Why so Few Su-57s ... and Other Stories. 

Name a good Russian TV brand which is good , how about a good cellular phone or TV or even a car ? I'll wait

@@ArchangelUriel-jc4uq чел, есть ли в америке что-нибудь похожее на госуслуги? Или хоть когда-нибудь появится?

​@@ArchangelUriel-jc4uq... You don't mind if I name China's brand stuff ... Huawei phone and TV ... BYD cars! No!

Exactly the mindset in this Ukr/Rus conflict by way too may people. The bias is so strong one way and reinforced by propaganda (and Western News) that they think they are not exposed to in the first place that when Ukraine is defeated you are going to see a meltdown from a lot of people. People seem to shut one eye and cover one ear to everything they do not want to hear or see so that the info they get will only reinforce their bias.

@@masnur7007 I said _RUSSIAN_ brands

Dont worry, he used those trolls to boost the algoritm in his favor 😎

People who don't understand the science will always treat (and believe it to be) black magic. And magic is expected to fulfill unreasonable expectations by whoever uses it as argument. And magic can't really be refuted by science (or rational argument), just like religious arguments. So doing that is futile. Leave the science to prove itself, because it will.

​​@@phonepoies did you take covid vaccine ? Thats the fast way of finding out do you love or hate science

​@@phonepoies It is not a question of science, it is a question of manufacturing. To make one prototype jet that is above and beyond all others is easy, to make a fleet takes an entire worldwide infrastructure. Russians can't produce shit, most of the "technology" they have displayed in the last 15 years have been bogus PR stunts like their Igoryok and T-14. Even China struggles to build J20s and J35, what makes you think Russia has any chance? India laughed at their Su57

@@5tre55fullscientists are easier to purchase than politicians so… 🤓

Absolutely true.

well they are light, and most likely can be verry light due to complex reinforcement geometry is theoretical possible.... theoretical

And Russia does not have a problem with composite materials either. Even old planes like MiG-29 had a significant share of them, even though not as much as newer planes.

“Komuna” is prime example.

Composites are crucial for stealth, radar waves are designed to detect metal while composites are basically just super strong plastic , being lighter means a speedier fighter Without composites there is no stealth fighter

I feel the same way. This channel is a goldmine of information that’s presented in an unbiased way. One of the few RU-vidrs left that I still have respect and admiration for

Because he's never complete or honest. Reading directly from TASS sources is not honest or complete information, because he fails to ever mention that his sources are the kremlin itself. Imagine a news story on a murder that only uses the words of the prime suspect

M7 is the best, bar none, on youtube. I disagree with him all the time hehe, but it's the sort of disagreements which two people who know what they're talking about have. Which is very different than a lopsided conversation. I sometimes change my mind, I assume M7 does too :) He's much better at explaining ideas than me though, certainly. And more entertaining & engaging. Also he doesn't have NDA's. Probably runner-up is Sandboxx, good information in general, but he's sort of an "industry outsider" so a fair amount of defense contractor marketing-spin ends up in his videos. I think he's getting better at it over time though. Really just an experience issue, acquiring a more refined gut sense for industry spin, and differentiating it from relevant info. Basically being able to read (or 'skim') DI materials more like "blah blah blah, kissing up to the pentagon, blah blah, go team, blah blah blah, kissing up to the appropriations committee, blah blah, why your company is the best, yeah yeah, ... OH, here's an interesting bit of info, cool". It takes a lot of time & exposure to refine a sense of what's really relevant, out from everything that's being published.

You have to realize we are in a cold war era now even back then when the cold war was happening you couldn't say one good thing about the USSR or their achievement in space with out being called a communist same thing happing now

@@dongately2817 Unbiased to the point of “well we have to go by their numbers or what else could we go off of” is some real mind so open brain fell out logic

"cracks developed on the metallic paint" This is one of the reasons why stealth coating takes so much maintenance. Because cracks like that have a VERY evil and nasty tendency to literally become radar REFLECTORS. Due to how such materials cracks, they often end up creating a radar "box", ie, what is effectively the same as having a perfect 90 degree angle, exactly what stealth must NEVER have.

@@DIREWOLFx75but without the coatings radar reflections are there. Coatings have come along way since the B2 and are far more resilient/easier to maintain.

@@Statueshop297 They're still VERY maintenance intensive to keep in order. "but without the coatings radar reflections are there." Sure, but that's why you have the stealth geometry as well. The stealth coating is at its most influential when the plane is at its most visible angles, like from above or below, where the entire wings reflect fully.

​@@DIREWOLFx75you're exaggerating. F35s are good for year-long carrier deployments without the coating maintenance facilities of a land base.

"Mister President, we must not allow a stealth tolerance gap!" 😅

Exactly! I remember once I've made similar argument about why Russia got so few Su-57's. Ok, lets imagine Russia right now have 2000 Su-57... So what? What exactly will change except massive unbalanced black hole in Russian Defense Ministry's budget? Are there any gains? The answer is always silence...

No need for a stealth aircraft in a war where no one has air superiority😂😂

And when you’ve decided to go for a budget platform and the country you’re up against has 500 pure stealth fighters what do you do? Hope they get close enough to dog fight you? It won’t be more effective per dollar when you’re losing 10 of your budget platforms for every stealth fighter the other guy has

@@willwebb3557 in this case you use nuke... nuke don't care how many stealth fighter your enemy have

@@preludeh22a57 ok and the other country also has nukes. Now all your people are dead

I think he got tangled up with photon entanglement in his interpretation of the term photonic.🙂

A pair of entangled photons are produced (precise same wavelength), they go through some device that reduces frequency to produce radar-type radio-frequency photons. One goes off to bounce off things, the return is detected and compared with the unsent one. Allows for very high sensitivity (filtering out everything except that one Freq) and exact Doppler velocity (very precise comparison). This, from a physics PhD over beers a while back.

@@rosomak8244 I see what you did there :D

Unbiased is refreshing.

Also stuff like SiC and other ceramic materials.

Isn't a huge amount of the modern epoxy supply from China? I thought they'd basically monopolised that industry, like plastics?

@@jamesrowlands8971 RF always had local plastic

@@PyromaN93 not surprising. Russia is a major oil producer.

you will get a very low social score

Like momma taught you, just ignore the people pointing out how stupid you are

Incorrect. Russian navy is in a defensive posture. It's not interested in large long-distance power projection by sea. Hence lack of large destroyers.

@@Max_Da_G Borey and belgorod aint defensive asset

@@redemissarium they’re more for counter attacks i think is what he’s trying to say

First economy of all Europe, 22,000 sanctions, 12 packages of sanctions, assets theft (+300,000M). Currently in a provoque war by the West. More than 35 countries supplying weapons, intelligence, money for the enemy country, logistic and sending their own soldiers like mercenaries. Russia is producing more weapons than the whole world produce, its initial lack of drones in the conflict is something from the past now Russia is producing more war drone than the entire west. To adapt their military complex to entirely indigenous components takes time and Russia is in that direction. So if Russia was somehow slow at first in the end she won't.

Excellent point! And it's not just the T-34 line that saw this occur. The improvements to the KV ended shortly afterwards, and a new model (the IS) superseded it, but only after a few years of development, and major changes in the battlefield made it an obvious requirement. The Americans had a number of newer models of tanks ready, and even Shermans with better anti-tank guns, at various stages of the war but chose not to put them in service rapidly over logistics concerns, and other very practical reasons.

There is enough of video evidence for a series production in case of the Su-57.

In 2019 MoD placed order for 76 Su-57s by the year 2028. That makes it about 8 planes a year. Sounds about plausible for Russia's production capabilities.

"Not saying that Su-57 is a Ferrari" It essentially is. It's probably the most advanced and effective fighterplane in existance today. If the F-22 had received all the upgrades it was supposed to have over the years, it would probably have been even between them, but not with the F-22 mostly flying with 90s tech. And while the best of the Chinese is GOOD nowadays, they're still playing catchup a bit when it comes to combat aircraft as it's only in the last several decades they've had a chance to create a solid industry baseline for it. Except when it comes to production, there they are world leaders. "and a fully fledged, well-oiled production line" Yeah, sorry, but the Su-57 production line is well-attested to be perfectly functional. It just wasn't running at anything resembling full speed until late 2022. In 18 months, Russia has tripled the number of Su-57s in service to 12... With another 12 or 16 conducting acceptance trials. The issue with the Su-57 line was that there was an extremely tricky disagreement between the corporation and the government on exactly how to price the Su-57. Part of that was due to how the originally intended engine wont be used until the Su-57M, but also several completely new techniques and materials for production are insanely hard to accurately state exactly what they cost to manufacture. For example, the carbon nanoparticles/sapphire dust coating used on the cockpit relies on some very advanced production techniques, but also on artificial manufacturing of sapphire and all of those are being done at scales far beyond previously, which lowers the price SOMEWHAT. UAC however considers the longterm realistic pricetag to be far closer to smallscale production than the government. Similar for some composites and some electronics and the laser etc etc... Noone has done massproduction with those techniques before so it's going to take at least another year or two before they can start giving reliable cost numbers.

@@DIREWOLFx75 Except you forget to mention that they expanded the production capacity by building a second production plant.

@@rosomak8244 If you're referring to Su-57, then no, that is not the reason for the increased production, YET. And i'm yet to even see it confirmed that the plant is for Su-57 at all. It's also been suggested that it is in preparation for Su-57M. Are you claiming that you have information that it is up and running NOW?

What conditions does it last 'forever' under? Composites have all manner of weaknesses in terms of durability.

​@@jamesrowlands8971most polymer composites are very durable when not under mechanical load, as polymers are quite chemically stable.

Well, I'm not him but IMHO, from what I've researched, the main obstacle for the Swedes is the money a project of this magnitude demands. Also, I'm Brazilian myself and I can guarantee you that the technology we acquired from SAAB has allowed a massive tech jump for our aeronautical industrial complex, but the fact remains that we simply do not have the economy to support a project of such undertaking and the yearly budget for our armed forces is so minute that we would never be able to afford a purchase large enough to warrant the construction of a production line. Just look at the AMX fighter-bomber, we originally intended to buy somewhere around 100 of those, but our final order ended up being slashed to a little bit over 40 of them.

"so developing a new fighter will "just" be a matter of creating a new stealthy airframe built around these same technologies." Is that truly a good idea? Sweden has decent capability with building stealth vehicles, that's not really a problem. But, while the Gripen costs about 6k$ per flighthour, a full stealth nextgen airframe is essentially guaranteed to push the cost per flighthour up at least into the 20-30k$ range. The F-35 is supposed to be the "cheap stealth", and it's way up in the 40k$/flighthour area. This means you can only afford a fraction as many aircraft, and training pilots becomes many times more expensive. Also, stealth combat aircraft takes up drastically more groundhours per flighthour, because the RAM and stealth feature engines etc is so finicky to keep stealthy. Basically, as it is right now, you can buy 3-4 Gripen per F-35, have it fly 4-5 times as many hours as the F-35, while costing less. So, same cost, you effectively have 16 times as many aircraft flighthours. And a 6th gen frame, even if optimised for ease of use and maintenance and high readiness like the Gripen, you will start pushing towards F-35 territory in regards to costs and availability. Which is where the next thing about this crashes into the argument very rudely. The issue that is anti-stealth capabilities. Which Russia currently happens to be the world leader at. Sweden is actually in or near the top of such R&D as well and the Gripen datalink system can do some very nifty things, like a primitive but evolved version of what the MiG-31 pioneered, using multiple aircraft radars datalinked together to give the effect of a much more powerful and larger radar. But the point is, how truly useful will stealth be in the next 10-20 years? We already know from Syria, that even the S-400 system of a few years ago can detect and track both F-22s and F-35s at long distances, meaning that yes, tracking as in can shoot down. And with the hardware updates added with the incoming S-500, that ability will increase another big notch. The current S-400s already got the software update created for the S-500, along with the new missile that doubles their effective range to 380+ km. Stealth is nice to have and all, but with anti-stealth developments already having gotten as far as it has, is it worth paying the huge premium required to have stealth 6th gen? Or is it better to have 4 times as many 4.5th gen, which can also be further geometrically optimised to reduce RCS, all the optimisations that can be done without adding massive costs, that can fly 4-5 times as much per day, and requires a small fraction of the ground support to keep it flying. Personally i'm more and more leaning towards answering my above question with, not nearly enough when used against anything nearpeer. If we could afford having both a stealth and nonstealth aircraft, then it would be much easier and absolutely an advantage to have stealth as well, but being too small to have large numbers of aircraft, trying to split the fleet up into lets's say a dozen stealth and 50 nonstealth, the economics would be horrible. "effectively meaning that Swedish air industry is dead" That's how USA wants it. They got really pissy about Brazil, where they were hoping to sell at minimum several dozen aircraft, and aiming for much more ambitious things in the long run. Also, remember the way Norway was "convinced" to buy the F-35 over the Gripen. It was pure circus. They had to use costs for clean, zero support, zero future upgrades, zero nothing F-35s compared to Gripen with 25 years full support and even basic weapon loadout to pretend that the F-35 were cheaper. USA really REALLY does not like the Gripen competing with them by now.

@@DIREWOLFx75 I doubt your figures for flight hour cost is correct. The F-35 is expensive to fly because it was extremely ambitious. Because, while all F-35's look alike, they're essentially three different planes and the needs of one version came at the cost of the others. All of them have a massive engine, which compromises stealth and induces drag, because one version is a VTOL.

@@jakobholgersson4400 "I doubt your figures for flight hour cost is correct." Not in detail, of course not. Even if you have every bit of information needed to calculate them, it will only be an estimate. Also, my numbers are mostly based on information that have only been partially updated since 10-15 years ago. For the simple reason that someone at the time spent a crapload of effort on calculating those numbers for a whole bunch of aircraft, but most of the time noone bothers doing an equally good job for updates since then. "Because, while all F-35's look alike, they're essentially three different planes and the needs of one version came at the cost of the others." Yes. The numbers i had is for the cheapest version, the airforce version. The others are more expensive and their real costs have been hidden even more. "The F-35 is expensive to fly because it was extremely ambitious." That's one of the reasons. Pisspoor project management and subpar design in several ways add a lot to that. Not bothering to pay to keep experienced engineers between project means you start each new project with lots of noobs, which is one of the big reasons USA is currently so unable to make anything on time, on budget or as specced. Also, don't forget, the F-35 was supposed to be the CHEAP replacement for essentially most aircraft except F-15, which was meant to be replaced by F-22. You also need to realise that all the currently available official numbers about the pricetag for the F-35, includes MASSIVE subsidies. The real cost is somewhere between 2 and 3 times as much as the official line. Which, amusingly, makes it very roughly close to the F-22 in cost. Despite grossly inferior ability in every way except ground attack.

How much was indigenous and how much was Israeli?

@@RU-vidgoblin23 : India is currently conducting a refurbishment of the current Su-30MKI fleet with new indigenous avionics, and other systems sourced locally. They are trying to go the whole "Made in India" route for their military equipment.

Africa, almost 1/2 of Asia, some south america countries as well.

Under Modi, India is a bit closer to the West, so I doubt they will collaborate with Russia. Besides, one of the reasons why India has left the Su-57 project in the first place was the fact that the development of “Izdelie 30” engines was/is behind schedule for many years. If Russia will be finally able to bring those engines to production, then maybe a form of collaboration will be interesting again for India.

Afaik India seems dislike Su-57 stealth characteristic. I forgot what indian member on M7 discord said years ago, but in no way India comeback to Su-57. But, i practically not hearing any update on AMCA, which worry me that India may choose to scrap AMCA for Checkmate if AMCA not progressing well enough

well... you are putin's propagandist now! Enjoy 🤣

Yea, the new design of the SU-75 in the patents is one of if not the best looking 5th gen fighter. Absolutely departure from all the F22 lookalikes out there.

Why should anyone actually copy the F-22? I have news for you: the production of that plane was already stopped long ago. That's how good it turned out to be.

@@rosomak8244 Lmao you know the production stopped not because it was a bad plane

@@rosomak8244 the F-22 was the most dominant aircraft on the planet until the F-35 surpassed it. Its low production had to do with the fact that the US was fighting wars against non-state actors with no aerial capabilities rather than with near peer adversaries so air dominance platforms became less relevant, it had nothing to do with the aircraft's capabilities

yes, this is a copy of the Soviet Yak-141

@@user-yj1on3bf1v It is not a copy of Yak-141

It is always like this. The same is true with SU-57 and the J-20. You just don't hear about it but can see it very clearly.

@@napobg6842 This is a complete copy of the Yak-141, the US bought the project from the Russians in the early 90s. The USA also uses ejection seats developed in Britain everywhere. And the entire rocket industry was created by German engineers of the Third Reich.

@@user-yj1on3bf1v Yeah and all the planets circle around the Sun because Copernicus said so? Like what are you trying to say here? F-35 and Yak-141 has nothing in common except that both are supposed to take-off vertically. The only difference is that F-35 can do that with almost 0 loss of thrust while the Yak-141 loses a lot of thrust

Yeah, talented amateurs...

Submarine doesn't walk anywhere near the fine line and razors edge that an aircraft manufacturer has to walk.

From marketing it's very clever. Buy 10 one-seaters to train on, 5 two-seaters to deploy (second pilot flies the remote by tightbeam) and dozens of semi-disposable remotes loaded with ordnance to get ailerons dirty in risky engagements

You don't open a mind of a troll. Troll is there to take a shit in the comments and leave. He/she isn't there for enlightenment. They should simply be banned from the channel on detection and that's that. Thankfully they are easy to spot.

valid point... for elint something flying is way better then a stationary S400 battery.. I suppose

No he can't. Making such detailed information publicly available would have serious adverse consequences for him.

EW is highly classified. Neither can spoof or jam VHF-band radars Nebo-M and Niobiy since they don't carry anything for that wave length.

@@Max_Da_Gyou think they have not figured out how to flood the low frequencies as well? See the frequency in, multiply the power and send a different signal back. Not hard to modify or code. Easy peasy

Leading, not largest. F1 hasn't been much of an automotive tech driver for a long time, but it has meant that UK composites have been pushing the envelope in capability.

I don't think 57 will see any full scale production in the any close future. For few reasons, but one of them - Su-75 approching. Since the late USSR times, Russia was abandoned idea of light single engine aircrafts, and when USSR was dissolved - all such types, including fairly recent designs like MiG-27 znd MiG-23MLD was simply scrapped. Now things seems to change, and MOD can choose to prefer building fleet of more light airframes.

@@PyromaN93 Russia still needs large twin-engine fighters with a powerful sensor suite, long range and large payload. T-75 can't cover the needs that Su-57 does. You also need to be clear what you refer to as "full scale" production. Because Su-35S and Su-30SM and Su-34 are in full-rate production, making around 12-14 per year. IMO that's too few at this point in time, and production facilities need to grow for larger production rates. T-75 will be used for what MiG-29 was used for: dispersed basing, quick-reaction force, combat over line of contact.

Currently Su-57 is in LRIP. As Russian officials are on record about. Once full-rate production starts, which is being set up and "oiled", we can talk.

The problem is packing a lot of signal processing capability into a small volume on an airframe. That takes advanced chip manufacturing capability at high definition and often involving exotic substrates that can cope with high and low temperatures, vibration etc. better than consumer silicon can. The processors used in spacecraft are often several generations back in terms of modern technology but they have to work perfectly in high-radiation environments, wide temperature cycles etc. Using a 500nm technology chip reduces the chance of a cosmic ray flipping a bit compared to a 5nm chip. Radiation hardening isn't a requirement on fighter aircraft but thermal efficiency, compactness and power consumption is. The F-35 is a flying supercomputer but it has to be to do its job. If the Su-57 is to match the F-35's capabilities it needs ~5nm chips otherwise it's effectively a "monkey model".

@@hrvojelasic5794lol. That’s exactly how that doesn’t work but ok.

@@robertsneddon731 Judging by the slow development pace the F-35 is certainly not using anything even close to 5nm. Get real.

Russia announced that it will start the production of 28nm by the 2027. If it will be so...

@@rosomak8244 Probably not 5nm but 10nm is a real possibility -- the electronics design for a lot of the F-35's systems like fly-by-wire were being finalised in the early 2000s when 100nm was cutting-edge but the F-35 is famously modular in design and a lot of the Block 4 upgrades like the signal processing systems will have 10nm silicon devices (I'm guessing). The electronics on a fighter aircraft have to operate at temperatures of -20 deg C on a Siberian airfield and later at 40 deg C plus in Syria. They are expected to work without a flaw while pulling more than 9 gees and vibration is another problem that has to be designed around. Commercial silicon and Aliexpress 2-dollar microcontrollers won't survive and be reliable in those environments. MILSPEC adds another 10x to the price of pretty much anything electronic, and some particular things get flagged for export controls from various suppliers (solid-state laser ring gyros, for example).

This is the route to self-destruction. If your economy stands on building weapons that you don't sell to anyone and lose them in a week, that's just pure loss. Russian economy was of the banana republic variety before the war. Now it's just sad.

The funny thing is that since Russian oligarchs cannot freely move money to the west and invest there anymore, they have to invest into Russian economy, which results in the rapid economy growing.

I think too. Russian's most important industry sector was and is armamant one, together with energy sources. First one was simply reduced to internal demand and shrinked drastically in terms of turnover and occupation since the seventies. The second one it is as good as before if not better and for a simple reason: these goods have anelastic curves of demand = who does the market is who sells not who buys = if one do not buy a new buyer is ready to substitute him and the row is very long. This is a simple economy concept thought to university economy students during the first month of tuition. So shame on our leaders that act in a autolesionist way

By these proxy wars the USA achieved the incredible result to rise back to life and full strength the armament Russian industry.

And bankrupt EU countries forced to suicide thir economies.... Unbelievable!

Which is another way of saying that the applied composite technology was not advanced enough to do the job, not that composites could not do the job. Composites are not like metals, where you can simply change the metal and say whether it will work or not. There are so many details to design and construction of composite structures that it is very hard to say 'composites can't do x', and we usually have to say 'this design of composite cannot do x', and accept that design and engineering teams that are better with the materials might be able to get it to work.

​@@agsystems8220 That is not right. One of the tactical-technical demand for PAK/FA or T-50 was to do complete 10G sustained turn. After several test flights on the first flying prototype Bort 51/051 ,they noticed some cracks on the skin panels made from composites ( made by company Hymcomposite). They first used special germetization glues then decided to change some skin panels with mentioned Alloy. The fact is that composite I will repeat again can not whitstand such a high G load as Alloy( metalic material) can. Almost same results got Americans in EMD phase of F-22 testing in the 90's. As a result of that actions ,Su-57 is the only real 10G ( long duration) capable fighter in the world. Su-35S can do 10G turn but not sustained. Fact is that composite materials are not strong enough like metallic ( Alloys).

Now some more details and info about that composites.Composite materials ( in this case,carbon fiber reinforced plastic) are very strong and have excellent strength to specific weight ratio in comparison with metallic structure materials ( Alloys of course) . Reducing the weight of the aircraft is the goal of every design bureau, that was the case with F-22A Raptor and that was case in PAK-FA programme ( T-50 latter known as Su-57). When I mentioned ATF ,one of the TT- demands ( goals) was to have fighter with 35% of composites in the own weight ,yes 35% .Strength and lightness were one of the goals but that 35% was reduced to 25% ! Why ? Simply because, for example, a composite wing cannot withstand such damages and overloads as a metal wing can withstand. As we know, F-22 Raptor had first test flight in Sept. 7 1997 but only 18 days later on Sept. 25th ,one specific prototype-demonstrator had its first test flght. It was Russian S-37( known also as Su-47 Berkut ) ,Sukhoi's own project. S-37 was flying prototype-demonstrator for all composite forward swept wings and also demonstrator for some 'stealth' technologies ( was painted in all black scheme like USAF F-117A ( otherwise black color absorbs light and heat) with that forward swept wings like USAF AGM-129A ACM . Wing structure consists of 90% composite materials. So Russians had flying aircraft with almost all-composte wings in the same time like Americans ,even with greater % of composites in the wings.However, what should be kept in mind, the S-37 was only a prototype- demonstrator of certain technologies and not a prototype of a real fighter of the 5th generation as many thought and stated.Its composite wings had no carrying capacity.What happened to F-22 ? From all- composite wings they came to wing with all composite skin but with main structure made from Titanium Alloys ( there is 6 different Ti-Alloys in the structure of F-22A) and composites.From 35% to 25%! His wings have only one big undercarriage and can take one underwing fuel tank.For something like that, you need additional strength, resistance to vibrations, etc... Wings of Su-57 have two big undercarriage,for two heavy fuel tanks in total ,weapons with weight up to 1000kg or even for four new stealthy tactical cruise missiles called Product 715 ( 1600kg of weight each with max range of 1500kms ).For something like that, for that kind of load capacity, we need additional strenght a sufficiently hard and resilient wing structure.The same story is about that G-loads( overloads). In the video that I previously posted ,in the sequence at 0:15 we can see wing structure of the Su-57,main/ internal structure is made from Titanium Alloy and that Al-Li Alloy.There is no composites,only on the skin. Now some more videos with english titles, I will say from almost all-composite skin to mixture of metallic ( Al-Li Alloy) and composite. Pay attention to the first flying prototype from 2010 and what it had on the upper part of the fuselage and what the production planes have now. ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-ugZ8EdA-exc.html ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-N4-RwreHRRg.html ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-aDXNDA5xuS4.html ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-CrZ8knrxtVM.html

So as we can see ,Soviets worked with composites in the 70's and 80's and Russia worked with them even in the 90's( we all know what was economic, political and financial situation then). Same story is about that so 'popular' AESA. How many people even know ( or have read/ heard) that first Soviet if not in the world developed AESA was N014. Developed by Moscow's NIIR Fazatron at the end of 80's .Static tests began in the beginning of the 90's.Model of that radar was first publicly shown on the MAKS 2001, ten years after that. Su-57 got completelly new AESA ,developed under new TT- demands. It is known as radar system N036 Byelka ,dual-band radar system ,first of that kind in one fighter as part of highly integrated and automated complex Sh-121 MIRES. N036 has exactly 12 ( twelve) radar antennas-AESA of which 4 are centimetric ( they work in X band) and 8 are decimetric ( work in L band).With all of them, Su-57 is the only fighter in the world with all-around ( 360° in azimuth) radar coverage or FoV! All other operational fighters in the world have only one radar, Su-57 have twelve of them. One comparison ,Su-35S has its PESA N035 Irbis ( some kind of hybrid ESA where we have PESA radar with many capabilities of today's AESA ) .This radar has steerable antenna which can steer left-right to expand FoV to 240° and that is twice as much as any AESA in any western fighter.Main FoV of Irbis is by the way 120° and in that envelope radar can scan-search in given period. N036 in Su-57 with three main X band AESA ( have in total of 2242 TRM) one for forward and two for side-looking, can instantly-simultaneously scan-search in the FoV of 270° ( +/- 135°). Awesome.... Hm , twelve AESA vs only one in any other fighter ....Nice.

You are comparing bikes and state of the art Jets… not apples to apples

Actually I'm aware at least of two squadrons of Su-35 that where delivered.

thank you, i think he's a russian shill.

They use locations of photos so little parts of aircraft in the same rough area aren’t going to be counted several times.

Oryx is very reliable. Their loss figures for Russia and Ukraine are inline with more strict resources, plus about 10%. Russian losses, for example, you can look at the Toronto based WarSpotting, which is more strict in regards to visual evidence and geolocation. For Ukrainian losses, you can look at Moscow-based LostArmour which is extremely similar to WarSpotting in regards to requirements. Both websites count about 10-20% lower losses than Oryx, which unfortunately sometimes uses telegram posts (from the side that lost the vehicle) as an entry. On Oryx, you'd see 87 destroyed Russian planes, with 8 damaged, and for Ukraine you'd see 75 destroyed and 2 captured / damaged. On WarSpotting, you'd get 63 destroyed Russian planes, with 11 damaged. On LostArmour you'd get 65 destroyed / damaged Ukrainian plane losses

@@Statueshop297 they have cases with a single photo from an area of a tiny part and claim it was a plane loss, or claim that it was a Russian plane even when there is no way to claim it from the photo. And it is even worse with e.g. tanks. Though no wonder since Oryx is a NATO proxy just as other “independent” OSINT like Bellingcat, Observatory of Human Rights, etc.

@@Statueshop297 they did count them many times though, and the multiple counting isn't limited to same location but also to Ukrainian jets, Ukraine operates same types of hardware (in air and on land) and oryx counts them as Russian. Ukraine operates Su-25 and Su-24 same as Russia and guess what, over 50% of the 80 jet losses are of those two types. Su-25 can be refurbished (that's how the Su-25SM3 are built) and the Su-24s will be replaced by Su-34s anyway. so basically just produce Su-34s and guess what they are, they have a contract for over 30 being built last delivery to date happened in late november 2023

F-35 40 seconds at M1 and 20 seconds on M1,2 F-22 data is classified, but can assume it's same tech in use (or older- means worse)

Since the end of the cold war sukhoi has built hundreds of su-30 variants across the globe. Right now Russia outpaces all european fighter production and yet only spends about roughly 70 billion a year which is well below the sum total of all european defense budgets. Add to this that Russia updates its strategic weapons, navy, army, etc... Do not delude yourself. As the saying goes Russia is never as strong as they pretend to be but they are never as weak as we like to think them to be. They are challenging the combined soft power of the western world ofder. This is extremely impressive and scary stuff. Not a joke. Our leaders are leading us into ww3 I fear.

@@jamesmandahl444 Numbers are largely made up, as all Russian numbers. Su30 is 50 years old design being re-painted. It's always the same. Lots of gibberish, from pretend superpower that for some reason fights for villages near their borders with meat waves of conscripts riding on equipment from 1950.

It's the other one SU57 is called felon

I don't know why you have to make such jokes. If you didn't know, US Army actively encurages diversity and welcomes transgender people in their ranks. They would never call anyone names like that, not even their enemy.

or your own eyes, right :) but in fact every usual radar can be called "photonic", keeping in mind wave-particle duality and electromagnetic nature of light.

I am skeptical of your claims

@@leighz1962 and I am sceptical of your scepticism. This sounds like an episode of “Yes, Minister”…

May I ask what demonstrated Russian ships to be bad? The Moskva was a derelict old ship, to be decommissioned by 2025 and Russia didn't waste money on it. Note it was taken out by the UA copy of the Russian Kh-35 missile. The recent withdrawal of the majority of ships from Sevastopol to Novorossiysk? The only thing they can do in this land war is lobbing Kalibr missiles on Ukraine, and they can do that from Novorossiysk with ease, far from the Ukrainian pinprick attacks. The old Soviet-era SAMs were still better than what NATO has, and Ukraine had the thickest SAM network in Europe (excluding Russia), one of the thickest in the world. The roughly 40 S-300 batteries were just the top of it.

@@imrekalman9044 maybe their “special underwater military operation” could have something to do with it.

@@NoName-ds5uq DO you have an actual answer, original thought, or just repeating the same pro-Ukraine catchphrases?