Russia cancels stealth Su-57 but will make improved Su-35

Russia is cancelling the Su-57 (aka T-50) stealth fighter. They built 11 planes in early production but India has dropped out as a partner. Russia will apply the stealth technology and other advancements for an improved version of the SU-35.

Russia flew the plane in Syria but it had engine troubles and the stealth is inferior.

Most of the first five prototypes developed severe structural problems, engine breakdowns and cockpit glazing problems. India had agreed to co-finance the T-50, but dropped out because the T-50’s engines were unreliable, inadequate radar and badly engineered stealth.

The SU-37 had significant problems flying and releasing bombs at supersonic speeds.

57 thoughts on “Russia cancels stealth Su-57 but will make improved Su-35”

  1. F-35 first flight was 2006. When was SU-57 first flight again? Oh, right. It was scheduled for 17 years from now and was just cancelled.

    Reply
  2. F-35 first flight was 2006. When was SU-57 first flight again? Oh right. It was scheduled for 17 years from now and was just cancelled.

    Reply
  3. You mean the stealth plane from the 1980s (F117) that the US used or the first true stealth fighter plane (F-22) in 2004? The ones they use had problems with? Or the B2 bomber or the Navy stealth drone? I am pretty sure the US is sound in the stealth department. I feel we need to move on to something else because 30 years of stealth is getting rather old.

    Reply
  4. From the country that recently boasted of nuclear powered cruise missiles, mastering the intricacies of a stealth fighter is such a big deal ?? What are we missing here ??

    Reply
  5. You mean the stealth plane from the 1980s (F117) that the US used or the first true stealth fighter plane (F-22) in 2004? The ones they use had problems with? Or the B2 bomber or the Navy stealth drone? I am pretty sure the US is sound in the stealth department. I feel we need to move on to something else because 30 years of stealth is getting rather old.

    Reply
  6. From the country that recently boasted of nuclear powered cruise missiles mastering the intricacies of a stealth fighter is such a big deal ?? What are we missing here ??

    Reply
  7. Sure….. keep believing that ! LOL. Interesting how people that actually know about the program in depth (Including some Russian experts, and allies) have many positive things to say about the platform and its capabilities. Is it perfect, no, but it is an incredibly versatile suite of weapons which has been engineered to be expandable and WILL be expanded to support an even greater set of missions.

    Reply
  8. Sure….. keep believing that ! LOL. Interesting how people that actually know about the program in depth (Including some Russian experts and allies) have many positive things to say about the platform and its capabilities. Is it perfect no but it is an incredibly versatile suite of weapons which has been engineered to be expandable and WILL be expanded to support an even greater set of missions.

    Reply
  9. Interesting how people that actually know about the program in depth (Including some Russian experts, and allies) have many positive things to say about the platform and its capabilities…” True. And if you listen to them, not just superficially, you will find out 90% of the positive things are about the software – the platform itself is like an F-16 if it is in stealth configuration because of the lack of (carried) weaponry.

    Reply
  10. Interesting how people that actually know about the program in depth (Including some Russian experts” and allies) have many positive things to say about the platform and its capabilities…””True. And if you listen to them”” not just superficially”” you will find out 90{22800fc54956079738b58e74e4dcd846757aa319aad70fcf90c97a58f3119a12} of the positive things are about the software – the platform itself is like an F-16 if it is in stealth configuration because of the lack of (carried) weaponry.”””

    Reply
  11. Su-57 has internal bays lol so it CAN carry weapons and stay clean. It’s implied in stealth design. Platform itself is like a Su-35, just way more kinematically advanced. Also unlike F-16 which started life as a dedicated light dogfighter which had capabilities added over time, Su-57 has been designed for multi-role use from the outset.

    Reply
  12. (cont) The initial LOW RATE INITIAL PRODUCTION is about to be contracted for 12 planes, 10 of which will receive Item 117 engines and the final 2 will get the Item 30 engines which are designed specifically for this program. That was planned for originally so no surprises. So no, NOONE in Russia is even THINKING about cancelling the program. In fact all the statements made by Russian officials correspond with what’s been happening with Su-57 program. This “article” cannot be even considered an “article”. It’s a pathetic little “poopout” from a person that has no clue about the program, read a few disjointed articles from places similar to Strategypage and other fanboy outlets and spent 5 minutes typing out what we all just read. The editor of this site really needs to do his/her job and no approve junk such as this with no supporting proof.

    Reply
  13. Nonsensical drivel lol Absolutely everything in this text stub is incorrect. It’s all total garbage. There are 12 initial prototypes that were manufactured. Most flying and some for static tests. Indias withdrawal was not from Su-57 but form a project that is PARALLEL to Su-57 (FGFA) and was only supposed to use a modified airframe of Su-57. So it didn’t affect Su-57 program at all since Russia is paying for that program all by itself. There is no possibility of applying stealth tech to Su-35 apart from what’s already there since to stealth something one has to re-shape the plane. Not gonna happen. Engine trouble were LONG before Syrian testing and amounted to a engine compressor stall on takeoff during airshow (caused by faulty sensor and not engine itself) while another was a fire that seemed to have been caused by a fuel leak. Neither are problems with actual ENGINE ITSELF. Inferior stealth: inferior against whose requirements? Those of USAF? Russians aren’t building the plane for USAF. Also F-35 also happens to have round nozzle and some non-stealthy aspects. But its stealth isn’t questioned. To date only B-2A and F-22 have VLO shape from 360 degrees, but side and rear-on RCS is orders of magnitude above that of from dead-ahead co-altitude. No problems with glazing had been reported to date. There was a replacement of standard glazing on original prototypes with glazing specifically made for Su-57 as part of development. No delaminations took place. India couldn’t withdraw from Su-57 program simply because it wasn’t involved in that program AT ALL. Neither were they given ANY info on problems with it. Unreliable engines? To date as I stated above, only 2 problems occured with the powerplant and none were actually engine related. F-35 by comparison HAD to have engine partially redesigned due to having excessive engine flex under Gs and its turbine disks had to be modified due to damaging the engine tube. Inadequate radar: according to whom? Indians? Tha

    Reply
  14. Su-57 has internal bays lol so it CAN carry weapons and stay clean. It’s implied in stealth design.Platform itself is like a Su-35 just way more kinematically advanced. Also unlike F-16 which started life as a dedicated light dogfighter which had capabilities added over time Su-57 has been designed for multi-role use from the outset.

    Reply
  15. (cont) The initial LOW RATE INITIAL PRODUCTION is about to be contracted for 12 planes 10 of which will receive Item 117 engines and the final 2 will get the Item 30 engines which are designed specifically for this program. That was planned for originally so no surprises.So no NOONE in Russia is even THINKING about cancelling the program. In fact all the statements made by Russian officials correspond with what’s been happening with Su-57 program.This article”” cannot be even considered an “”””article””””. It’s a pathetic little “”””poopout”””” from a person that has no clue about the program”””” read a few disjointed articles from places similar to Strategypage and other fanboy outlets and spent 5 minutes typing out what we all just read.The editor of this site really needs to do his/her job and no approve junk such as this with no supporting proof.”””

    Reply
  16. Nonsensical drivel lolAbsolutely everything in this text stub is incorrect. It’s all total garbage.There are 12 initial prototypes that were manufactured. Most flying and some for static tests.Indias withdrawal was not from Su-57 but form a project that is PARALLEL to Su-57 (FGFA) and was only supposed to use a modified airframe of Su-57. So it didn’t affect Su-57 program at all since Russia is paying for that program all by itself.There is no possibility of applying stealth tech to Su-35 apart from what’s already there since to stealth something one has to re-shape the plane. Not gonna happen.Engine trouble were LONG before Syrian testing and amounted to a engine compressor stall on takeoff during airshow (caused by faulty sensor and not engine itself) while another was a fire that seemed to have been caused by a fuel leak. Neither are problems with actual ENGINE ITSELF.Inferior stealth: inferior against whose requirements? Those of USAF? Russians aren’t building the plane for USAF. Also F-35 also happens to have round nozzle and some non-stealthy aspects. But its stealth isn’t questioned. To date only B-2A and F-22 have VLO shape from 360 degrees but side and rear-on RCS is orders of magnitude above that of from dead-ahead co-altitude.No problems with glazing had been reported to date. There was a replacement of standard glazing on original prototypes with glazing specifically made for Su-57 as part of development. No delaminations took place.India couldn’t withdraw from Su-57 program simply because it wasn’t involved in that program AT ALL. Neither were they given ANY info on problems with it.Unreliable engines? To date as I stated above only 2 problems occured with the powerplant and none were actually engine related. F-35 by comparison HAD to have engine partially redesigned due to having excessive engine flex under Gs and its turbine disks had to be modified due to damaging the engine tube.Inadequate radar: accor

    Reply
  17. Su-57 has internal bays lol so it CAN carry weapons and stay clean. It’s implied in stealth design.

    Platform itself is like a Su-35, just way more kinematically advanced. Also unlike F-16 which started life as a dedicated light dogfighter which had capabilities added over time, Su-57 has been designed for multi-role use from the outset.

    Reply
  18. (cont)

    The initial LOW RATE INITIAL PRODUCTION is about to be contracted for 12 planes, 10 of which will receive Item 117 engines and the final 2 will get the Item 30 engines which are designed specifically for this program. That was planned for originally so no surprises.

    So no, NOONE in Russia is even THINKING about cancelling the program. In fact all the statements made by Russian officials correspond with what’s been happening with Su-57 program.

    This “article” cannot be even considered an “article”. It’s a pathetic little “poopout” from a person that has no clue about the program, read a few disjointed articles from places similar to Strategypage and other fanboy outlets and spent 5 minutes typing out what we all just read.

    The editor of this site really needs to do his/her job and no approve junk such as this with no supporting proof.

    Reply
  19. Nonsensical drivel lol

    Absolutely everything in this text stub is incorrect. It’s all total garbage.

    There are 12 initial prototypes that were manufactured. Most flying and some for static tests.

    Indias withdrawal was not from Su-57 but form a project that is PARALLEL to Su-57 (FGFA) and was only supposed to use a modified airframe of Su-57. So it didn’t affect Su-57 program at all since Russia is paying for that program all by itself.

    There is no possibility of applying stealth tech to Su-35 apart from what’s already there since to stealth something one has to re-shape the plane. Not gonna happen.

    Engine trouble were LONG before Syrian testing and amounted to a engine compressor stall on takeoff during airshow (caused by faulty sensor and not engine itself) while another was a fire that seemed to have been caused by a fuel leak. Neither are problems with actual ENGINE ITSELF.

    Inferior stealth: inferior against whose requirements? Those of USAF? Russians aren’t building the plane for USAF. Also F-35 also happens to have round nozzle and some non-stealthy aspects. But its stealth isn’t questioned. To date only B-2A and F-22 have VLO shape from 360 degrees, but side and rear-on RCS is orders of magnitude above that of from dead-ahead co-altitude.

    No problems with glazing had been reported to date. There was a replacement of standard glazing on original prototypes with glazing specifically made for Su-57 as part of development. No delaminations took place.

    India couldn’t withdraw from Su-57 program simply because it wasn’t involved in that program AT ALL. Neither were they given ANY info on problems with it.

    Unreliable engines? To date as I stated above, only 2 problems occured with the powerplant and none were actually engine related. F-35 by comparison HAD to have engine partially redesigned due to having excessive engine flex under Gs and its turbine disks had to be modified due to damaging the engine tube.

    Inadequate radar: according to whom? Indians? That weren’t shown Su-57s radar at all? Give me a break.

    Severe structural problems in the first 5 prototypes? Yea, ok, There are none in the latter prototypes. These are PROTOTYPES and are tested specifically to find inadequacies to design and improve it. F-35 has severe structural designs too with its tail hook mount and with outer wing which needs a whole new outside section. Also had to have its tail-plane re-designed due to it burning the tail stabilisers.

    I don’t understand what does Su-37 have to do with this article but will answer nonetheless.

    Su-37 did NOT have severe problems flying. Airshows attest to that. Being little more than original canard-equipped Su-35, it simply had new engines and avionics fitted.
    Supersonic bomb drops? Show me a modern bomber that performs bombing at supersonic speeds. Neither smart nor dumb bombs are released at that speed: when passing transsonic region they have no way to stabilise themselves. So that point is totally moot.

    Reply
  20. “Interesting how people that actually know about the program in depth (Including some Russian experts, and allies) have many positive things to say about the platform and its capabilities…”
    True. And if you listen to them, not just superficially, you will find out 90% of the positive things are about the software – the platform itself is like an F-16 if it is in stealth configuration because of the lack of (carried) weaponry.

    Reply
  21. Sure….. keep believing that ! LOL. Interesting how people that actually know about the program in depth (Including some Russian experts, and allies) have many positive things to say about the platform and its capabilities. Is it perfect, no, but it is an incredibly versatile suite of weapons which has been engineered to be expandable and WILL be expanded to support an even greater set of missions.

    Reply
  22. You mean the stealth plane from the 1980s (F117) that the US used or the first true stealth fighter plane (F-22) in 2004? The ones they use had problems with? Or the B2 bomber or the Navy stealth drone? I am pretty sure the US is sound in the stealth department. I feel we need to move on to something else because 30 years of stealth is getting rather old.

    Reply
  23. From the country that recently boasted of nuclear powered cruise missiles, mastering the intricacies of a stealth fighter is such a big deal ?? What are we missing here ??

    Reply

Leave a Comment