Russian Defense Ministry Contracts First Batch Of 12 Su-57 Fighter Jets

Donate

Russian Defense Ministry Contracts First Batch Of 12 Su-57 Fighter Jets

Su-57 stealth fighter jet. FILE IMAGE: Sergei Bobylev/TASS

The Russian Defense Ministry has signed a contract to receive the first batch of 12 Su-57 stealth fighter jets, Deputy Defense Minister Alexey Krivoruchko told media in Komsomolsk-on-Amur.

The warplanes are set to be delivered to the Russian military in 2019.

Acording to reports, Su-57 jets is expected to eventually replace Su-27 multipurpose fighters in the Russian Aerospace Forces. The Su-57 made its maiden flight in 2010.

The fighter jet could come into service in 2019, CEO of Russia’s United Aircraft Corporation Yuri Slyusar stated on June 29.

Two Su-57 fighter jets passed combat tests in Syria in February 2018.

Donate

SouthFront

Do you like this content? Consider helping us!

  • Rob

    Russia should produce hundreds SU-57 units every year. Every year should produce a new type of SU-57 block.

    • @Inc2Get

      It doesn’t work like that. Russia is now in a developing stage, every year, they developed new technologies to be mounted on new aircrafts. That is why Russia is keeping heir purchases low and slowly replace the older versions. Otherwise they would’ve wasted much money like the US which is unnecessary.

      • You can call me Al

        You must realise that this is a news outlet, what is really happening could be multiples of 100 times or not…. we will only know the true facts in a year or two. For me, I would say they are in mass production of all models.

      • jako

        SU-57 is not ” in a developing stage” any longer.. Only “2nd stage engine”, “object 30” is developing stage – a prototype that is in process of testing.

        SU-57 moves now in pre-production stage with 1st stage engine “object 117” and it will be made in small batch because the 2nd stage engine is due to be production ready in 2020 at the latest.

    • Siegfried

      “Reduce its wings size to increase its speed..” .. and make the Lockheed-failure:with “Starfighter” in the ’60s-’70s ?

      Germany bought a few hundreds of them and soon the fighter/interceptor was called “The Widows-maker”: :
      http://www.916-starfighter.de/916starfighter/wallpaper/wp_21+68%20F-104G%20JaboG%2033_Schwarz.jpg
      http://img.wp.scn.ru/camms/ar/60/pics/45_9_b1.jpg

      BECAUSE of the larger surface of the wings, the PORTANCE is assured even by low-sped, that makes a plain to land with low-speed and needs short landing-places.
      Look, the RAF-Spitfire had more surface on wings and was more maneuverable than the Luftwaffe-Me-109.
      —–
      And without this wings-form, the whole aerodynamic is f*cked-up and yo won’t see any SU-57 rolling in the air and “falling” apparently out of control… to go straight vertically up in the next few seconds, and then to turn in flight practically 180° around his middle

      • jako

        “Starfighter” was also called “Flying coffin”.
        That plane has killed more German pilot’s than RAF- Brit’s during 2nd WW.

        • Barba_Papa

          Not just German pilots, also Dutch pilots. The F-104 was designed as a high speed interceptor for Russian bombers. The USAF wasn’t really interested in the design so Lockheed sold the design to NATO countries as a low level all weather tactical nuclear bomber. Who ever came up with that idea must have been smoking the mother of all joints. Who ever in Europe thought this plane would make a good tactical bomber was also smoking something. And probably accepting bribes from Lockheed. Like the German defense minister Strauss and the husband of the Dutch Queen Prince Bernhard. The fact that a large part of the F-104 purchase was going be funded by US taxpayers probably also helped to sweeten this deal. In the case of the Netherlands 1/4 of the F-104 inventory came courtesy of the US tax payer. Dutch politicians were hoping that more would be funded, so the entire Dutch air force of 9 squadrons would be outfitted with the F-104. Too bad for them the Americans weren’t that generous so only 5 squadrons ended up with the F-104 and the Dutch had to go look for a cheap alternative for the other 4.

          In the defense of this plane and probably the biggest causes of those aircraft crashes was that the receiving NATO air forces had no experience with high speed mach 2 aircraft, nor aircraft this complicated. They went straight from subsonic F-86 Sabres and Hawker Hunters with little to no modern avionics to a mach 2 all weather aircraft. It also didn’t help that they kept most of these planes out in the open air on the tarmac and not in dedicated hangars. Which is not a good idea in rainy Europe if you’re handling aircraft this complicated. And the F-104 was not designed to be kept out in the open in rain, wind or weather.

          It was a cool looking aircraft though. I used to live close to Volkel AFB as a teen and we would go there sometimes after school to watch the aircraft land or take off. The Dutch air force was transitioning from the F-104 to the F-16 at the time so we still got to experience them for a while. We had this great spot where the aircraft would come over 10 meters above our heads. Good times! I liked the roar of the F-104’s engine way more then that of the F-16.

          • jako

            Look up if you can find “Germans only” written…of course not “Germans only”

            Plenty of details nice story at the end.
            Thanks!

        • Jesus

          You need to check your facts, the Luftwaffe lost about 300 F104s, less than 120 pilots died, the rest ejected safely.
          In the Battle of Britain almost 2700 German air crews lost their lives.

          • jako

            It wasn’t really serious statement.
            I just wanted to make accent on fact that plenty of pilost died from the accidents in peace times.
            I didn’t know exact number anyway.

            Thanks for clarifying the facts.

    • jako

      I certainly hope they will not “reduce its wings” because SU-57 is air superiority fighter jet
      And “to increase its speed” for what?!
      Russia has already interceptor MIG-31 flying Mach 2.9.
      They don’t need another one.

    • Rodger

      Big fleets come with a big maintenance bill and the planes don’t get any better. And that’s not even considering upgrades as technology improves. A country should build what they need at the time if they don’t need the stuff as deterrent.

      • jako

        All true
        and to add detail only.
        There is always minimum number of the fighter jets needed to be produced to cover expenses
        And that number of the airplanes is dictated by quantity of money that was invested in R&D and testing prototypes bill

  • Jesus

    Better than F22, since Russian weapons are designed to operate effectively and reliably in all weather and airfield conditions.
    12 units could all be delivered in 2019, making the yearly rate of production similar to the other Suk aircraft procurements.

    • BMWA1

      But F22 more effective between 21.05 and 21,06 degrees C when precipitation conditions are less than 1 mm per per hour at atmospheric pressures preteen 0.866 and 0.865 A during the first 13 minutes of flight after a 72 hour basic maintenance cycle when not carrying munitions and without external fuel tank and when the pilot does not weigh less than 145 pounds (ejector seat danger at lower weights). With sufficient pilot visits to Mac Donald’s, the ejector seat problem at least can be safely circumvented.

      • FlorianGeyer

        Lol :)

      • DenLilleAbe

        double lol

      • 59LesPaul

        That’s hilarious.

  • Tudor Miron

    Su-57 aero and high aoa performance in particular is extremely good. Su-35 is very impressive but Su-57 is a huge step above something that US could never achieve – Su-27 (35) family.

    • Wise Gandalf

      :DDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD

      stickermaster :DDD

      • Mike

        Again Solomon the Israeli shitstain, can you just fuck off.

  • Smaug

    Given the fact that the majority of Russian forces are still using decrepit Soviet era equipment means that these will not be produced in major numbers.

    • Barba_Papa

      Unlike the US and NATO, which mostly also uses Cold War era equipment. A handful of F-22’s aside, the vast bulk of the USAF still consists of F-15’s and F-16’s, designs of the 1970’s. As long as the aircraft are well maintained and upgraded it shouldn’t be a problem. Considering that a Russian SU-24, a Soviet era aircraft, was able to completely jam and shut off a post Cold War built US frigate in the Black Sea a couple of years ago with a new electronic warfare suite methinks the Russians are maintaining and upgrading their Soviet era equipment well.

      • Smaug

        Troll alert.

        • 59LesPaul

          You’re the troll.

        • Mike

          Pot calling the kettle black you paid saudi hasbara troll.

      • Rodger

        You don’t need much for bombing terrorists anyway. 10 new F-16’s and their maintenance for 10 years or one new JSF….. Seems like an easy choice to me.

        • Barba_Papa

          Considering that stealth can be compromised, in which case you’re stuck with a very expensive aircraft with capabilities not that much better then an F-16, I’d say if you can get more F-16’s for the same money, go for it anyway. Quantity has a quality of its own.

          • Rodger

            The unit price for the latest F16 is about $20 million. The unit price for the JSF is about $270 million. So you can get 13 new F16’s for 1 JSF.

          • Barba_Papa

            It’s hard to imagine a case in modern warfare where 1 aircraft was able to slaughter 13 of its opponents before getting knocked out themselves. The Israelis manages to pull off such a feat during the 1982 Lebanon war, shooting down more then 80 Syrian aircraft for no loss of their own. But they did so not based on having better aircraft but on superior command and control capabilities.

            Overall I’d say get 13 F-16’s over F-35. Even if you lose a third of that force to one superior 5th gen aircraft, once the dogfighting is over the remaining 2/3rds will still be formidable force. And the loss of even a single F-35 in exchange of 3 to 4 enemy aircraft would not be a good trade off as the F-35 force is so much smaller can ill afford to lose a single aircraft.

          • Rodger

            The only way I can see it working is if you make the F35 the controller of a swarm of drones.
            If it’s fully loaded for air-to-air and all its shots strike it would still lose. And with that load it wouldn’t be stealth or have anything on an F16 in speed and maneuverability.
            “An air-to-air missile load of eight AIM-120s and two AIM-9s is possible using internal and external weapons stations”
            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_Martin_F-35_Lightning_II#Armament

          • Barba_Papa

            Wouldn’t it be more cost effective to dispense with the F-35 altogether and just go with the swarm of drones, controlled by some controller far away on the ground? Of course the fighter jock mafia who pushes for these expensive aircraft would never agree to this, but then again, who really ever likes being replaced by new technology? New technology is all fine and dandy, until it replaces you and suddenly everyone discovers their inner Luddite.

          • Rodger

            The longer the distance over which the signals are send to them the more they are in danger of being tampered with or disrupted. Not an issue when you’re just bombing goat herders but a big issue when fighting an adversary with about the same technological level and power as you.

          • Barba_Papa

            Anything that can tamper with communications to the drones can also tamper with communications to a F-35. An aircraft is only as good as the data it receives. On its own any aircraft is extremely vulnerable to a well integrated command and control defense network. This is what the Russians have worked hard to resurrect in Syria and why the US and Israel only dares to attack Syria via long range stand off weapons. This is why the Syrian air force got slaughtered over the Bekaa valley in 1982 against the IDF.

            In a way I’d say that you need to resort to drones even more with an equal enemy. For goat herders don’t fight back with ECM, an integrated defense network, first class interceptors, multi layered SAM systems, the works. Sending in your tiny F-35 force against that will resort in them getting slaughtered. At the very least a significant loss of your insanely expensive tiny force that you can ill afford. That’s the paradox with getting that is hugely expensive. The more expensive it gets, the less likely you are in actually using it. I’m a guitarist also and when you’re a touring musician you’re far more likely to go on the road with a decent cheap guitar then an insanely expensive one. Because you know it will get a beating. Or get stolen. A $500 guitar damaged or stolen? No big deal. A $5000 guitar damaged or stolen, you WILL definitely chew carpet in rage and frustration.

            And in the end that’s excluding the fact that countries on this planet who are on the same technological level and power with the US all possess nukes. So the chances of actual war breaking out with those countries are very very small. Seems kind of wasteful to design weaponry to fight for a war that will never ever happen, when 99.9% of the time it will end up bombing goat herders instead. In which case the much cheaper F-16 would have sufficed and be bought in far greater numbers.

          • Rodger

            It’s the communication lines from the F35 to the drones vs from some base maybe 1000’s of km’s away to the drones I was talking about. But there have been many examples where cheap and many beats fewer, better and more expensive. The WW2 tank battles being the most obvious.
            And totally agree. Why the last time the US military showed sense was when they didn’t retire the Warthog. I also totally fail to see why they fail to use their technology to achieve more interaction between ground forces and air forces. It was what made the Germans so much superior to the French and Brits at the start of WW2.
            These guys are actually still requesting fire on grid numbers (or have to point a laser at the target) when they could easily have direct video feeds both ways to just point and click….. I guess it’s the air force not wanting to serve the ground forces but being ‘top dog’ or something silly like that.
            Not much guitars here but I thought it was song to go with my comment:
            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9MoUs8ZlbK0

          • Barba_Papa

            You can’t stick a hell of a lot more drone control avionics into a F-35 that you can in a dedicated ground facility. Quite the opposite in fact. And they don’t need to be on the other side of the planet. They can even be in a large aircraft like a C-130 or one of the Boeing heavies. Not to mention that a single pilot in a F-35 would be quite overwhelmed with controlling a swarm of drones, whereas in a control facility or plane each could have its own controller.

            As for the A-10, I think it was Congress that wanted them to be kept in inventory, with the US Army pushing heavily for them and even offering to take them over. And since the US armed services all hate each other way more then any enemy they ever fought the USAF would rather die then let that happen.

            The US interservice rivalry is quite fascinating. The USAF wants to confiscate all the fixed wing aircraft from the other services, they managed to do so from the Army, claiming that aircraft belong with the air force. Having seen what piss poor air support the Army gets from the USAF the Marines and Navy will and have fought the USAF tooth and nail before that happens. Because everyone knows what happens when a fighter jock strays too close
            to the ground troops. The Brits alone lost more troops to friendly fire
            from the USAF then enemy action in both Gulf Wars. Which is why the Army relies so heavily on its attack helicopters for close air support. And the Army wants to abolish the Marine Corps as it sees them as a rival ground fighting force, whereas the Navy fears the Army will do a badly a job at providing a good amphibious ground force as the USAF does at providing ground support to the Army.

            The USAF thinks it can fight wars alone via air power alone. 70 years to the contrary still haven’t cured them of that notion. The Navy bets heavily on its carriers knowing that the ability to park a floating airfield or batch of cruise missiles off an enemy’s shore sits very well with the powers that be in Washington. The Marines, smallest of the service, want to prove their relevance by being the first on the ground in everything, even territory that traditionally belongs to the Army. And the Army is the hardest pressed because it takes the longest to get anywhere, often finds the Marines there already, and can be never around when a president wants to send a message in the shape of air launched or ship launched cruise missiles. Probably why the Army invested so heavily in the Stryker brigade concept.

          • Rodger

            You would ofc stick the routines in the drone and the commands in the F35.
            The musician knowns how to play the song the audience calls for.
            And this funny infighting between the branches is what makes the collosal US military force so redundant. It’s just a sports league with just 3-4 players. They want to be better than the rest but don’t really care about anything else. Also why India was never a serious competitor to China (and never will be).

      • Nexusfast123

        The majority of US assets are getting old all at the same time.

      • Wise Gandalf

        Compare the quality. F-15, F-16 are much better than russian cold war planes. They are not in the same class.

        • Barba_Papa

          Says who? You? You’re just a dude on the internet. I’m also a dude on the internet and I say that Russian cold war aircraft are doing just fine. Al the more so since they’re pulling multiple missions a day in Syria. Which they couldn’t do if they were junk. There, a dude on the internet said it, so therefore it has to be true.

        • Mike

          Solomon the fact you keep changing your profile shows that you are full of shit.

    • Mike

      The decrepit era weapons that have saved Syria from your daesh friends, made a mockery of American and western missiles and prevented further Western and American involvement there. Oh and looking at the American and Western armed Saudi and UAE being bogged down in Yemen, so much for state of the art. Really stop, leave this site, your attempts at military analysis are nothing short of pathetic there Rosenburg.

  • DenLilleAbe

    Well with the price of 50 million a piece versus 270 for the F 35, gues who i going to run out of funds?
    “Quantity i s a quality in itself” Joseph Stalin.
    Russia is doing ok,

  • Joe Dirt

    USAF still superior

    • Nexusfast123

      At what? I know, wasting money where they have no rival.

      • Joe Dirt

        Russki and China are rival. Where have you been?

        • Daniel Miller

          Russia and China are very close trade and military partners…..how are they rivals?

          • Joe Dirt

            You are correct the are close in trade and military. But that doesn’t mean either country won’t go to War with each other. If you look at RUSSIA’S MILITARY POSTURE: GROUND FORCES ORDER OF BATTLE (an excellent source of who, what, when, where, why), it does not appear the General Staff is seriously considering or preparing for land war with China(with good reason). The Kremlin is instead managing the Chinese threat by equipping all missile brigades in the Easter Military District with NUCLEAR-CAPABLE ISKANER MEDIUM RANGE BALLISTIC MISSILES.

            By no means will Russia and China go to War anytime soon, each are currently benefiting from the “Good-Neighbor” policy each agreed upon.

            BUT, how do you think China feels about Nukes pointed at them?

          • Daniel Miller

            in short you are just butthurt that Russia and China are allies and are not comeing up with some retarded “war senario” btween them?
            China has alot to lose in a war with Russia,their inferior tech wont be of help ether not to mention the Russians out gun them by a long shot.

          • Joe Dirt

            WOW! When you are presented with the facts you ignore them and somehow come up with your own irrelevant subjective opinion. LOL

            Is Southtard full of kids? LOL

          • Mike

            So many words with no meaning there kike kid.

        • Mike

          Delusional Israeli spambot.

    • Mike

      A kike troll still posting crap.