Did two Su-57s Deploy to Syria?

a reply to: GrumpyBollocks

GB. A cautionary. I'd be careful about declaring the J-20 sensors utterly inferior. They are likely not as advanced as what the F-35 has. OTOH, the F-22 *IS* almost 20 years old and its sensors are rather...ancient, if good.

Where the chinese have been lagging that we can really tell is the engines. Metallurgy has some voodoo in it. All matsci does, but...

a reply to: anzha

Russian IRST sensors have always been pretty damn good. They've also caught up quite a bit on radar and EW sensors.

a reply to: anzha

Oh I'm not downplaying the J20's sensor suite too much but the 57's is not as far advanced as it.

The F22 is pretty old tech avionics wise, I've had a chat with a F22 pilot who also flew the Typhoon and was raving about how good the tech was on it, he wished they'd put some money into updating the 22 but that's not going to happen now really is it.

The Russian IRST setup is known to be good but their claims of 110km range are truly fanciful, the Typhoon IRST is the best narrow arc one in operation today with F35's a second - maybe tied with Rafale's, Typhoon is in the process of getting either a wider arc one (in single airframe testing right now) or a multiple distributed sensor if funding becomes available along with the data linked version for the Meteor gen2 upgrade for fully combined terminal guidance to a stealthy target.

My bet has always been on the Chinese to get the J20 in decent operational order before the Russians with the 57.

The Russian problem is as always transferring R&D to mass and RELIABLY produced operational systems, if the J20 gets new reliable engines then it could be a bit of a power shift, no matter what advances the west makes, large numbers of capable J20's will make fully stealthy tankers and AWACS and absolute priority in any contested battlespace

a reply to: Zaphod58

Perhaps it is you who needs to learn tactics of 21st century war.

The purpose of the “stealth” fighter so far in actual operations has been about being as visible as possible. Wars are mostly fought and won by public opinion these days, not by battles on the ground- and the strategists conducting war know this and practice it.

Why do you think we know about F-22 deployment and missions in Syria?

Why do you think we knew about the Su-57s in Syria before they even landed?

Because we were meant to know this.

Take a guess at what would happen if an F-22 or Su-57 were to be shot down over Syria. It wouldn’t be a secret, that’s for sure. It would lead to political action.

originally posted by: TheStalkingHorse
a reply to: Zaphod58

Perhaps it is you who needs to learn tactics of 21st century war.

The purpose of the “stealth” fighter so far in actual operations has been about being as visible as possible. Wars are mostly fought and won by public opinion these days, not by battles on the ground- and the strategists conducting war know this and practice it.

Why do you think we know about F-22 deployment and missions in Syria?

Why do you think we knew about the Su-57s in Syria before they even landed?

Because we were meant to know this.

Take a guess at what would happen if an F-22 or Su-57 were to be shot down over Syria. It wouldn’t be a secret, that’s for sure. It would lead to political action.

The arrogance.

As a former military man, and knowing that Zaph knows his crap.

I look forward to him taking you to school, watch and learn kiddo.


We already know the strategy about making what we have KNOWN on the battlefield

You seem to be loosing the long game here.

a reply to: C0bzz

It is true that newer aircraft always have lower observability as a design feature, which may even be intentional. However, that does not necessarily equate to stealth. Really now, “stealth” is so subjective that it really comes down to “my country’s stealth is better than your’s” conjecture.

As for your F-117 comment, that is moot. The F-117 was never a fighter. It was also never deployed against a capable enemy either. Even more so, it’s missions were planned out in depth as to avoid hazards, so it’s not like it just flew through hazards with an aura of invincibility. One did make that mistake, and was shot down. This occurred because the tactics failed, whilst the stealth was the same as it ever was.

a reply to: SailorJerry

Is that why the USA constantly loses every war it involves itself in?

Keep talking tough when your economy implodes from all of your arrogant military misadventures. You’ll find your “military man” skills useful during a civil war.

originally posted by: TheStalkingHorse
a reply to: SailorJerry

Is that why the USA constantly loses every war it involves itself in?

Keep talking tough when your economy implodes from all of your arrogant military misadventures. You’ll find your “military man” skills useful during a civil war.

Thats cute, but your facts or wrong, where did you get those, mother jones? Cnn? Youtube?

As a man myself who has fought from Vietnam to the early part of this latest war I can tell you that militarily we did not lose any of these wars.

Political maybe but no militarily and history and FACTS bare that out.


In fact going back and looking at your post history it seems that most of your posts are just meant to be inflammatory with no facts involved so, Im not even going to engage.

Troll on buddy, troll on ya missed this one

originally posted by: SailorJerry

originally posted by: TheStalkingHorse
a reply to: SailorJerry

Is that why the USA constantly loses every war it involves itself in?

Keep talking tough when your economy implodes from all of your arrogant military misadventures. You’ll find your “military man” skills useful during a civil war.

Thats cute, but your facts or wrong, where did you get those, mother jones? Cnn? Youtube?

As a man myself who has fought from Vietnam to the early part of this latest war I can tell you that militarily we did not lose any of these wars.

Political maybe but no militarily and history and FACTS bare that out.


No go back to your History class yougin and come back with facts.

You lose the wars politically means you lost the wars. Your military victories mean nothing. Now all the USA does it try to destroy everything for everyone else, and you’re not even good at that either.

Welcome to the real world. How many hundreds of thousands of US veterans suffer from diagnosed PTSD again? I lost count at 300,000. You don’t even have fit manpower to replace your military in a serious war, being that your people are so obese and mentally unstable. This is all well documented and in the public sphere of information. It is also a problem that your military is currently very worried about, and is actively lowering enlistment standards just to keep up.

There are long term consequences to sustaining war efforts, you know. What did you expect from engaging in perpetual war as a function of your economy?

EDIT: Look at my post history all you want. Of course my posts would come off as “inflammatory” and “without facts” to you, since they do not promote your way of thinking and all. Funny how you give me all that crap about Hillary and CNN and whatever, as if I am “progressive” leaning or even American for that manner. The irony being that I am probably more conservative than you are, but I’m not American so I am wrong either way.

4 Su 57 were deployed. Two returned home the day the News broke out about Russia deploying SU57 to Syria. This means that Russia had the SU 57 in Syria before it was known to the Public. Two days after the News broke that Russia had deployed 2 SU57 to Syria the last two were sent home.

THat is also why it is said to be odd that the SUs only were there for two days. The SUs had actually been there a lot longer.

a reply to: TheStalkingHorse

It is true that newer aircraft always have lower observability as a design feature, which may even be intentional.

All fifth generation fighters have a huge degree of LO shaping. And yes it is intentional, it would be unusual for an aircraft to be accidentally stealthy. Stealth is one of the features which defines a fifth generation fighter, which is contrary to what you claimed.

As for your F-117 comment, that is moot.

Negatory.

This is what you said:

The stealth applications on American models are so superficial that they would be largely meaningless in actual war.

Was the first Gulf War not an actual war? Oh wait, here is what you said:

Is that why the USA constantly loses every war it involves itself in?

Apparently you have defined wars that USA wins as not being wars, and wars the USA loses as being wars.

The F-117 was used successfully in many "real wars".

The F-117 was never a fighter.

Enemy radar doesn't care if it's a fighter or not, it cares about the RCS and distance. Besides which, the F-35 is primarily a strike fighter, the F-117 was an attack jet. The missions they have have great similarities.

The F-22 is flying against other fighters. It's more difficult to put a lower frequency radar in an aircraft due to space constraints, which means stealth is easier if you are flying against fighters.

It was also never deployed against a capable enemy either.

Yes it was.

And if you don't think Iraq was "capable" enough for you, then there hasn't been a more capable enemy since the Korean War or maybe Vietnam. This argument therefore applies to basically every weapon system ever made since Korea or Vietnam.

The Su-27? Never been used against a capable enemy. Oh wait it has, only by the americans.

The S-400 is not proven against a capable enemy.

Actually everything the US has is more battle tested than anything Russia has. Ukraine was not a capable enemy, neither was Georgia, neither was Afghanistan.

Maybe you should go back to using Mig-17s, after all, they were proven against a "capable enemy".

Even more so, it’s missions were planned out in depth as to avoid hazards, so it’s not like it just flew through hazards with an aura of invincibility.

I'm just going to respond with what I already stated:

Stealth is and always has been a combination of low observables and tactics. You cannot have tactics to exploit your low observables if for example, you have the RCS of a barn door and are radiating intensely in all directions. This is partly why 5th generation aircraft have low observables AND advanced sensors and avionics, so they can use tactics to exploit the low observables.

The F-117 had very basic tactics, newer aircraft have much better tactics to exploit the low observables. This means that the F-117 was not as stealthy as newer aircraft, even discounting any improvements in terms of low observable.

I am assuming that English is not your first language. The word stealth means:

1. cautious and surreptitious action or movement.
2. (chiefly of aircraft) designed in accordance with technology which makes detection by radar or sonar difficult.
www.dictionary.com...

Keep talking tough when your economy implodes from all of your arrogant military misadventures. You’ll find your “military man” skills useful during a civil war.

More provocations on the behalf of Russia may result in the implosion of the Russian economy. I also wouldn't want Russia to make a "mistake" that leads to the complete destruction of the Russian people, under these conditions, not even a cockroach will survive.

Regards,

Not an american.

The irony being that I am probably more conservative than you are, but I’m not American so I am wrong either way.

What country is more conservative than a conservative american, who has huge issues with the US?

Gee, I wonder. Is alcoholism a problem in your country? The notion that the US has higher incidence of mental illness than other countries is ridiculous. Maybe it's because they don't drink their problems away. Have you even gone to the US?

You know with all the stupid mistakes the US and NATO has made, it was increasingly looking like they had learned their lesson and would back off a little on spreading liberalism and their influence by force. I don't want more wars. But do you have any idea how much damage Russia has done to this cause by their behavior recently? These provocations seem like a deliberate attempt to goad more wars and more aggression from NATO/US. This sort of thing certainly has turned me into a hawk.

originally posted by: TheStalkingHorse
Why do you think we know about F-22 deployment and missions in Syria?

Because with social media and news being what it is, we know of any military unit deployment now, if it's a public unit. So the Pentagon kills two birds with one stone.

There's always a political aspect to any mission, but there's a lot going on in Syria that we don't know, and won't know that the F-22 is doing. You don't spend billions of dollars on weapons systems to win public opinion and use on a handful of missions in a war.

China, Russia, India, and just about anyone else you can name aren't spending huge chunks of budget on weapons that are next to useless, or only useful on a tiny fraction of potential missions just to politically intimidate others.

a reply to: C0bzz

Gee, I wonder. Is alcoholism a problem in your country? The notion that the US has higher incidence of mental illness than other countries is ridiculous. Maybe it's because they don't drink their problems away. Have you even gone to the US?

The mental illness thing sounds like typical Russian anti-US propaganda. According to them Americans are lazy, mentally challenged and obese junkies. And US military hardware is of course greatly inferior to anything Russian.

a reply to: TheStalkingHorse

EDIT: Look at my post history all you want. Of course my posts would come off as “inflammatory” and “without facts” to you, since they do not promote your way of thinking and all. Funny how you give me all that crap about Hillary and CNN and whatever, as if I am “progressive” leaning or even American for that manner. The irony being that I am probably more conservative than you are, but I’m not American so I am wrong either way.

Oh I dont believe youre American at all, I believe youre Russian and many of the things youve said bare that out, as I and others have noticed

Troll on Comrade, Troll on

a reply to: spy66

This is potentially the case. There was a report of a second set of Su-57s arriving in country. OTOH, there's been no confirmation of the second set of aircraft nor of aircraft remaining in Syria after the Russians claimed they withdrew the Su-57.

On the other hand, I'd believe the Russians would pull a stunt to confuse the issue whether they have the Su-57 in Syria still or not, as a cover for continued testing or as a cover to make the Coalition forces keep looking over their shoulder.

On the gripping hand, I'd say we need more info and second sources before I'm convinced either way really. I do lean, at the moment, to the idea the Russians only sent two and have withdrawn them until we have a new source confirming their continued presence.

a reply to: moebius

I am from the Asia-Pacific region.

Of those opposed to the US, the Chinese (or others in the region) typically have their own distinctive point of view regarding expanding their sphere of influence. Usually this revolves around economics, foreign investment, as well as perceived hypocrisy on behalf of its adversaries. I actually have great respect for them for that, I have seen elsewhere someone who essentially always sided with the Chinese government on every issue, to the point of defending making Xi Jinping a dictator - I was and still am convinced that they are either a devout nationalist or someone connected to the CCP. But, they logically explained their position so I thought they contributed because it explained to me what their position was.

Many Chinese I've talked to have been nationalistic, but they always engage in dialogue and explain their position.

Russian, or those aligned with Russia? It's all nonsense. Tactics that they will use:
- SouthFront / RT
- Comment brigading on Youtube videos
- Election meddling
- Assasinations
- Muh nuclear powered cruise missile
- Anything the US/NATO does is a provocation that allows Russia to do what it was going to do anyway
- Muh whataboutism
- Hacking emails, send them to places that are trying to create positive change, there by hijacking them (wikileaks).

Nonsense claims I've seen:
- Stealth doesn't work
- US weapons are unproven
- Russian weapons are cheaper
- Americans are fat
- Americans are mentally ill
- American economy will implode from defense spending
- Volunteer armies have lower morale than conscript armies
- Any Russian weapon is automatically better than an american weapon, because reasons, even if it's unproven or has massive flaws.
- USA does things try to destroy everything for everyone else
- Precision guided weapons increase the cost of a conflict
- Only the US builds aircraft carriers, they dumb.
- Anything the US/NATO does is a provocation.
- Muh nuclear powered cruise missile
- Muh anti-ship missile
- Muh Iskander
- Muh Su-57
- Muh whataboutism

As a result it has become completely impossible to tell if someone actually has legitimate grievances, if they are a troll trying to be disruptive, or if this is what they actually believe. Thus it completely invalidates anything they have to say. They're cannot be effective once you are aware of them, even if they are actually trying to have a dialogue.

If they want to play that game, I can play it better than they can, but unlike them, I want to actually have a dialogue.

a reply to: SailorJerry

Troll on Comrade, Troll on

Let me bring you up to speed.

After the collapse of the Soviet Union, Russia has turned into a fascist oligarchy with a pseudo democratic leader. This is very far from communism, although other aspects of the society have carried over.

They are not "comrades" anymore. I don't know what they are. Ultra Nationalists maybe. Think Mussolini.

They want the US to retreat back into itself or elsewhere, rather than focus on Russia and Europe. One on one versus most nations they are very powerful, which is why they are trying to tear NATO and the EU apart, so they can coerce nations one on one, rather than if they are together. They want to be the sole supplier of gas to Europe, whilst simultaneously expanding or maintaining its sphere of influence in places such as Ukraine, Poland, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Syria, Turkey, and even the Philippines. That's why they want far-right, far-left political parties elected in these countries and in the west, and try to sow as much discord between western nations as possible. (Aside: Nothing wrong with these political views, but I think they should be organic, not state sponsored.) Like the US/NATO, they like to pretend like they actually have a moral high-ground, even though they constantly engage in shady or disgusting actions to further their political goals. They are run by a paranoid security state who think some anti-ballistic missiles would neutralize their nuclear arsenal (which is really used for coercing other nations, not for defending themselves) so they massively have upgraded their nuclear arsenal. And if you're an enemy of the state? Watch out while they try to kill you with Polonium or a nerve agent in a sovereign country.

Since they have attempted to hijack western political parties and groups actually dedicated to creating positive change (Wikileaks), they have undermined the likelihood of this actually occurring, pissed off a lot of people, and entrenched things.

The Russian people are in the middle of this, with state controlled media constantly bombarding them. And after the scars of the breakup of the soviet union, all they seem to want is some stability. Maybe they get some of that, maybe some improved living conditions, but the elites are raping them and brain washing them, to the point where I honestly don't know if they are even civilized.

If you bring this up it will be: deflect, deflect, deflect, what about this, what about that. And all the tactics I outlined above. The contrast with the China is so stark and so obvious.

a reply to: TheStalkingHorse

This is hilarious

So the F-117has never been deployed against a capable enemy.........

BUT this platform has? In SYRIA?!.....

What kind of delusion water are you drinking......

a reply to: C0bzz

You really like scraping at the bottom of the barrel, don’t you?

Serbia, Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, etc... all conflicts that involved limited, if any, aerial capacity from the other side. Again, it was all about tactics.

In fact, most of what the USA does in war is based off of tactics, in ways that maximize their advantage while denying advantage for others. And this is done specifically to sell the war to the public.

originally posted by: spy66
4 Su 57 were deployed. Two returned home the day the News broke out about Russia deploying SU57 to Syria. This means that Russia had the SU 57 in Syria before it was known to the Public. Two days after the News broke that Russia had deployed 2 SU57 to Syria the last two were sent home.

THat is also why it is said to be odd that the SUs only were there for two days. The SUs had actually been there a lot longer.

No. The report of the other two was bogus. Only two were deployed. Also in your earlier post you were claiming that these other two Su-57s were fully combat capable variants. Russia at the moment doesn't have full up capable Su-57s. They are hoping to have production versions later this year what was deployed to Syria was two T-50 prototypes. For the Russians the whole deployment was simply a publicity stunt. Someone thought it was a good idea. Deploy two prototypes for a limited period and fly what they claim was combat missions. Perhaps they dropped a few bombs or fired a few air to ground missiles. They can then claim that it has a limited combat capability.

originally posted by: tommyjo

No. The report of the other two was bogus. Only two were deployed.

Unconfirmed is probably best to say. Probably false, to be honest, but maskirovka is second nature to the Russians.