Talk:Sukhoi Su-57
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Sukhoi Su-57 article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the subject of the article. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives (index): 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6Auto-archiving period: 2 years  |
 | Sukhoi Su-57 was one of the Warfare good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake. | ||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
| Current status: Delisted good article | |||||||||||||
 | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
.svg){kind=icon}
.svg)
 | Warning: active arbitration remedies The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article relates to the Balkans or Eastern Europe.The following restrictions apply to everyone editing this article:
Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. |
Citation Edit
Reference [111] is no longer alive but available in the internet archive. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ~2026-23353-73 (talk) 05:08, 16 April 2026 (UTC)
No evidence thus far regarding Su-57 combat action
The article currently uses words like "confirm" when describing supposed combat actions by the Su-57 over Ukraine, but these claims are coming out of Russian media and figures, which have dubious credibility at best, and no evidence has been presented thus far. Either this should be noted, or verbiage should be changed so that it doesn't look like it has been independently confirmed. Steve7c8 (talk) 21:23, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
- More specifically, EurAsian Times needs to be a deprecated source, given its poor reliability and almost no verification of information tp back its tabloid-like headlines. Steve7c8 (talk) 06:04, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
- UK MOD says they are using them in action. https://www.twz.com/su-57-felon-fighters-are-flying-ukraine-combat-missions-uk-intel Liger404 (talk) 08:27, 29 March 2025 (UTC)
Vietnam disputes stealth capabilities, most foreign buyers drop bids, new images surface
https://www.globaldefensecorp.com/2021/07/09/su-57-may-not-be-built-with-quality-workmanship-says-vietnams-mod/ What should we make of this? These images show screws on the airframe and Vietnam reports no radar absorbent material is present. These claims in addition to the complete lack of expected foreign sales could be taken as damning evidence that most of the serial production is not effectively stealth. The airshow photos do not appear to have screws in the airframe, but Russia has demonstrated that their military does not have sufficient inventory for more than parades. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0KiII_2qabk 2601:802:8301:54B0:E936:4D59:83FD:E168 (talk) 01:29, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
- If these claims are included, the entire tone of the article may have to be changed 2601:802:8301:54B0:E936:4D59:83FD:E168 (talk) 01:51, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
- These photos are just and endless recycling of the T50 prototype and not reflective of the production version. You can see pictures of the production aircraft, they are very smooth. The SU57 is not currently available for foreign purchase, its only just barely in service in Russia and its proper engine is not ready yet. Its not for sale because its not really finished and Russia itself only has a handful. Liger404 (talk) 07:17, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
Discussion of payload capacity
I think noting that the Su-57 has a large internal payload capacity is warranted in the lead. The patent for the aircraft configuration specifically cited having a large tandem internal weapons bay compared to the F-22, with the aircraft capable of carrying up to four 700 kg ordnance, and for all of the Su-57's flaws, the internal payload capacity is one of its few redeeming qualities. From a purely statistical perspective, the Su-57 is capable of carrying more numerous large munitions internally, four compared to two for the F-22 and F-35. Steve7c8 (talk) 21:21, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
- See above but there’s no verification that the internal bays work. YEEETER0 (talk) 19:49, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
- No, what we need is verification that they don't work, not speculation. BilCat (talk) 01:21, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
- This isn't how burden of proof works. There's a duty to prove before a duty to disprove. The way I see it the page has 2 choices:
- A.) What it is doing now, assume unverified claims are true until they are proven false
- B.) What I believe it should do. Use language like "claimed" or "unverified" when speaking about the bays YEEETER0 (talk) 21:54, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
- No, what we need is verification that they don't work, not speculation. BilCat (talk) 01:21, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
- Why would the bays not work? That's nonsensical. But anyway, we actually don't have to state whether or not they work at all. We just state what reliable published sources state, which is that the aircraft has internal bays. BilCat (talk) 22:03, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
- What reliable published source has said that the bays do work? there's no pictures and no videos. The only thing to suggest they do is the word of the Russian government. YEEETER0 (talk) 07:19, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
- When it comes to russia I strongly disagree. The russian government has a proven track record of literally making stuff up and lying through their teeth. Same goes for russian state media. For example; Sukhoi's own patent for the SU-57 states the RCS of the aircraft will be between 0.1 m2 to 1 m2. At best this is 10% that of the F-16, at worst it's essentially the same. The thing literally has screws on the airframe, which are a MASSIVE source of radar reflection. Yet I've seen the russian government claim that it's somehow stealthier than the F-22. With exposed screws on the airframe. Hm. Chuckstablers (talk) 23:07, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
- These wood screws are only seen on preproduction aircraft, and likewise the document probably states the airworthy flight control system testbed. A good analogy would be to determine the F-35's capabilities based off of the X-35. The problem being that Russian air forces dont really have a tri service naming scheme equivalent where the role of the aircraft is stated in the same breath as it's purpose.
- If you were to look at new production aircraft you would see a much nicer stealthier surface.
- The Russian government is not the first nor the largest liar of their vehicles capabilities, I'd wager pretty far from it in fact. BleachedDog (talk) 19:30, 26 November 2024 (UTC)
- And what does the patent say of the stealth for the F22? Such things are classified, the advertised RCS is for sure not the real RCS, and the RCS changes depending on the frequency of the radar and the orientation of the aircraft. If you would like to see the best open source assessment of the SU57 stealth, its can be read here. And also as has being said, these tiresome endless ranting about the screws on the prototype is thoroughly debunked by the factory footage of the new smooth skinned aircraft. https://basicsaboutaerodynamicsandavionics.wordpress.com/2022/09/26/su-57-radar-scattering-simulation/?fbclid=IwZXh0bgNhZW0CMTAAAR1SsiId80xPXDXP-OIwaSmXGUUEI_ov4xT7d5IxlU3C-i-Br7KbjrHBX_k_aem_gZlp7ayhKDwQiSCo-SakvQ Liger404 (talk) 07:26, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
- Why would the bays not work? That's nonsensical. But anyway, we actually don't have to state whether or not they work at all. We just state what reliable published sources state, which is that the aircraft has internal bays. BilCat (talk) 22:03, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
- This isn't a reasonable argument. It is normal to expect a vehicle to function, and there has been no reporting that the bays do not work. Russia says they do work. This is like claiming there is no evidence that the B21 bay doors work. Yes thats true, but the USA says it works and so we take that as true unless there is some evidence otherwise. All the rest of Russias bomb bay doors work, it is reasonable to expect the reports that they work to be true. We do have video evidence of the SU57 firing a missile now, it shot down that drone. Liger404 (talk) 07:24, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
Issues with the last sentence in the stealth section
"Su-57 is often questioned about its stealth but the aircraft was not meant to be as stealthy as American fighters but the aircraft's stealth should be stealthy enough to be a threat."
This sentence generally doesn't read well, and I recommend splitting it into several sentences. At the current moment, this is not very coherent. Furthermore, I recommend changing the wordage from "American" to "other fifth-generation fighters" to be more inclusive, as China and others are working on / have stealthier fighters that should be acknowledged. 2600:8803:97F2:2:65C3:5BF0:7B94:885E (talk) 03:02, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
- Yeah it does read poorly, re wording might work. "The Su-57s stealth qualities are often questioned, the aircraft was not designed to be as stealthy as American fighters. However it is expected that the aircraft's stealth should be sufficient to increase survivability and provide an increased level of threat.". Liger404 (talk) 07:29, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
Supposed capabilities of the SU-57
The SU-57 is an at best, reduced visibility, 4.5 generation heavy jet fighter. (Recorded RCS puts its signature at roughly the same as a naked F/A-18 Hornet). It does not possess supercruise capabilities, nor does it use the engines designed for it due to manufacturing and material science issues (it currently uses two Saturn AL-41F1 jet engines, which are not only underpowered for the size and mass of the aircraft, but prone to failure and not even remotely capable of supercruise). Unsure of maximum speed and combat capabilities since its never actually seen combat outside of essentially being an aerial catapult for long range missiles, which proceed to completely miss their targets or get intercepted by the Patriot system. It can be tracked by pretty much any targeting radar on the planet, except for maybe Russian ones, the missiles its meant to carry have been proven in battle to be about as competent as anything else Russia has built since the second world war, and frankly unless they figure out how to start packing radar absorbent putty into their recessed bolt holes like every actual fifth gen stealth fighter on earth does, theyll never succeed in getting past a 4.5 gen aircraft. per 99.183.234.109 (talk) 11:29, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
- On WP, we just report what reliable sources say on a given subject. Our own personal interpretation does not have the slightest relevance. You will need to provide those sources to backup any change that you want to make. --McSly (talk) 12:27, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
- He is probably talking about how most of the sources on this article are not up to WP standards. MarkusDorazio (talk) 01:42, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
- "The SU-57 is an at best, reduced visibility" 3rd party testing has shown it to have a low rcs (ignoring ram) under 0.5 on average. "It does not possess supercruise capabilitie" I have found no source that claims so. " nor does it use the engines designed for it due to manufacturing and material science issues" even at the time of this post this was untrue. "which proceed to completely miss their targets or get intercepted by the Patriot system" there have been no reliable sources for those claims. "It can be tracked by pretty much any targeting radar on the planet" gross exaggeration at best, lying at worst. "the missiles its meant to carry have been proven in battle to be about as competent as anything else Russia has built since the second world war" another baseless claim. "putty into their recessed bolt holes like every actual fifth gen stealth fighter" inaccurate claim about early prototypes of the su-57. You're clearly expressing extreme bias with everyone of your claims. Vamlov (talk) 04:05, 21 September 2024 (UTC)
- What exactly do you mean by "3rd party testing"? As far as I'm aware, few outside the Russian military have had access to the Su-57, let alone the ability to reliably test the aircraft's stealth capabilities. - ZLEA T\C 07:16, 21 September 2024 (UTC)
- Computer based rcs testing, not exactly prefect but it can give a good rough estimate of the rcs. Vamlov (talk) 15:25, 21 September 2024 (UTC)
- Can you provide a source for this? - ZLEA T\C 16:20, 21 September 2024 (UTC)
- https://basicsaboutaerodynamicsandavionics.wordpress.com/2022/09/26/su-57-radar-scattering-simulation/ It likely can't serve as evidence of it being a stealth aircraft, but it's a sufficient model to demonstrate that the 0.1 average RCS claim is inaccurate and therefore cannot be used as proof that it isn't a stealth aircraft. Vamlov (talk) 16:50, 21 September 2024 (UTC)
- Disregarding the WP:BLOG issues, this test was clearly conducted by an amateur. Such unprofessional tests do not meet WP:RS and cannot be used to prove or disprove the aircraft's stealth capabilities. - ZLEA T\C 18:19, 21 September 2024 (UTC)
- The laws of physics don't change depending on if the person observing it is a amateur or not, and every other rcs test there that uses the same methods fits within the known rcs of those aircraft. Yes it the source itself doesn't work within Wikipedia's guidelines and shouldn't be used within the article but it undeniably disproves the claims above. This is unnecessary to argue about. Vamlov (talk) 18:31, 21 September 2024 (UTC)
- Disregarding the WP:BLOG issues, this test was clearly conducted by an amateur. Such unprofessional tests do not meet WP:RS and cannot be used to prove or disprove the aircraft's stealth capabilities. - ZLEA T\C 18:19, 21 September 2024 (UTC)
- https://basicsaboutaerodynamicsandavionics.wordpress.com/2022/09/26/su-57-radar-scattering-simulation/ It likely can't serve as evidence of it being a stealth aircraft, but it's a sufficient model to demonstrate that the 0.1 average RCS claim is inaccurate and therefore cannot be used as proof that it isn't a stealth aircraft. Vamlov (talk) 16:50, 21 September 2024 (UTC)
- Can you provide a source for this? - ZLEA T\C 16:20, 21 September 2024 (UTC)
- Computer based rcs testing, not exactly prefect but it can give a good rough estimate of the rcs. Vamlov (talk) 15:25, 21 September 2024 (UTC)
- What exactly do you mean by "3rd party testing"? As far as I'm aware, few outside the Russian military have had access to the Su-57, let alone the ability to reliably test the aircraft's stealth capabilities. - ZLEA T\C 07:16, 21 September 2024 (UTC)
- What source gives you this RCS? Credible sources like RUSI and CSIS do not say the same as you. This is the best open source simulation available. I will also include a review of capabilities from a quality source, Aussie Aipower. https://www.ausairpower.net/APA-2010-01.html#mozTocId548526
- https://basicsaboutaerodynamicsandavionics.wordpress.com/2022/09/26/su-57-radar-scattering-simulation/?fbclid=IwZXh0bgNhZW0CMTAAAR1SsiId80xPXDXP-OIwaSmXGUUEI_ov4xT7d5IxlU3C-i-Br7KbjrHBX_k_aem_gZlp7ayhKDwQiSCo-SakvQ Liger404 (talk) 07:51, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
- Its RCS is unknown, supposed "open source" simulations are completely useless for estimating RCS on stealth aircraft, there is no point in linking those. Aussie AirPower is not a reliable source especially when your linked article is more than a decade old which misses a lot of newer developments. MarkusDorazio (talk) 18:12, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
- Why is there this assertion that Aussie Airpower, which has staff hired by both the US and Australian government for Aeronautical consulting is not a reliable source? Aussie Airpower is a radar specialist and consultant and US navy test pilot and engineer. I can't think of a more appropriate subject matter expert, certainly not one that would ever talk anyway. And yes the article is old, but there is no newer replacement from any kind of official source, I would offer it if there was one. Liger404 (talk) 22:17, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
- Its RCS is unknown, supposed "open source" simulations are completely useless for estimating RCS on stealth aircraft, there is no point in linking those. Aussie AirPower is not a reliable source especially when your linked article is more than a decade old which misses a lot of newer developments. MarkusDorazio (talk) 18:12, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
- Carlo Kopp? Carlo Kopp is a Computer Science Lecturer at the Monash University Faculty of Information Technology, Clayton .
- His primary research activities at Monash are currently in the areas of modelling deceptions in social and biological systems, perceptual and decision modelling, especially using information theory, and cognitive cycle modelling. He remains active in the area of ad hoc networks and associated propagation problems, and in distributed computing.
- He has previously conducted research in operating systems, ad hoc networks and radio-frequency propagation, radar signature computational modelling, optical communications, and satellite navigation support protocols. His PhD project involved the adaptation of AESA radars for long range digital communications, and modelling associated tropospheric propagation problems for airborne platforms
- Obviously your goto guy for aerospace. Rather like Tom Clancy, he occasionally makes some sense. Greglocock (talk) 03:02, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
- He has done quite a bit more than that. But yeah radar and networking seems to be his top specialty. I would say unlike Clancy, he has worked in actual areas of military science and strategy. https://www.ausairpower.net/editor.html Liger404 (talk) 09:31, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
Edit request
 | This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please change the section "Accidents" to "Accidents and incidents" and add the June Ukrainian drone strike against the Su-57 on the ground to that section, instead of just being in the Ukrainian War section. (see the talk page section #Apparent destruction of 1 or 2 Su-57 at Ukrainian hands directly above this one) -- 64.229.90.32 (talk) 14:51, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
Not done: Combat losses of military aircraft are not usually included in accidents and incidents sections unless they occurred under singular and unusual circumstances. A drone strike that damages or destroys a parked military aircraft almost certainly does not belong in the section. - ZLEA T\C 17:50, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
