveness depends on implementation, but I don't see any glaring weaknesses in the plan. May have stolen a jump with that one, but I'm sure there are people on other sides that have their own ideas to deal with it (might not have the ideal equipment yet though).
Still don't really understand the thrust vectoring. They maybe just found a dozen little advantages rather than one overwhelming one. My guess is that the biggest is that not having to worry about regions of the envelope being unrecoverable with just control surfaces may have considerably streamlined the design process, and avoided compromises elsewhere. Instead of worrying about complicated aerodynamics solutions, they just let the engines fix it. Counterintuitively, if the engines are prone to problems then this could be a very big deal, as the Tomcat showed. Dangerous areas of the envelope are extremely hard to avoid in single engine flight, which is very bad if you have dodgy engines.
Very good! 😃✌This are exactly the ideas I was considering since Su-35, Russian data link & S-400 were fielded together, abroad- Syria 2014! Except France, until F35, NATO'S & allies' navies didn't had a dedicated onboard IRST, maybe that's why the F35 B& C push, also new F-18 E/F especially against Chinese stealth & Su-57 with their new long range A-A, antiship, IRSTs, data links & long wave band radars & sensors fusions.
Regarding Thrust vectoring: again, very good points, I and my friends thought about same. BUT: 1. It can be shutdown by pilot and reactivated when needed! 2. Reasons are secret, apparently, THOUGH keep in mind Su-30, 57, 35 are big, heavy airframes with huge inertia & probably sacrificing some stealth & weight helps for defeating missiles & in dogfights, also upset recoveries(as said, very well by Millennium 7*)! Russian thinking is somewhat different and they also need rugged airframes for harsh environments...
Also consider that 1. You need huge range assets to discriminate an AWACS & E3 from enemy airfleet, which have very long ranges- I've heard unofficially around 450- 500+ Kms with good discrimination and are being assisted by other systems on the sea or ground, also satellites. 2. Also there are data links with F-15, 16, 18, 35, 22 so lots of sensors at very long ranges. 3. For a Chinese or Russian asset to get inside the effective missile hit range should get close to about 150- 250 Kms for a 300- 400 kms range weapon, which is going to be hugely difficult. 4. Even if it managed to launch will only send a few, while becoming a target itself, that from those ranges can be detected & defeated against. So... while there is a threat from China & Russia, it's not such a devastating one.
@@bogdana.m.2416 i guess MiG31 will be used for this purpose. It has long distance A-A missile and it's max Mach-3 speed will increase missile's range.
@@bogdana.m.2416 High altitude launch hypersonic munitions. HEL systems (terrestrial and space). "Range" is starting to mean less and less to countries with advanced militaries.
The su 57s biggest issue is it's numbers there's very few of them they need to build them in a full production run
I think one thing that should be considered is the fact that the su57 L band elements are made of gallium nitride and are capable of very large peak power output in the 1 to 4 ghz range. This could potentially allow the su57 to have early warning capabilities against stealth aircraft and allow the main x band array to pulse in a very powerful narrow band to detect stealth fighters and lock onto them from greater ranges.
No, it won't, even if the Su-57 does someday exist and even if it lives up to the (very unlikely) claims of its makers. Keep in mind that everything we know about this ghost is literally from marketing materials produced by the designer. Do you think they might have an incentive to exaggerate the future capabilities of their design they are desperately trying to sell?
Internet “experts” are hilarious!
👍👍👍very good annalise.
Very enjoyable. As to the VT. Engine trimming could be a stealth feature. The deflection of control surfaces will have an effect on RCS and engine trimming may mitigate it. The Aircraft RCS has been optimised at the front. It could also provide a button the pilot presses (or even an automated system) that performs a manoeuvre that is 1 beyond the pilots agility or reactions to perform 2 beyond pilot accuracy to perform 3 the pilot would become unconscious before the manoeuvre was completed.
Great great video thank you for your time, again great video
Really interesting video
Brought up some points i would not have seen anywhere else
Like the fact that it isn’t just a russian f22 and that is has a different niche than the planes it is usually compared to
Also just filled with information
Keep up the good work!
Also Can you talk about the j 20 or f22 in a multi video Series just like this so we Can learn about the differences in these 3 planes?
About the J-20 it was difficult to fill one video. For the F-22, we'll see. It is a monumental task anyway.
@@Millennium7HistoryTech yeah your right
I have another question
When you look for information how do differenciate actual numbers from estimates
Very interesting. I like your deep detailed analysis. Keep going 👍
How about a video explaining the tactics which would (most likely) be employed using sensor fusion and "quarterbacking" of other aircraft?
Wow! It's one of the most interesting and informative video on the topic I've seen on TH-cam for past months. Thanks 👍
I respect and salute the huge effort of so many persons that has created and will produce and would deploy and operate the Su-57 system in the future; however, I expect the up-time to down-time ratio will be very dismal. Software anomalies in present and future software, hardware failures, replacement part shortages, training inadequacies, and production issues will be continuing and hurtful to the deployment and successful operation of the aircraft.
Unfortunately we have the same issue with the F22. They ended production too soon and didn’t build replacement parts. Poor planning.
@@keirfarnum6811 Not poor planning, it was done on purpose so that american military contractors can make more money selling f35's.
@@sadiporter2966 this
amazing quality videos as always Thank you.
You have alot of Americans calling the SU-57 trash. But you also have alot of Russians calling the F-22 trash.
Actually there a lot of dumb patriots in every country)) If you look at some european videos of Rafale or Gripen there will be the same))
data was pretty objective , really like the content , looking forward for more detailed stuff on gas turbines , need not necessarily be a Russian , American or nationality specific aircraft. Its just that I admire the work that goes into the engine …. for a sample say MIG-25 or MIG-31 I'm assuming they are similar in performance … really looking forward for more content.
All 9 of them.
This was an awesome video, and your pet AI Robot is super cool!
I really enjoy the channel and find your content is generally very well researched and presented. This SU-57 series is no exception and the details presented are quite fascinating. However, in this video, you said that the US Intel services have historically underestimated the capabilities and tech of the Soviet/Russian military industry and its products. You indicated that this was a "legacy of the Cold War".
Unfortunately, this is almost the complete opposite of the truth and, after the fall of the Iron Curtain, it was discovered that the USSR had been quite a bit further behind in nearly all areas of tech. Both the numbers and effectiveness of Soviet/Russian military hardware had been wildly exaggerated during the Cold War. It was also determined that to some degree the NRO, DIA, and CIA had oversold the Russian threat for purposes of lobbying the civilian government of the USA to increase defense funding.
Unsurprisingly, the Soviet/Russian military intel agencies had done the same thing, but their estimates of US capabilities were closer to the truth. They also distributed disinfo and propaganda to encourage the US intel service's overestimation, in order to enhance deterrence. Now the US intel establishment is making the same "mistake" of overestimating threats with the Chinese, for the same reasons. ;)
I’d rather we overestimate than underestimate. Wouldn’t you?
@@nwbklr true overestimation is better than underestimation
Isn't this how the F-15 came to be during the cold war as well? Overestimate of the MiG-25's capabilities?
@@Stellar001100 same goes with the Soviet Union they overestimated the f16 and built Su27 and Mig29 during the last years of the Union.
Sounds like you might have worked for some intel outfit
Of course they'd consider the F-22 when building a new fighter jet. But this sentence is as meaningfull as saying "i'd consider Mercedes Benz when crossing the street".
L-band radar. Makes me remember P Sprey's comments on the F-35. He said something like this: 'the first thing you need to know about stealth is that it is a scam. It simply doesn't work. Radars that were built in the 40s like the battle of Britain radars could detect any modern stealth aircraft because they operated at long wavelengths. Unfortunately, the Russians picked up on this and have been building exactly those radars, low frequency, low wavelength radars and they've modernized them to an extraordinary extent. They've built some really amazing mobile versions.....and they sell them to anybody who's got cash'. So I guess stealth is not much more than an advertising fad. A "Wunderwaffe" easily overcome by low wavelength, low frequency radars such as the L-band radars installed on the Su-57.
Well, Sprey is right from a purely technical point, but it's not that simple. The problem with low frequency radar is that it gives you low resolution returns. So yes, you will see stealth airplanes as a blip, but it's questionable if the accuracy is high enough to create a lock. Also L-band antennas are quite large by necessasity. In the SU-57 only the antennas in the wing root are capable of creating L-band signals, but not the main radar dish. So it's probably more to simply detect stealth aircraft than to attack them from a distance.
Also active radar and stealth is a problem anyway. You can have the best stealth features, the moment a stealth aircraft switches it's own radar on everything with a modern radar warning receiver will have immediatly a pretty good idea where the signal is coming from.
Even the Czechs made the stealth detecting radars in the nineteens, called Tamara and Viera
Pierre Sprey is an absolute moron and you should not listen to a thing he says.
@@jerryjencik3879 anything can detect something is out there , it would be nice to know exactly where, what good is a missile system if it can not lock onto what it is detecting . . . . pretty much worthless
@@shi01 Seemingly these Americans have no idea that both the F-22 and F-35 can't see, track, or target any other stealth aircraft from BVR (beyond visual range)?.
Stealth alone defeats high-frequency (short wave) radar by absorption and deflection, it does not defeat low-frequency (long wave) radar. Therefore, to see, track, and target stealth aircraft you must have long-wave radar, but it must also be enhanced to remove all background clutter for targeting purposes.
Neither the AN/APG 77 radar used in the F-22, nor the AN/APG-81 radar used in the F-35, can see any other stealth aircraft from BVR (without enhanced long wave radar) - This fact the US Air force obviously know!
Only it seems the reality is, that when the F-35 radars were being designed 13 years ago, there were no other stealth aircraft to think about as a potential threat?
So how can these US aircraft be seen as any sort of threat to either China or Russia, who both have these aircraft technically beaten? They can see and target US jets from BVR, yet the US jets can't even see them from BVR?
Russia's new 5th generation Byelka (2band) radar, used in SU-57, does have enhanced long-wave radar, they've designed and developed the first L-Band fighter radar we've ever seen. They've cleverly embedded L-band AESA radars in the leading edges of the wings.
The new L-band AESA radar data gets processed in real time through extremely powerful Russian Elbrus computers being significantly enhanced removing all clutter, meaning it can see, track, target, and engage enemy stealth aircraft from BVR.
They can also interact in ''real-time'' with each other member of the squadron, auto selecting the best placed BVR missile, that can be fired by anyone of them that has a target on radar, they can also take control of ground to air missile defence systems (that alone is lethal), and they can see enemy stealth fighter aircraft long before Russian airspace and from much greater distances, with "real-time" data from massive Russian ground long wave stations (that are all protected today with the networked S-400 defensive system).
Therefore, as they'll always know where the enemy aircraft are, they'll always be able to approach any enemy aircraft head on, and therefore stealthily, (Russia wisely sacrificed rear end stealth for much better manoeuvrability) meaning today, the US fighter jets would not even be able to see them coming!!
Russia's Byelka (2band) radar covers all aspects of frequencies across all channels, that are used for tracking, targetting, and also jamming. It's part of Sh121 multifunctional integrated radio electronic system (MIRES) on board the SU-57.
Russia tested much of this new radar suit on the SU-35, so they also have the option of fitting this radar into SU-35's permanently, meaning Russia's SU-35S flanker will be at no disadvantage with F-22/35.
As although the SU-35 can be seen and targeted from BVR, the SU-35 with the new 5th gen radar is as able to see and target the US jets from BVR, seeing the all-important Russian advantage in BVR missile distance, plus the excellent manoeuvring, neither the F-22/35 have, as more than critical, if you're going to avoid simply being blown out of the sky.
Dr Carlo Kopp of Air Power Australia explored low band AESAs embedded in fighter wing leading edges in 2009, and concluded that this concept is operationally and technically viable.
Study results were not published by APA, due to the potentially adverse impact - APA has a long-standing policy of not publishing concepts that might provide potential adversaries with a competitive combat advantage. However, unbeknownst to APA, Tikhomirov NIIP were already working on this concept for two or more years, and they revealed the technology at the Russian MAKS Airshow in 2011.
Dr Kopp explains - the appearance of the first L-Band Fighter Radar is an excellent example of focused and intelligent lateral thinking which targets opponents' weaknesses.
This is sound technological strategy and practice on the part of Russian industry. The new Tikhomirov NIIP L-band AESA is the first example of a technology which negates the intended X-band stealth advantage, well before the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter achieves even limited operational capability.
Dr Kopp has produced a detailed forensic engineering study of the new NIIP L-band AESA and he explores the growth potential in the design.
While the NIIP L-Band AESA disclosed at MAKS 2011 might be considered a prototype, where the specific performance of this prototype might confer only a small combat advantage, the inevitable development of this technology confers long-term and accelerating air combat advantages, both as a counter to specialized X-Band Low Observability and for the detection and disruption of sensors and digital communications systems that operate in the heavily used L-Band.
No great originality is required to deploy and further evolve this design - the back-end hardware and software from existing X-band radars can be used with modifications, and publicly disclosed US roadmap documents for X-band AESAs can be emulated. The size of the Flanker and its power generation reserves make integration and cooling a low risk, easily solved standard of engineering problems.
And this was back in 2011. We've seen where it went, It resulted in the N036 Byelka radar system that's far superior and more advanced than any western radar, who have no equivalent.
Dr Kopp explains - This paper analyses the operational potential of this design, and performs a range of performance estimates based on manufacturer disclosures and known design features.
The design has clear potential to provide a genuine shared multifunction aperture with applications including: Search, track and destroy missile mid-course guidance against low signature aircraft. Identification of Friend, Foe/Secondary Surveillance Radar.
Passive angle tracking and geolocation of JTIDS-MIDS-Link-16 emitters at long ranges.
Passive angle tracking and geolocation of L-band AEWC-AWACS and surface based search radars at long ranges.
Passive angle tracking and geolocation of hostile (i.e. Western) IFF and SSR transponders at long ranges.
High-powered active jamming of JTIDS-MIDS-Link-16 emitters.
High-powered active jamming of satellite navigation receivers over large areas.
High-powered active jamming of L-band AEWC-AWACS and surface based search radars at long ranges.
High-powered active jamming of guided munition command data links over large areas.
Performance modelling for a range of the feasible configurations indicates the radar will deliver tactically credible search range performance.
The Tikhomirov NIIP L-band AESA is a very important strategic development, and a technology which once fully matured and deployed in useful numbers, will render narrowband stealth designs like the F-22 & F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, and some if not many UAVs, as highly vulnerable to all Flanker variants equipped with such radars.
@Millennium7HistoryTech What is that voice from the computer? What type of program is he using?
Adobe Audition
Great compilation. Well structured and high impact….just like an SU-57
I was thinking shot down.
The self induction of flat spins is so gnarly. In a dog fight this thing must be unstoppable.
Sarcasm? Lol
dogfights aren't 1v1, if you dump all your energy fighting a single enemy, his wingmen will blow you out of the sky
When listening I recognized everything but flatspin without loss of altitude and internal weapons bays from Gripen E, which have 7 antennas. The pod for low band EW add more antennas and have L-band AESA and UHF.
No escape zone is the most interesting parameter of a missile. The range in which it miss the target is not.
“Take these numbers with a shot of Vodka.”
The SU-57 is sexy AF
Say what you will about the various capabilities, that is one damn fine looking aircraft!
I think that thrust vectoring and super maneuverability could prove extremely useful when used with future microwave and laser missile defense devices. I'm not sure how exactly but I have the feeling that could be the case. Consider that If these devices are as effective as APS systems have proven in ground combat then they could change the nature of air to air combat. For example if those new missile defense devices are paired with the super maneuverability and thrust vectoring method that you described to fool a missiles target prediction algorithms, together they could reduce the chance of a hit on the SU-57 by a very significant margin.
Padu dan mantap penerangan dan informatif..keep good explanation..its the right way to lessons..
Russia has amazing radar and surface to air capabilities
Hopefully they can get them to work.
@36:51 in case of a generalized and prolonged conflict you won't have fancy tech anymore: it will have been destroyed in the first days / weeks of the war. It will be basically WW2 tech at this point.
the specs on this craft are damn impressive, and not just in one or two categories... and to think they will only be better with the upgraded engine in 2025 (not that far away...) considering the Australians won't even have their nuke powered subs until way past then...
Australia has plenty of f35a and f18growlers
You do realize that Saturn won the contract for the Izdelye 30 in 2006, so it’s taken 11 years for the first engine to fly? And then another 8 years before it goes into production … how is that impressive!??
@@JimCOsd55 high performance aircraft engines are , probably, most technically and scientifically complex machines to develop and build. So ability to build one, no matter how long it takes is a magnificent feat than only handful of counties can achieve, and even less counties can do this on their own without internal cooperation.
10+ years is what it takes to develop engine. It was same for US aircrafts
@@tsorevitch2409 … and I agree, China still struggles producing engines that match those they’ve copied from Russian engines! While the Idelyze 30 engine promises greater power, fuel efficiency and less maintenance. It has proven far more difficult to perfect as Russia keeps pushing back the date when they will begin installing them in SU-57’s! Much of these problems can be traced back to sanctions from invading the Crimea!??
To mitigate the impact of the sanctions, Moscow pursued a policy of import substitution to offset losing access to vital components for its civilian and military manufacturing sectors. For instance, Russia was reliant on Ukrainian manufacturers like Motor Sich and Zorya-Mashproekt for marine and aircraft engines. These companies not only provided key inputs for Russia's own military capabilities, but also for those systems that Russia exported to other nations.
Russia's attempts to substitute domestic production for previously imported technologies have been delayed and in many cases have fallen short. The main problem with Russia's import substitution program is its inability to acquire high-tech machine tools from Western suppliers for industrial production. Putin can order the building of their own high tech manufacturing but it isn’t that easy without access to the high tech machinery and parts needed to make them run!!!
@@JimCOsd55 issues are not related no sanctions as fighter engine tech is 100% domestic and west wasnt sharing any technology with Russia in this field.
Sanctions impacted civilian aviation development as it was using some foreign parts and materials.
Unbiased review….great work!
I'm glad somebody tackled this "sensitive" topic (i.e. building a better plane than the Americans...) cause I think the Russians definitely have a better body design than the f-35 (gag) not withstanding the electronics, and, Ok, obviously some of the 'stealth' characteristics... None-the-less, I think you, Mr. Millennium, are the best man to do this job, it's about time... I salute you! ': D
Better is relative in this discussion. Generally Americans build better engines and avionics whereas the Russians build better airframes with better operational costs and ruggedness (American airframes are what I consider sensitive delicate airframes).
America is already testing and flying a 6th gen aircraft
@@briancrawford69 They have a concept but not a full design
Su-57 doesn't require vertical stabilizers because of the dihedral stability created from all aspect thrust vectoring. F-22/35 can't remove their vertical stabilizers.
And without the Su-57 AMVT installed, it's probably gonna have a RCS similar to that if the B-2 bomber, which also lacks a vertical stabilizer.
I'm very curious to see the stealth configuration of the Su-57! AMVT removed, ECM pods installed, extra IRST radar/sensors added, RAM paint, etc.
When you refer to the American F-32, are you actually meaning the F-22?
Very good video !
And before they become completely operational, the U.S.Airforce will be coming online with its new 6 gen acft. and then the Russon airforce will be 10 to 20 years behind the power curve again.
Exactly.
Usa will be in civil war in 2 years.
Great analysis job without secrets 😅 really the information of technology you gave only would blow minds
@M7*, will you do that video on how well the Su-57 fits Russian doctrine? In other words, are the Russian aerocosmic forces getting the aircraft they want? to meet Russian needs not what the USA thinks is a good fighter.
Very good ask!😃✌
@@bogdana.m.2416 Thanks. :)
For Russia to produce a truly high-end Multi role capable fighter, the only answer you will ever get is: "Very much so".Ofc, they build something, that fits their Doctrine, it is not a cheap toy to make after all. They will not waste them, but it truly modernizes the Suchoi-Lineup
I am guessing it's primarily for sale to the third countries, to be pitted against other weaponry bought by their enemies? So, basically - versatility and marketing image?
@@Baiyu83 the 3rd countries? Such as?
Excellent video 👍,very informative
Love the video. Been wanting fair assessment of SU 57. I think that this type plane Canada needs with its range and speed and some degree of stealth. This of course will never happen due the two countries relationship. Nonetheless I think it is amazing machine especially when it has new engine.
Nice commentary on stealth. Yes, few realise that low frequency radars can see 'stealth' aircraft, but they're not things that are generally installed on fighter aircraft. You need an elaborate datalink and air defence system of AWACS and ground based radars to get that information to the fighter aircraft. As for how good these radars are in terms of detection and even targeting I would imagine the Russians, Chinese and others will be very tight lipped.
Excellent research and analysis of SU-57. I wonder, why the Russian could not use the composite materials in radars and radar housings, AtoA and AtoG weapons, inside structures, and other mechanical systems. I am sure they have the technology to cut down a lot of weight on their machines, such as SU-57 that can improve their fuel efficiency, range, wear and tear on the parts etc. Any ides?
Probably no money
@@tacticalguy6473 the biggest problem for the Russians nowadays
Incorrect. They actually do use composite for many of the things listed above.
@@jamesmandahl444 That's great news.
So good I'm back for seconds 👍
You forgot the 3rd option about the thrust vectoring, it's propaganda to strip confidence in the technology.
Remember when in closed trials they were saying that the f22 was completely invisible and then it wasn't.
that wouldn't justify all the cost and engineering...
What is that round thing in front of the canopy but before the nose?!
Heavily advanced aircraft, to help put their industry back on the map. But I fear Russia lacks the political will to build a lot of these for it to matter that much, globally.
I don’t think political will has anything with it, Russia’s biggest problem is lack of money! Especially when you consider they want to also build the T-14, the Borei submarine, Avangard, Khinzal, Burevestnik, Belgorod ‘Doomsday’ Submarine, Sarmat, S-500 while waging a war in Syria and the Ukraine! Even the US with 10 times the military budget of Russia would struggle to bring all these weapons systems online!??
@@JimCOsd55 yeah,because they don't want to become 30 trillions in debt
The Su - 57 is a sleek sexy beauty of an aircraft. Love all the Russians jets that have been made . They're just look so beautiful and elegant with a hidden lethality to take care of opponents .