Miniature "Dagger" and the updated "Gadfly": what is the strike potential of the Russian Su-57

October 19 2021 40

It is believed that the Russian Su-57s are still limited in their capabilities and are inferior to the fully combat-ready J-20 (PRC) and F-22 (USA) fighters. However, unlike the "classmates", the Su-57 are more versatile. They are capable of effectively hitting both air targets and objects on land or water. At the same time, an assessment of their range of ammunition allows us to say that the striking role of a combat aircraft is almost at the forefront.

What the Russian Su-57 is capable of as a strike fighter with new high-precision ammunition that provides an offensive potential, the Military Watch Magazine found out.

Planning high-precision powerful bomb PBK-500U "Drill", working on the principle of "fire and forget", allows you to accurately hit ground targets at a distance of 30-50 km. The carrier does not need to enter the enemy's close air defense zone: the ammunition, having both inertial guidance and the GLONASS satellite system, as well as the "friend or foe" recognition complex and the means of countering electronic warfare, will fly where necessary.

Each such bomb contains 15 homing anti-tank submunitions weighing about 15 kg each, capable of hitting fast moving armored targets.

For strikes from a greater distance at fixed targets, the Russians have Kh-59MK2 cruise missiles (modernization of the Kh-59 "Gadfly" medium-range). Su-57s tested them on Islamists in Syria in May 2018. This air-to-surface ammunition, with a 320 kg penetrating warhead, is capable of striking targets at ranges of up to 115 km. It is very effective against bunkers and all kinds of fortifications.

Will the Su-57 also be able to carry the Kh-59MK (range 285 km) and the Kh-59M2 (for strikes not only against ground targets, but also on surface targets with known coordinates), as well as the Kh-59MKM (penetrates reinforced concrete 3 m thick), it is not clear yet.

The Su-57 can use Kh-58 anti-radar missiles, which are optimized to neutralize radar and air defense facilities. The Kh-58USHE variant with a range of more than 150 km is a potentially ideal ammunition for a "sniper" role.

Also, the Russians can use modifications of the high-precision X-38 air-to-surface missile with a short range (up to 40 km) with a 250 kg warhead and a speed of Mach 2,2, which makes it difficult to intercept them.

Not the last in the arsenal of the Su-57 are the Kh-36 Thunder “rocket-bombs” with a range of 120 km and a warhead of increased power.

The most notable air-to-surface missile for the Su-57 is a miniature version of the Kh-47M2 Kinzhal hypersonic missile, which can be described as potentially revolutionary. It does not yet have a specific name. Combined with the capabilities of the Su-57, the mini-Dagger will pose a serious threat, as it can evade all known air defense systems. The missile is capable of flying more than 1000 km and, given its speed (Mach 10-12), can literally split a large military surface ship in half, which makes the Su-57 a promising excellent hunter for enemy navies.

- summed up the media.

KTRV, Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation, Allocer/wikimedia.org

Our news channels

Subscribe and stay up to date with the latest news and the most important events of the day.

VK Zen Telegram

Information

Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.

Cyril

-10

19 October 2021 10: 57

The missile is capable of flying more than 1000 km and, given its speed (Mach 10-12), can literally split a large military surface ship in half, which makes the Su-57 a promising excellent hunter for enemy navies.

Speed affects the amount of damage very indirectly.
1. UVB
  
  +4
  
  19 October 2021 13: 33
  
  Didn't you teach physics at school? What is kinetic energy not aware of? Speed is very important! The most dangerous armor-piercing projectiles for a tank do not have explosives at all, they pierce armor only due to their high speed.
  1. Cyril
    
    -6
    
    19 October 2021 13: 43
    
    Didn't you teach physics at school? What is kinetic energy not aware of?
    
    And he taught physics perfectly well, and what kinetic energy is in the course.
    
    The most dangerous armor-piercing projectiles for a tank do not have explosives at all, they penetrate armor only due to their high speed.
    
    Now take a close look at the nature of damage from armor-piercing subcaliber shells. Have you looked? Noticed a feature? That's right - the holes from them are small, the damaging effect of such projectiles is based on high penetrating ability
    and damage to assemblies and mechanisms, as well as (to a lesser extent), from secondary fragments breaking off from the inner side of the armor.
    
    Now read just as carefully the passage from the article that I dispute:
    
    The rocket is capable of flying more than 1000 km and, given its speed (Mach 10-12), split a large military surface ship literally in half, which makes the Su-57 a promising superior hunter for enemy navies
    
    Is the meaning clear?
    1. UVB
      
      +3
      
      19 October 2021 16: 21
      
      Have you heard of the Arizona Crater? Its diameter is more than 1200 m, formed from the fall of a 50-meter meteorite, which, of course, did not consist of explosives. Another example - the Americans had the "Wands of God" program, in which it was supposed to drop tungsten "crowbars" from space on objects on the ground. It is estimated that a 9-ton tungsten projectile picks up a speed of about 3,5 km / sec and at the same time accumulates such an amount of kinetic energy that it has a TNT equivalent of up to 12 tons. The whole catch was in the cost of delivering the projectile into orbit, but that's not the point. As an example, we can also cite the Chelyabinsk meteorite, in which there were no explosives either. and what were the consequences! And this is due only to the speed. I will not say anything about the Tunguska.
      1. Cyril
        
        -5
        
        19 October 2021 16: 35
        
        Have you heard of the Arizona Crater? Its diameter is more than 1200 m, formed from the fall of a 50-meter meteorite, which, of course, did not consist of explosives.
        
        The analogy is incorrect. Planet Earth is not a hollow armored steel enclosure crammed with equipment. This is a dense and large space body, upon impact into which all the kinetic energy of the meteorite is absorbed, which, having no other way out, is converted into thermal energy of the explosion.
        
        On contact between a hypersonic missile and a large ship consisting of hollow compartments filled with equipment, this very hypersonic missile will simply sew through the ship.
        
        You don't have to go far to find evidence - there are many videos of target ships hit by supersonic (including Mach 3-5-4) anti-ship missiles without a warhead. They are not broken in half, there are just holes of the appropriate size in their body.
      2. Fourth
        
        0
        
        19 October 2021 17: 26
        
        The one to whom you spoke did not hear what you are asking about.
        
        Cyril
        
        -2
        
        19 October 2021 18: 14
        
        The one to whom he turns (that is, I) about meteorites and the mechanism of the occurrence of astroblems read even when you tried to grab the girls by the priests.
        
        As for the analogy used with meteorites, I have shown why it is not correct in the context of this dispute. The analogy with armor-piercing sub-caliber ammunition is much more visual and correct. And it clearly demonstrates that a fast moving projectile does not "break in half" the tank - on the contrary, it leaves relatively compact holes in the armor.
        
        UVB
        
        +1
        
        19 October 2021 18: 39
        
        I don’t want to argue anymore, you think that speed doesn’t matter - consider your health. And about age, in my memory the first mass televisions of KVN with a water lens appeared, and everywhere posters were pasted up with an appeal to workers to eat black caviar.
        
        Cyril
        
        -4
        
        19 October 2021 18: 54
        
        I don’t want to argue anymore, you think that speed doesn’t matter - consider your health.
        
        Has - just not in the sense in which you imagine.
        
        And about age
        
        And about age, I did not write to you.
        
        The comment was deleted.
        
        The comment was deleted.
        
        YES UZH
        
        0
        
        20 October 2021 18: 24
        
        Railgun, projectile in grams without explosives
        
        Cyril
        
        -3
        
        20 October 2021 22: 25
        
        And is the welsotron capable of breaking a large ship in half?
    2. EMMM
      
      0
      
      23 October 2021 00: 45
      
      Unlike sub-caliber missiles, a hypersonic missile also has a warhead, although, in principle, this is not necessary.
      for reference: the speed of the artillery shell at the exit from the barrel is about 3.0-3.5M
      1. Cyril
        
        -3
        
        23 October 2021 01: 39
        
        Unlike sub-caliber missiles, a hypersonic missile also has a warhead, although, in principle, this is not necessary.
        
        It is precisely due to the warhead that it inflicts the main damage, and not due to its speed.
        
        The speed of a hypersonic missile is needed only for one thing - to overcome the enemy's air defense.
  2. isofat
    
    +2
    
    19 October 2021 14: 28
    
    Comrade not only suffers from physics, but also has big problems with logic.
    1. The comment was deleted.
BoBot Robot - Free Thinking Machine

+1

19 October 2021 11: 10

We'll give the doodles goat faces and rip off the dog's heads!
gorenina91

-3

19 October 2021 18: 55

- Damn, I read here ... "someone else's polemics" about tanks and about shells. ; about kinetic energy and so on ...
- Everything looks so tongue-tied ...
- During the Second World War, German tanks "Tiger" (T-VI) generally fired blanks (a shell without explosives) ... - And inflicted terrible damage on our Soviet tanks ... caused the death and heavy defeat of the entire crew of the tank ... - But this is about tanks ...
- And during Tsushima (1905), Russian naval artillery fired at Japanese ships with shells (with ignition tubes) stuffed with pyroxylin (BB) and often our shells did not explode at all, hitting the hull of Japanese ships. - i.e. practically Russian shells were the same "blank shells", weighing about 200-350 kg (even more) ... - and the Japanese ships from "such hits" did not have very serious damage ...
- And the Japanese naval artillery fired shells stuffed with shimosa (BB) and these shells exploded even when hitting the water ... - and they destroyed our ships well when they hit them ...
- And it is believed that the Japanese artillery won in many ways by having such shells ...
- So it turns out that ... that ... that when shooting at tanks with blank shells it was possible to achieve very high efficiency ... - But when shooting at ships ... - even with such heavy shell shells (200- 350 kg), which have enormous kinetic energy ... - such "shooting" was no longer very effective ...
- Draw your own conclusions ...
1. Cyril
  
  -4
  
  19 October 2021 19: 09
  During the Second World War, German tanks "Tiger" (T-VI) generally fired blanks (a shell without explosives) ... - And inflicted terrible damage on our Soviet tanks ... death and heavy defeat of the entire crew of the tank ... - But this is about tanks ...
  
  The hit itself did not inflict "terrible damage" on the tanks. Terrible damage occurred if the ammunition load was detonated from the ingot of the blank or the tank's fuel system was damaged.
  
  This is how a hole from an 88-mm shell from a Tiger cannon in a mask from an American Pershing tank cannon looks like. As you can see, there are no huge holes or hulls split in two. Quite compact inlet.
  
  Similar photos of Soviet "blanks" getting into German tanks:
  1. gorenina91
    
    0
    
    19 October 2021 19: 24
    
    The hit itself did not inflict "terrible damage" on the tanks. Terrible damage occurred if the ammunition load was detonated from the ingot of the blank or the tank's fuel system was damaged.
    
    - It was the hit itself that inflicted terrible damage on the entire crew ... - people were dying ... - And it was not necessary for this blank to get into the ammunition load or the fuel system ... - It was enough to break through the tank armor itself ... - During this, a terrible shock wave arose inside the tank and this heavy blank, red-hot from the impact, began to spin inside the tank itself and ricochet from everything ... - destroying and crippling the entire crew ...
    1. Cyril
      
      -4
      
      19 October 2021 20: 03
      
      - It was the hit itself that caused terrible damage to the entire crew ... - people died
      
      Everything is correct. Shrapnel from the shell itself and secondary armor crumbled the crew. But we are not talking about people, but, let me remind you, about:
      
      The rocket is capable of flying more than 1000 km and, given its speed (Mach 10-12), split a large military surface ship literally in half,
      1. Eduard Aplombov
        
        0
        
        19 October 2021 20: 34
        
        an empty rocket, a blank, will probably make a huge hole, but the combined kinetic and explosive energy, if it does not break the ship, will take out the entire interior of the ship at the point of entry of the rocket
        
        Cyril
        
        -4
        
        19 October 2021 20: 42
        
        an empty rocket, a blank, will probably make a huge hole
        
        It will make a hole that is not too big for the rocket itself.
        
        but combined kinetic and explosive energy
        
        It was only about kinetic energy, not the explosion of the warhead.
        
        In other words, a conventional hypersonic missile will cause little more damage than a conventional supersonic missile with a warhead of similar power.
        
        Eduard Aplombov
        
        0
        
        19 October 2021 20: 53
        
        I'm not special, but I just argue. The rocket enters the side, the explosion itself explodes, its energy combined with the speed of the rocket, having collected everything that has torn off, moved to the opposite side and burst out already in a huge hole, the energy will not get stuck in the ship
        
        Cyril
        
        -4
        
        19 October 2021 22: 20
        
        I'm not special, but I'm just talking. The rocket is included into the side, the explosion itself explodes,
        
        That's right - it explodes. It is the energy of the explosion that will bring great destruction to the ship.
        
        But the speed of the projectile has little effect on this. The only thing that it affects is the penetration ability of the ammunition. The higher the speed, the more it will penetrate the ship's bulkheads and the deeper it will enter the structure of the ship. And there, exploding - yes, it will cause great damage. But it exploded, and not just hitting at hypersonic speed. And for such an effect, hypersound is not at all necessary - the supersonic anti-ship missiles available today will achieve the same effect.
        
        isofat
        
        +1
        
        19 October 2021 21: 50
        
        Quote: Cyril
        It was only about kinetic energy, not the explosion of the warhead.
        
        ... and you stated that speed affects the amount of damage very indirectly.
        
        What affects the amount of damage?
        
        Cyril
        
        -4
        
        19 October 2021 22: 22
        
        What affects the amount of damage?
        
        Warhead power and missile hit point. For example, hitting a fuel depot or an ammunition depot on a ship and causing it to detonate, it will inflict huge damage on the ship.
        
        ... and you stated that speed affects the amount of damage very indirectly.
        
        That's right, that's what I said.
    2. isofat
      
      +1
      
      19 October 2021 20: 29
      
      Irina, hello! Initially, there was no talk of tanks. Not at all. And it was said that the rocket at a speed of10-12 Machs able to split the ship. And there was an illiterate statement:
      
      Quote: Cyril
      Speed affects the amount of damage very indirectly.
      
      Then Kirill started using tanks, shells and other nonsense, absolutely unrelated to what was said and to hypersound.
      1. Cyril
        
        -5
        
        19 October 2021 20: 46
        
        Then Kirill started using tanks, shells and other nonsense that had nothing to do with what was said or hypersound.
        
        Isophat, if you read the comments with the eyes that are on your head, and not elsewhere, you would see that I was not the first to use the analogy with armor-piercing tank shells.
        
        Although, to the credit of my opponent, this very analogy was quite good and once again confirmed my statement that:
        
        Speed affects the amount of damage very indirectly.
        
        Go, Izofat, learn to read again (you have problems with this), take a school course in physics (with this you also have a problem), well, do not forget logic. Logic is the foundation of correct thinking. You and her are still dull.
        
        isofat
        
        0
        
        19 October 2021 21: 34
        
        У hypersonic rocket speed matters.
        
        The Kh-38 variant of the tactical cruise missile, known as the Kh-36 Thunder, is also expected to be armed with the Su-57. However, the speed that the "Dagger" rocket has is considered sufficientto rip apart even the largest warships in half with one hit... With a flight range of more than 1000 km, the Su-57 will become an excellent hunter for ships, "the Military Watch reports.
        
        https://vpk.name/news/550346_rakety_su-57_raznesut_lyuboi_natovskii_korabl_v_klochya.html
        
        Cyril
        
        -4
        
        19 October 2021 22: 30
        
        And why are you quoting to me the next delusions of the same ignoramuses as you?
        
        Isophat, once again - the Internet is full of publicly available videos and photographs of target ships fired by shells and missiles flying at various speeds - from subsonic to almost hypersonic (Mach 3,5-4). So if these shells and missiles are not equipped with warheads, then the size of the damage from them practically does not differ. Despite the big difference in speed.
        
        isofat
        
        +2
        
        19 October 2021 23: 47
        
        It is clearly seen from the formula that the kinetic energy even depends on the velocity more than from the mass.
        
        Quote: Cyril
        Speed affects the amount of damage very indirectly.
        
        The dependence of damage (kinetic energy) on speed is obvious, and pay attention - speed squared!
        
        Cyril
        
        -4
        
        20 October 2021 00: 45
        
        It is clearly seen from the formula that the kinetic energy depends on the velocity even more than on the mass.
        
        Oh, you finally started to master the school physics course. It is commendable.
        
        Dependence damage (kinetic energy) from the speed is obvious, and pay attention - the speed squared!
        
        The dependence of kinetic energy on speed is obvious and no one argues with this. But kinetic energy is not damage (as you say in the above quote), it is kinetic energy.
        
        Damage is the degree of destruction caused by the projectile. It depends (in addition to the speed and kinetic energy of the projectile), on the following factors:
        
        projectile material;
        
        the shape of the projectile;
        
        target material;
        
        presence or absence of voids in the target;
        
        design features of the target;
        
        the size and mass of the projectile;
        
        Target size and mass;
        
        the angle of the projectile hitting the target;
        
        the point of impact of the projectile on the target
        
        and heaps, heaps, heaps of other factors.
        
        Based on such a number of factors, the dependence of the amount of damage on the speed of the projectile is very indirect.
        
        And I will repeat to you for the third time - analyze the damage to target ships from ammunition flying at different speeds. You will see everything yourself.
        
        isofat
        
        +1
        
        20 October 2021 12: 47
        
        Quote: Cyril
        Based on such a number of factors, the dependence of the amount of damage on the speed of the projectile is very indirect.
        
        Apparently, you are not able to curb your thoughts and present them in a verbal form that others understand. Acquaintance with physics, logic could help you. But alas, you somehow managed to avoid this acquaintance, which is a mystery to me.
        
        PS If the mass of the car doubles, then the braking distance will double.
        But if you increase speed the car twice, then the braking distance will increase by four times!
        
        Cyril
        
        -4
        
        20 October 2021 13: 39
        
        Apparently, you are not able to curb your thoughts and present them in a verbal form that others understand.
        
        What is in my phrase that due to the presence of many other factors affecting damage, the dependence of its size on the speed of the projectile is indirect, do you not understand? You are no longer able to master such a simple phrase?
        
        If the mass of the car doubles, then the braking distance will double.
        But if you double the speed of the car, the braking distance will quadruple!
        
        And how does this relate to the topic under consideration? Well, the braking distance of a car increases from an increase in speed, so what? Do you have a braking distance of a physical body - is it an indicator of damage? :)
        
        Would you like to repeat for the third time that the speed and kinetic energy of the projectile are not identical to the damage they inflict? How many times does it have to be repeated to get it? Five, ten, fifteen?
        
        isofat
        
        +2
        
        20 October 2021 14: 03
        
        Cyril! If you have not realized how speed is related to the damage done, then this may well be because the speed of the ball that flew into your forehead is not large enough.
        
        This misunderstanding is easily corrected with another ball, with a higher speed.
        
        Cyril
        
        -2
        
        20 October 2021 16: 44
        
        If a 2 cm plastic ball flies into your face at a speed of 5 m / s and an ordinary brick at a speed of 3 m / s - in which case will your face suffer more? You can experiment on yourself for clarity.
        
        If you get hit in the face by a supersonic bullet and a subsonic expansive bullet - in which case will there be more of your head?
        
        Think about it. And at your leisure, somehow read why international conventions prohibit the use of relatively slow expansive bullets in hostilities, but faster (and, according to your logic, more lethal) one-piece bullets are allowed.
        
        Cyril
        
        -2
        
        20 October 2021 17: 29
        
        You take and conduct (on yourself) such an experiment.
        
        First, you make a plastic ball fly into your face at a speed - well, let's say, 6 meters per second.
        
        Then you launch an ordinary brick in your face at a speed of 3 meters per second.
        
        In both cases, you record what is left of your face (the extent of the damage done).
        
        You are doing another experiment.
        
        You take the windshield from the car and shoot it with a pistol (if you have one).
        
        You take an ordinary silicate window glass (without a reinforcing film) of the same size and thickness and throw a small pebble at it from all over the place.
        
        You fix the damage done to the glass.
        
        And then you tell me how and what influenced the degree of damage.
        
        Valera75
        
        +1
        
        20 October 2021 21: 06
        
        Cyrill, as I understand isofat to you on the example of a ball of the same diameter but flying at different speeds in your forehead, he is trying to prove to you that the faster it flies, the more painful you will be. But they are of different sizes, and the brick is much larger than the ball. Isophat is just the same, as I hope I understand him correctly, explains that the speed just influences the pain that will be inflicted on you because of the kinetic energy which will be affected by the increased speed.
        
        Cyril
        
        -3
        
        20 October 2021 23: 51
        
        as I understand isofat to you on the example of a ball of the same diameter but flying at different speeds in your forehead, he is trying to prove to you that the faster it flies, the more painful it will be for you.
        
        Yes, I perfectly understood his "analogy". But the battleship is not a human head. It is impossible to compare them, because they have different structures, functions and other characteristics. Even the concept of "damage" will be different for them - it is enough for a human head to have a small hole in its forehead to stop fully functioning, a warship can withstand hundreds of hits and continue to carry out a mission.
        
        That's why I tell Isophat from time to time that he needs to train in the ability to make analogies. But every time it is like peas against a wall.
        
        .And you have a comparison of a ball and a brick, albeit at different speeds, but they are of different sizes, and the brick is much larger than the ball.
        
        That's it. That is, the degree of damage is influenced (and much more) by other factors - the size and material of the projectile and target, the angle of impact, etc., etc. And a body with a high speed can do much less damage than a body, having a lower speed, but having other damaging factors besides speed, right? So. And if so, then it is not at all necessary with an increase in the speed of the projectile, the magnitude of the damage increases.
        
        Isophat primitivizes, reducing the situation "rocket - warship" to a simplified school problem "small body - larger body", considering only 2 characteristics of their interaction (mass and speed). But in reality, much more factors will affect the interaction of a rocket and a ship, of which speed will not be at all a priority.
isofat

0

20 October 2021 20: 58

What is the Russian Su-57 capable of as a strike fighter with new high-precision ammunition ...

As it turned out, even information about these Russian weapons has a strong psychological impact, impact on some of our ill-wishers.
Netyn

0

25 October 2021 18: 36

a warhead of increased power.

Whinnied loudly and to tears