Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

The SU-57 hasn't flown in Ukraine (probably for many reasons), and would be unlikely to fly over Poland anytime soon as well (seriously, the lack of strong low observable characteristics on its ventral surface puts it at relatively high risk over hostile territory). Not to say Russian leaders wouldn't want it to or try it, etc. but if you were building a stealth fighter suited for offensive operations in hostile aerospace, you wouldn't build the SU-57. Flying it defensively over Russian territory is really the best use-case for the design.

Except russia isn't going to get invaded while russia is periodicallw(every 6-8 year more or less) going out of it's borders.

Hence just from statistics it won't have home advantage. Next situation will be around 2028-2030 thus. Maybe by then enough su57's been built.

tneva82 wrote:
Except russia isn't going to get invaded while russia is periodicallw(every 6-8 year more or less) going out of it's borders.

Hence just from statistics it won't have home advantage. Next situation will be around 2028-2030 thus. Maybe by then enough su57's been built.

I'm not going to veer into the minefield that is geopolitics, but will content myself by pointing out that the threat rings of Russian air defenses extend well beyond the political/military frontier. Any US (or European) aircraft operating in that region will therefore have to first deal with layered Russian air defenses before stealth aircraft come into play.

It's a pretty simple concept and we're already seeing it play out - plaster the front lines, creep them forward, keep rolling your batteries forward. NATO doctrine is based on air supremecy, but to achieve that they will have to enter Russian IAD zones, and the Russians will likely sortie, specifically to tempt engagements.

"Home territory" is a relative thing, and the supply chain running from CONUS to Poland is a lot longer than anything the Russians will have to deal with.

In a sense, this is a repeat of the British/German developmental packages during WW II. British fighter aircraft were not expected to penetrate enemy air defenses, but they were very good on their own turf, especially with radar directing them.

The Germans had a doctrine designed to suppress enemy air defenses, but it was based on being able to forward-base the aircraft, rolling the airfields forward behind the front. In the summer of 1940, the English Channel made that impossible, and that gave the British the edge.

While possibly OT, there's also the issue of the crippling recruiting crisis affecting the US military. Having slick high-tech weapons doesn't matter much if you can't find anyone to service or use them.

tneva82 wrote:
Except russia isn't going to get invaded while russia is periodicallw(every 6-8 year more or less) going out of it's borders.

Hence just from statistics it won't have home advantage. Next situation will be around 2028-2030 thus. Maybe by then enough su57's been built.

At the rate things are going I think Russia will be lucky to still exist in 6-8 years as anything other than Moscow and its surroundings. Russia having to fight a war on its own turf is more likely than it invading another in such a short time span, hell it already had a short Civil War on its own territory with Wagner just a few months ago.

tneva82 wrote:
At the rate things are going I think Russia will be lucky to still exist in 6-8 years as anything other than Moscow and its surroundings. Russia having to fight a war on its own turf is more likely than it invading another in such a short time span, hell it already had a short Civil War on its own territory with Wagner just a few months ago.

At the rate things are going, this thread is going to be locked for discussing politics.

chaos0xomega wrote:

For this reason, and contrary to what you believe, the US has not gone "all in" on passive stealth.

This is just you putting words in my mouth. No where did I say the US (or anyone for that matter) had gone "all in" to one way or another. I merely pointed out that there are certain design cues easily visible across the 3 main western fighter jets. The Typhoon for instance, doesn't look particularly stealthy, but it is made with materials that do wizardly things with its own heat signatures, thereby making it a smaller radar target. That would fall under the passive stealth side of the spectrum.

Might be a unpopular opinion, but I suggest watching Grim Reapers on Youtube for direct matchups and as close as unbiased opinions on various "stealth" aircraft as you can get. The people who do their flight models for the aircraft use the latest verified facts and years of experience to fill in the blanks.

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

chaos0xomega wrote:

For this reason, and contrary to what you believe, the US has not gone "all in" on passive stealth.

This is just you putting words in my mouth. No where did I say the US (or anyone for that matter) had gone "all in" to one way or another. I merely pointed out that there are certain design cues easily visible across the 3 main western fighter jets. The Typhoon for instance, doesn't look particularly stealthy, but it is made with materials that do wizardly things with its own heat signatures, thereby making it a smaller radar target. That would fall under the passive stealth side of the spectrum.

You stated, and in the process created, a false dichotomy about two schools of thought, with the US using passive stealth features and Europe active. Any way you slice the statement and concept, it's wrong. The US very much uses both passive and active stealth features in its designs. By failing to acknowledge that a d treating the two as mutually exclusive you put those words in your own mouth.