Russia has been flying its new Su-57 jets against, but not over, Ukraine say the British Ministry of Defence.

According to the latest Defence Intelligence update on the situation in Ukraine published today by the British Ministry of Defence, since at least June 2022, Russian Aerospace Forces have almost certainly used Su-57 FELON to conduct missions against Ukraine.

The Su-57 is equipped with advanced avionics and a range of modern weapons, including long-range air-to-air and air-to-surface missiles. It is also designed to have stealth capabilities, which makes it difficult to detect on radar.

The missions have likely been limited to flying over Russian territory, launching long range air-to-surface or air-to-air missiles into Ukraine.

As this is the only known FELON base, these aircraft have likely been involved in operations against Ukraine. Russia is highly likely prioritising avoiding the reputational damage, reduced export prospects, and the compromise of sensitive technology from any loss of FELON over Ukraine. This, say the UK, is symptomatic of Russia’s continued risk-averse approach to employing its air force in the war.

The full update is below:

“Since at least June 2022, Russian Aerospace Forces have almost certainly used Su-57 FELON to conduct missions against Ukraine. FELON is Russia’s most advanced fifth-generation supersonic combat jet, employing stealth technologies and highly advanced avionics. These missions have likely been limited to flying over Russian territory, launching long range air-to-surface or air-to-air missiles into Ukraine.

Recent commercially available imagery shows five FELON parked at Akhtubinsk Air Base, which hosts the 929th Flight Test Centre. As this is the only known FELON base, these aircraft have likely been involved in operations against Ukraine.

Russia is highly likely prioritising avoiding the reputational damage, reduced export prospects, and the compromise of sensitive technology which would come from any loss of FELON over Ukraine. This is symptomatic of Russia’s continued risk-averse approach to employing its air force in the war.”

George Allison
George Allison
George has a degree in Cyber Security from Glasgow Caledonian University and has a keen interest in naval and cyber security matters and has appeared on national radio and television to discuss current events. George is on Twitter at @geoallison
Twitter

RELATED ARTICLESMORE FROM AUTHOR

79 COMMENTS

    • ah! British through and through….an aircraft capable of delivering LGB and with a significantly longer range than the F-35B, no?

      • Significantly longer range no doubt but with the rcs of a typical council garage. I wonder which airplane the Russian pilots would want. An airplane that can operate with near impunity in contested airspace, that can collect process and distribute information to countless other assets or a bespoke flying brick that they dare not fly over a country with little to no real airforce and no chance of it being mass produced?

        • To be fair no one really knows how capable the f35 really is. Until it’s used in a war where there is modern air defences in the region we are guessing. I would assume the typhoon would struggle badly in Ukraine, as it has low stealth capability and very little in respect of electric warfare / jamming capabilities.

          • Israeli f35s have flown against Syrian s300 and s400 numerous times.

            I would imagine typhoon operating with f35bs would manage perfectly fine over Ukraine.

          • There is no independent evidence of that, it’s all reported by Israeli. If you look at Russian media and it’s jets are operating freely across Ukraine and suppressing it’s air defences. If you look at Ukraine news and it’s shooting down everything. Independent media sources show the truth is somewhere in between.

          • That last bit – for a start – certainly isn’t true. All the Ukrainian claims I’ve seen have been for shooting down 50-70% of recent missile waves. But I’m sure you didn’t just make up the rest of your post.

          • not true, the last barrage of missiles against the power plants ukraine stated it shot them all down and russia said a load got through. Vids on various channels showed damage so at least some got through.

          • Both sides are playing the disinformation warfare, although clearly it’s easier for Ukraine as things aren’t going as badly for them as for Russia. It’s puzzling how so many in Russia believe it as many of the quotes are just insanely obviously not true, such as fighting Poland etc.

          • So you’re saying that those strikes deep into eastern Syria, almost at the border with Iraq, which was supposedly was covered by an S300 didn’t really happen?

          • They probably did, but just saying you have to take any official government statement with a huge pinch of salt if it’s not independently verified. Even if you assume they did happen we dont have enough info on positioning of the s300s etc. Ukraine war has shown that neither Russia or ukraine is capable of having air defenses to cover the whole front line or even part of it, leaving plenty of gaps for planes to fly through with decent intel.

          • We all know how good the S300 and S400 systems are when operated by Mad Vlad’s turnips.

            As with everything the level of operator training, integration, information and motivation is key to how well a system will perform.

            I think both Typhoon and F35 would be fine, particularly working in combo, over Ukraine.

          • It’s been to war far more times than most jet combat aircraft have already. Maybe not high intensity but then virtually no aircraft flying today has experienced that.

            Reports from Red Flag which is as close to real war as anyone can get have it shooting F15 down at rates of 20 to 1 and F15 holds the previous record for most capable air to air combat aircraft so I think it’s fair to say F35 is pretty decent considering air to air is not its strong point.

          • Hi Steve,

            With regard to Typhoon, I would hope it would perform much better than what the Russian air force has been able to do in contested airspace. If the Praetorian DASS and BrightCloud decoys are as good as they are made out to be, one would have thought we’d be ok.

            I understand that of the original 4 Typhoon operating nations, the RAF invested in equipping their aircraft with the best DASS available; apparently the other 3 nations went with a less sophisticated variant.

            Also with the new AESA radar coming online in the near future for the RAF, it should significantly enhance its jamming capabilities. As usual though, the bean-counters are at work again as not all the Typhoon fleet will be getting the upgrade. I understand only Tranche 3 and up will be getting it but I would love to be wrong on that!

          • When you say Typhoon has a low stealth capability how exactly would you rank it against over aircraft such as say an F18 or the Rafale?

            What is more stealthy fighter jet wise, F35, F22……..?

            An aircrafts RCS suddenly becomes relative compared to what is shooting at it, considering Russia’s much feared ‘S’ systems they dont seem capable of stopping slow moving Ukrainian dones let alone much else within Russian territory. Which other modern air defences would it be up against, Chinese systems based on the same but probably less capable again?

        • Just ribbing of course; but enhanced with a a few composites, a low level below the radar horizon approach, Sea Eagle with a updated seeker….?

        • In fairness to the typical council garage the SU57 has an RCS of half a meter, I’m sure most western radars could see it at well over 100 miles. That’s the claimed RCS by the Russians. Given the cracking paint jobs and chipped glass we have seen on it I’m guessing it’s real RCS is much larger.

        • The RCS of a multi story car park, I think you mean, look at all the protection round the metal parts to the rear of the engines.

          When the thing is banking you would pick it up with a WW2 radar.

          Maybe Mad Vlad has created radar absorbent metal in his wonder weapons works?

      • Hi SB, indeed it was. 28 tons at 550 knots jet at 50 ft agl – down and dirty in the reeds is where it’s at! Stealth -smealth. 😎

  2. Using them like that, they may as well not use them at all in some respects- any of their fighter aircraft could do the same. I suppose it gives pilots and ground crews operational experience on the type, and operational hours on the air frames to see how they hold up.
    In all honesty, it’s the equivalent of us using our F-35Bs in combat operations against ISIS, in terms of low-risk combat debuts.

    • They have little choice as so few airframes available for choice and nothing low tech that can deliver a bang, just like us in the West too. We need affordable war tech in large numbers that can deliver results. Stealth, well it was shown in Gulf War 1 that is could be tracked. Say no more.

      • You’re right- “stealth” is relative- Low Observable is probably the better term to use, it’s just that L/O can be a bit tricky to throw in without a lot of context. I think the L/O stuff is helpful, in so far as making it more difficult for the Air Defence system to act until it’s too late (on its own, that would be valuable in Ukraine, I’d imagine), but to expect it to be able to fly over a peer enemy with impunity is just unrealistic.
        I agree about needing a level of mass that we don’t currently have. I read a RUSI report on the Ukraine war, and they said that we need to start thinking of drones (particularly the small observation/recon ones that are a real force multiplier) as munitions, rather than weapon systems- because they’re used up at such a high rate. Some of the larger units like the Bayraktars can be seen more as weapons, but as ones that you expect to lose, rather than ones that you only commit when there’s near certainty that they’ll make it back again. We don’t have that approach at the moment, to anything but the smallest drones (there are some pretty cool ones we took to Mali, which can be launched from 40 mm UGLs for example). But I know this applies to our manned equipment too- our crewmen stand a good chance of surviving the destruction of their vehicle. But they won’t have anything to jump back into and continue the fight, because there’s no strategic reserve. We laugh at Russia re-activating T-62s because they’re low on more modern equipment. But what do we have when we lose a few CR2s, or Warriors? I don’t think we have much in the way of spare vehicles within the units, let alone serviceable kit in storage. We might need to raid the Imperial War Museum, or Bovington, if we got into a big war… Or, more likely, go asking for US M1s with cap in hand, like we did with Shermans 75 years ago.

        • Spot on we can knock out Russian equipment at a rate of 4 to 1 and they would still have equipment to use after we have none and while it’s right to illustrate the advantage of Iron Age weapons over Bronze Age weapons the latter are far better than having none at all. Thankfully at least for the foreseeable the Ukrainians have knocked out so many that we may well only have to knock them out at two to one now. We truly owe them so much but sadly just like in the war with the Poles few understand the depth of it.

          • “we can knock out Russian equipment at a rate of 4 to 1 and they would still have equipment to use after we have none”

            Assuming you are talking about all of NATO, and not just Wales (for example) on its own, that isn’t even vaguely correct any more. Maybe in the old Soviet Union days but not now.

      • Who tracked stealth in GW 1?

        Big difference between detection and tracking but I don’t think the Iraqi’s even managed to detect stealth given that the US army blew up their Low frequency radars in the first 30 seconds of the war using Apache.

      • Hang on there seems to be a misconception it has never been claimed that stealth aircraft can’t be tracked (though that perception has been allowed understandably to proliferate unchecked, through those who only understand B&W answers) it is the large reduction and range at which they can be seen and evaluated. Tracking radars have always if they are good enough, been able to see to a degree stealthy aircraft, however targeting radars have real problems operating effectively against them and great difficulty seeing targets and guiding missiles to intercept. If you read about how Serbia managed to bring down an F117 it’s actually the exception that proves the rule, it was lazy behaviour by the US Airforce combined with very clever tactics and assumptions exploiting those errors and unique use of the tracking radar that enabled a novel way of getting the missile close enough so that it’s own targeting radar could illuminate the target. It could only realistically get away with it the once and in circumstances where anything but momentary use of the defence systems radars would have meant they themselves would have been target also involved plenty of luck. Things have changed in both defence and offence since then with stealth and defence systems but the fundamentals remain similar.

        Using stealth efficiently and effectively involves a lot more than whether a given air defence radar can actually detect a stealth aircraft and that involves everything around if it can do anything about if even if it is detected. It’s not unknown for Air Traffic Control radars to pick up traces of stealth aircraft after all.

        • Thanks. I have had my doubts about the stealth in stealth since the term arrived on the scene. I was little surprised the MoD would shout out ‘We can see you!’ though. … Then again. Glad so many on the UKDJ have a good word to say about the Buccaneer. Shamefully under estimated from all reports and its record.

        • How does a passive AT radar pick up a stealth aircraft?

          AT radars are picking up transponders….so the only way AT would pick up an F35 would be if it had a transponder on it?

  3. Ukraine has schwacked the Engels airbase which is much farther away than this one on more than one occasion.

    I’d love to see them deliver some new year’s gifts to this airbase hosting the Su-57 as well.

    • Stealth is relative. Does the su57 have a smaller radar return than a su27 when viewed on a typical fighter aircrafts radar? Probably. Is it low enough to allow it to operate like an F22/F35? Very doubtful.
      The aircraft has surfaces and angles that will return a signal. So have the Russians mastered how to make durable materials that will minimise that return? Doubtful.
      Then there is the other aspects of stealth like heat signature, electronic emissions from radar, ECM, radios, data links etc etc.

      • An Australian company has generated an RCS figure for the SU57. This was done using an optical modeling program. It has also been done on the F22, F35 and the Chinese J20.

        The SU57 by their reckoning has a RCS ranging from 0.3 to 1m2 over the frontal area depending on the radar frequency used. The back is terrible due to the AL41 engines and how they are merged into the airframe.

        The software used a generic radar absorbent material (RAM), that was also used on the other aircraft. So in effect, the program is testing the aircraft shape. To see how it deflects and concentrates the incoming and reflected radar beam from various angles. It does not take into account the build quality of the aircraft for example.

        Close up pictures of the SU57 have shown it uses uncovered rivet lines. There are also wide panel gaps between the flight control surfaces. But the biggest issue is the two engines, a, being separated by a tunnel, b, not having the engines blended into the airframe at the rear of the fuselage, and c, keeping round exhausts. All these add up, where in the real world the aircraft’s average RCS is going to be much higher. Missiles that use a Ku, Ka or W band active radar will not struggle to detect and track the many imperfections on the SU57.

        It was interesting to note that the J20 had a lower RCS than the SU57. Whilst the F35 was just in front of the J20 in second, but the F22 was the best. The J20’s large size helps along with a more blended airframe. Whereas the stumpier F35 just stays ahead due to better overall shaping. The F22 even though an older design beats both.

        • “The back is terrible due to the AL41 engines and how they are merged into the airframe”

          As I said above the radar return from those engine ducts would be massive. Any 1980’s radar (and probably earlier) would easily pick that up at a decent distance.

          • I agree. Because they are using the thrust vectoring version. About 1.5m worth of exhaust is not connected to the airframe. There is a gap that runs the length down the side of both the exhaust and airframe.

            This gap can act a radar reflective cavity. I’m sure some medium to long wave radar will get a resonance affect off them as well. It may be one of the reason our elderly Sentry had no issue tracking them.

        • What China’s next development of fighter aircraft will be very interesting. It’s the Chinese aircraft that will replace Russian as the preferred non western equipment as time goes on.
          Russia cannot afford to make 5 gen aircraft, have strategic bombers, large navy, airforce, nuclear SSNs, a nuclear weapons triad, a large well equipped land force and fight a war outside there borders no matter how much it dreams it can.
          Hopefully China learns that wars destroy much more than they accomplish and will be peaceful.

  5. They can’t feel very confident about the aircrafts survivability. Which says a lot about Russian claims its 5th generation.

  6. The SU-57 does look very cool, but looking cool isn’t the same as being effective.

    Using this aircraft in effective as a bomb truck is does not make any real sense outside of the political and military sales arenas.

    I also wonder if the real reason is for such a low level of particiation by the Russian air force is more fundemental and deep seated than the quoted reason of not wanting to risk compromising their latest tech.

    It has been discussed in the past that the Russians may lack the skills and comprohensive support structure necessary to mount large coordinated air operations. Most of their operations over Syria were reportedly small scale, rarely if ever more than 3 or 4 aircraft over the target area. This could well point to a lack of training for large scale coordinated operations involving dozens of aircraft of different types each conducting different roles within the mission profile, e.g surpression of enemy air defences, re-fueling, airborne command and control, escort and finally attack… All of this is required if you are operating in a contested environment and thanks to the Russians own lack of aggression against the Ukrainian air defences I suspect the the latter have only improved since the start of the war.

    As other have said above stealth isn’t really the right word, low observable (O/L) is the better description so with out the rest of the capabilities to back them up I suspect the SU-57 would be vulnerable to the Ukrainian air defences if they did venture into Ukrainian airspace. I would also point out that the low observable characteristics vary greatly depending on which aspect of the aeroplane is facing the threat radar making L/O flight in a high threat area a very technical and demanding job, you can’t just go flying straight and level and expect to be invisible to everyone and if one radar knows where you are everyone knows where you are. Even if that isn’t quite true the moment to turn to go home those big hot engine exhausts will be a big help to anyone looking in the right direction.

    My guess is that the Russain’s haven’t spend enough on training their air force. Indeed, others on here have pointed out that NATO observers have reported a lack of large formation training (with the possible exception of helicopter crews).

    Cheers CR

    • If Russia wanted to dominate this conflict, they would need air superiority of the battle space, so air assets can move freely, and Ukrainian defences could be taken out quickly. The fact they haven’t come close to this rasies many questions about Russian Air Force capability, and training and general lack of experience, and also a serious lack of precision guided munitions and secure network capabilities. An area the west is decades ahead. I think its pretty clear, F35, F22, Typhoon and Rafale, F15EX, Gripen ect would decimate Russian forces. The training and exposure alone to exercises such as Red Flag would highlight Russia’s lack of experience. The same problems that would ask major questions about Chinese capability too

      • It does require training to use precision guided munitions….

        I am **guessing** that their laser guidance kits is really a glorified building site theodolite that is kind of gyro stabilised. And that this therefore is totally useless if the aircraft is flying anything other than straight and level in clear sky.

    • I’ve yet to hear of them using it in any air to ground capacity. Purely in air to air. I’d be surprised if they have any precision guided air to ground weapons available for it. Judging by how few they have used so far.

  7. This is good news. Let them use their most prized and capable military assets Vs Ukraine. Clock up wear and tear. Chance of one getting shot down etc etc.
    These aircraft are virtually irreplaceable as Russia isn’t going to be getting the high tech microchips and processors needed to manufacture them except from China.
    Still I doubt the SU57 is any good. An old F14 tomcat can take out 2 of them if flown well. Just ask Maverick.
    🤭

  8. I think a typhoon with meteor and asraam is probably capable of dealing with the Falcon. Certainly the F35 (and F22s) which are available in ever increasing numbers to the Western allies are much more stealthy and have better sensor/platform fusion then the Falcon and likely would defeat the Falon with acceptable odds.

  9. Reported Sunaks government are considering donating 10 Challenger 2’s (likely from the ones in storage which wernt going to be upgraded to Challenger 3).

    • 10! Is that it. 🙈 is there not 100 odd spare not being upgraded. Hopefully Ajax and boxer hurry up so the uk can give CVRTs and bulldog. Hell dump half the warrior aswell. They are going in 2 years anyway.
      There the warthogs still up for sale I think. Send them over. Ukraine needs lots and quickly. Time to try and end this war.

      • I think the logic in giving them Challengers is fundamentally strategic, the US giving Bradley’s freed up German and French offerings too and the tanks will almost certainly push the Germans into permitting other Countries who have wanted to already, pass on their Leopards to Ukraine but thereafter Germany itself to do so directly too. It could over time allow Ukraine to accumulate 50 or more or them I suspect and a supply if the war seriously drag on which is vital and will demoralise the Russians as will the adding of the very numerous Sparrow missiles to Buks for similar reasons of long term supply. Meanwhile the Challengers would likely, having done their job be kept more in reserve simply because they would present their own support issues to use extensively than concentrating on Leopards, as would Abrams too for different reasons around their turbine power units.

        • Yes, it is more about forcing Germany to issue an export licence to the other holders of LeopardII who want to donate them. Which them forces Germany to donate some as well.

          There are loads of LeopardII around that are in storage.

          Wether Zelenski ever get a CH2 or of they are just loaned is IRL immaterial.

        • Ukraine says it needs equipment for 20 armoured brigades. MBT, IFV, artillery etc etc.
          Hopefully they get enough this year and can get Crimea back. It’s essential to get Crimea so they can have sea trade. All of the east of Ukraine borders Russia.
          Ukraine has the manpower it just needs training and equipment to put them to good use.

      • There may well be thinking about upgrading more hulls now.

        It is also a great test bed of CH2 against the Russian stuff.

        If CH2 is a winner, which it is compared to the Russian junk, then it makes the motivation to upgrade more clearer.

        • Odd situation where Germany withholds permission to other customers of leopard tanks. I know we’ve done this to specific sales to Argentina affecting UK interests but even so Germans holding to much sway here.

          • Off to us.

            Maybe there are good reasons with technology and support?

            Never mind the escalation issue.

            If the offer of CH2 unlocks the Leopards great.

            We might well like the live fire feedback before our CH3 upgrade!

  11. Nice, just some more, soon to be scrap (forgive me, best in class, impervious to western tech 😮 bla bla bla ) . . strewn across a field in Ukraine ready for shipping to the folks at Porton Down to play with. Honestly, Russia may as flog their shite on Amazon, woops no Amazon in Mother Russia?

    I mean come on, the Su57 doesn’t even look right. Just a Su35 with some flat panels.

  12. Would be interesting to see how the SU-57 actually fared against F16s. There are are a huge number of these mothballed in the West which the Ukrainians could make use of. Might take 6 months to cross-train Ukrainian personnel but this war is currently likely to still be going a year from now.

    • I think, at least hope that this staged supply of ever improving and sophisticated equipment will in the coming months demonstrate that the Russian tactics of trying to exhaust Ukrainian stocks will demonstrably fail as Western weapons with large stocks gradually take over from Soviet types.

    • More to the point the USA has a huge number of flyable ones that they are looking to replace with other platforms!

      Hopefully there is some black pilot training going on.

      I do think this is the best way of boot strapping the Ukrainian AF with something that is plentiful, not too expensive and not too hard to maintain.

      • There isn’t really a plane that matches all 3 factors.
        F16 – not too expensive and plentiful but high maintenance.
        Gripen – not to expensive, low maintenance but not plentiful.
        Rafale/Typhoon expensive, high maintenance not plentiful.
        F-18?

  13. Would make wonderful target practice for the brave Ukrainian men and women if they had the right SAM’s.

    Have they been provided with anything heavier than shoulder launched stuff like Starstreak yet?

    • Yes, western NASAMS and Iris-T GL. I believe either Spain or France donated a Crotale or said they would. They have also received missile replacements for their Buk (SA-11/17) and S300 systems.

      NASAMs is a medium range system that uses predominantly AMRAAM, but can also fire Sidewinder. So depending on the AMRAAM used has a range from 25 to 40 ish miles. The big announcement from the US, just this past week, is that they will donate a Patriot system. They didn’t say which version though?

      • Germany have offered a Patriot system as well. Theirs is PAC-2 so for interoperability reasons it might be reasonable to assume that that is what the US will supply.

  15. The fact they are unable or unwilling to operate a fifth generation aircraft in what is only a very limited contested airspace is telling. Ukraine is doing well but in no way do they have an advanced integrated air defence system. They are also desperately preserving their small airforce for extreme need, so the fact Russia cannot send a fifth generation fighter into that tells you Russia does not have in anyway a peer airforce that could operate against the west. We rightly go on that the RAF needs more front line squadrons, but if the Russian airforce performance is anything to go by 5 front line typhoon and one f35 squadron would chase them from the sky completely.

    • Completely ageee with your comment “RAF needs more front line squadrons”.
      I believe the RAF currently has 7 frontline Typhoon sqns though (not5)?

      • Hi Klonkie

        Its got 5 front line squadrons, 1st squadron, 3rd squadron, 6 squadron, II (AC) squadron, XI (F) squadron.

        then a number of squadrons not classes as front line:

        IX bomber squadron which provides the QRA and aggressor training
        the OCU ( 29 squadron) operational conversion training.
        12 squadron which is a joint UK Qatari squadron ( a soft power squadron about relationship building and selling the UK)
        41 squadron, test and evaluation squadron

        • The reality is that they all have planes and pilots that can be tasked in the event of need.

          I wonder if we are going to hear about extending the T3 upgrade to the T2 and what will happen with the T1’s….

          As everyone realises RN frigate force is too small so everyone realises the RAF front line strength is too small.

          • Indeed, although I’m not sure how many airframes and pilots the OCU and Test and evaluation squadrons have, so they may not be able to generate the same number of sorties as an official front line squadron…..but it does show they the RAF fast jet squadrons have a bit more dept that just the advertised 5 front line typhoon squadrons.

            We can only hope that they keep the T1s for QRA, which they are fine for. As for T2 getting the upgrade I would be bonkers not to, after all you would essentially have some front line squadrons that would not be able to survive in the same airspace as others, which is fine for the QRA as that’s always operating in permissive airspace, but for front line squadron it could make deployment tricky…..or do they end up mixing the T2 and T3 airframes into mixed squadrons….which makes logistics and training stupid hard. Far more sense and probably less ongoing cost to have the T2 and T3 to the same standards.

            what is also an interesting question is should the the T1s actually be replaced with a new tranche build….it would have big benefits for the RAF as well as giving extra orders to the typhoon production line, keeping it open longer and maybe allowing even more orders from nations later on…so +++ on economic benefit.

            Also if they are really going to lever the carrier there does need to be 4 front line F35B squadrons….3 for surging onto a carrier and 1 for other operations as the RAF will not want all its fifth generation eggs in one basket heading off into the sunset.

        • aah thanks Jonathan -I had counted in IX sqn! I imagine though it does have a frontline commitment if the proverbial hits the fan.

          • Yes IX is interesting, they don’t call it’s a front line squadron but The QRA role is by nature as front line as you get..I think the term front line squadrons is a bit of a misnomer and maybe something like deployable squadrons would be a better term for the RAF to use, as that’s what they really mean when they say five front line typhoon squadrons ( five deployable squadrons and 4 not deployable due to their roles) .

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here