No, you are just flat out wrong.
The Su-57 is a CONFIRMED stealth fighter that can do Mach 2 without engaging it's afterburners. This fighter was specifically designed as a response to the F-22 (which had demonstrated this capability for over 15 years before the Su-57).
It has afterburners to go faster than Mach 2, just like the F-22, but both planes are "supercruise" capable.
Simple as that.
EDIT - did you even read the article you linked? It even states I'm correct:
"According to Russian sources, though the AL-41F1 provides enough thrust for sustained supersonic cruise capability, it does not meet the Russian Aerospace Forces’ requirements for thrust-to-weight ratio or fuel efficiency."
You posted a link to the Wikipedia article for the Su-57 and a link to howstuffworks. Neither have the above quote.
The Wikipedia article quotes:
"
Performance
- Maximum speed:Mach 2 (2,135 km/h; 1,327 mph) at altitude
- Mach 1.3 (1,400 km/h; 870 mph) supercruise at altitude"
The Indians declined to buy the Su-57 stating among other things they had serious doubts about Russia's claim for the supercruise capabilities. The Russian military has a long history of claiming much better performance for their weapons than what happens in reality. They also overcome limitations in their own technology with novel, but very compromised solutions. Do some reading on the Mig-25 for some examples.
One area where the Russians have always trailed the US and UK is metallurgy. They were still behind when the USSR fell apart and their R&D budgets have been much smaller the last 30 years. As I said in my post you declared "wrong", I am skeptical of any Russian claims for their military equipment until they have been evaluated by a reliable third party.
As soon as you start hanging stores on the outside of all these aircraft they struggle to go supersonic at low level, and to the extent that they can their fuel consumption goes up (especially in the transonic region). Also the external stores themselves, whether tanks or munitions or targetting pods or whatever are often not stressed to high speeds at low level.
The Su-34 is entirely external stores, no internal bays.
The internal carriage on the F22/F35 are for smaller stores (aka 'day 1' stores) and these are always smart weapons. The Russians will have very little that is equivalent in their inventory. For practical purposes the reports of the Russians using their more advanced aircraft indicates that they are short of platforms and people. Since the Ukraine shot down another Su-34 yesterday I guess the attrition continues.
Yes, I understand and agree with all of that. The kerfuffle with bkp_duke has been going on a few years now. He seems to think I'm a complete idiot and tries to prove it at every turn. Or at least that's my impression. The most recent exchange comes from a misunderstanding of what I said.
I know my explanations aren't always completely clear, but a request for clarification is usually more productive than attacking me for what a person thinks I said. Anyway, it's just an annoyance...
I was not talking about anybody going at supersonic speeds at low altitude. That burns a lot of fuel and is rarely done by any aircraft.
The deployment of the Su-57 into the fight is a bit perplexing. They might have some special targets in mind, it might just be a deployment to test out the new plane in a combat environment, or they might be desperate. None quite fit. An operational test deployment in a war where losses are high is kind of foolish. They risk the tech in their newest plane falling into enemy hands. Almost certainly not a complete airframe, but the boffins can figure out a lot from debris. My partner's father was one of these for the USAAF in WW II.
Ukrainian air defence shots down another Russian Su-34
Like the F22/F35 the Su-57 also has internal bays. I guess we watch to see whether they are dropping dumb bombs out of them, or smart munitions. When they were deployed to Syria they perhaps only launched one munition (a cruise missile). It can only supercruise at high level.
en.wikipedia.org
Zelensky says Ukraine has now suffered ~1300 miltary casualties as of Saturday, so that brings the exchange ratio to more like 10:1
Around 1,300 Ukrainian troops have been killed since the start of the Russian invasion, President Volodymyr Zelensky said.
www.standard.co.uk
If you add up all the Russian vehicles/aircraft/etc that Ukraine claims to have destroyed it sums to approx ~2500 and then divide that into the number of Russian troops claimed killed ~12,000 that suggests approx 5-KIA per platform. That is within the realms of possibility.
Those Russian columns are getting awful close to linking up ....
This article is proving to be very prescient:
Feeding the Bear: A Closer Look at Russian Army Logistics and the Fait Accompli - War on the Rocks
The author makes the case that the Russians really can't advance any further than about 90 miles from their rail heads. They just don't have enough trucks. It's notable that the furthest advance into Ukraine has been about 90 miles from the border.
But the Russians are trying their best to surround Kyiv. They are going to have a tough fight to do it.
